Apple to Be Fined Over $500 Million in EU Music Streaming Probe

[steve09090]

It’s really simple Spotify had in app purchases in their app from the start
Until Apple Music streaming launched now why is that?
This is all to do with Apple Music price point & how they deliberately under cut Spotify’s price.

This has nothing to do with Apple undercutting them. Spotify raised their price. Apple raised their price in Oct ‘22 and more money was given to artists as a result. Spotify raised their prices in July ‘23 and did not give artists any more. They claim 'a better user experience’ as the cause of the increase. Even though Apple make zero money from Spotify, and less money from consumers for music, they’re still able to give Artists more than Spotify who have the larger market share. I say Apple are able, but it’s more that Spotify choose not to.

But if you want to go there. YouTube Music (ex Google Music) have undercut both of them. But you probably don’t want to know that. Doesn’t help your argument.

If Spotify want to spit the dummy and leave, that’s their choice. Not everyone has an app on iOS when they have one on Android.

Spotify are pretty much scum when it comes to paying artists, and they charge more for the privilege.

 

[I7guy]

One change is that the mobile OS market is now dominated by just two players (iOS and Android). In some countries/regions iOS has the larger share and in other countries/regions Android has the larger share.

I was just reading the mobile market lost a lot of competition since 2017. Competition is great, so it goes. And it’s also great that there are still about 200+ competitors to choose from. Each with their own unique advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Hails09]

Apple Music started 30 June 2015: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=when+did+apple+start+streaming+music

Spotify stopped taking App payments 2016: https://www.makeuseof.com/spotify-stopped-apple-app-store-payments-what-to-know/

"Spotify and Apple have been feuding for years due to Apple's unjust commission on in-app purchases and subscriptions. In 2016, Spotify stopped allowing new accounts to pay through Apple's billing system to avoid the excessive fees. However, existing subscribers who already used Apple's App Store to pay were unaffected by this change...."

So it not about Apple having a streaming service (which existed for at least six months in parallel) but the 30% fee being charged.

The fact that Amazon cut them a deal (4%?) and also had a competing streaming service shows they dont care about the music just the fees

And if you look at Apple fees, subscriptions drop to 15% after the first year...

They didn’t have a complaint until Apple Music launched what are you not getting you have just proved my argument that in app purchase was there from the start & when Apple Music launched it was gone very soon afterwards.
This is all to do with Apple Music being 9.99 & Spotify having to charge 12.99 for the same service with in app purchases
That’s the problem this is to do with sweet money & how much a company makes

 

[I7guy]

[…]

Phone OS is a duopoly right now and for the most part you need a smart phone to work in today’s world. Most things are built around it.

No you don’t. A smartphone is convenient, but other form factors can do the same job as a smartphone. This has existed for years.

You can continue to keep arguing that there is a choice. There is not much of one. Apple and Google here have get restrictions put on them as they are part of a duopoly and have an insane about of power.

There is a choice. It depends on how narrow you want to make your world.

You should be thankful for laws like this in place as otherwise MA would have squashed Apple a long time ago well before the iPhone was even an idea.

Rubbish.

 

[wbeasley]

If you think a duopoly is a choice you are nuts.

Phone OS is a duopoly right now and for the most part you need a smart phone to work in today’s world. Most things are built around it.

You can continue to keep arguing that there is a choice. There is not much of one. Apple and Google here have get restrictions put on them as they are part of a duopoly and have an insane about of power.

You should be thankful for laws like this in place as otherwise MA would have squashed Apple a long time ago well before the iPhone was even an idea.

Devo...

"In ancient Rome, there was a poem,
About a dog who had two bones.
He licked at one, and then the other,
He went in circles til he dropped dead...

Use your Freedom of Choice"

Even ONE is a choice. You can buy it or NOT.

If Apple and Google had it all sewn up and werent offering what people wanted someone else would come in and offer it. Exactly what Apple did when phones were dumb or extremely limited apps. This revolutionized phones. Google had a crap phone before Apple and immediately changed their OS to match it.

The phone was thought of before the iPod. It just took longer to develop.

MA phone???

 

[wbeasley]

User demands drove the form factor we have today as Android responded to Apple's iPhone...

How Google’s smartphones have evolved since 2007

Google is expected to show off a ton of new hardware at a press event in San Francisco this week, and -- as expected -- most of the hype is centered around a pair of new Pixel phones. Now, the Pixel line itself is only a year old, but Google's smartphone ambitions have been part of the company's...

www.engadget.com

 

[wbeasley]

The rewriting of history on this topic is amazing

Some could win a Fantasy writing comp...

 

[Timo_Existencia]

EU don’t care about the consumer and the legislativ intention isn’t for consumers...

btw, I don't see you jumping in to correct your fellow EU citizens when they repeatedly say that the EU is here to protect consumers. Why is that?

 

[webkit]

if people were so unhappy with the "choice" they have, someone by now would have filled that hole.
The fact the other alternatives died off says they didnt meet the needs of users.

if Microsoft and it's business clout cant deliver a viabble third option it says people are happy with two choices. The masses aren't clamouring for a third

It’s not necessarily that easy which is why there needs to be more antitrust scrutiny on the dominate players that do exist. Many consumers would like to see more mobile OS options but it can be very costly and risky for a company to try to create/market their own OS and be successful. Even desktop OS giant Microsoft failed to do so.

 

[webkit]

I was just reading the mobile market lost a lot of competition since 2017. Competition is great, so it goes. And it’s also great that there are still about 200+ competitors to choose from. Each with their own unique advantages and disadvantages.

The issue is that competition is not "great" with only two major mobile operating systems (iOS and Android) controlling practically the entire market. Because there are only two major players, antitrust scrutiny is warranted.

 

[I7guy]

The issue is that competition is not "great" with only two major mobile operating systems (iOS and Android) controlling practically the entire market.

Apple can’t control that the competition makes a piece of hardware and pays google a $1 because they don’t want to develop their own operating system. This is not an apple problem or a market problem.

Because there are only two major players, antitrust scrutiny is warranted.

Each version is probably forked meaning there are more than two versions. If one wants to be pedantic both iOS and android have their origins in the same place.

 

[I7guy]

give up your smart phone completely for a month or 2 and by that I mean you are limited to only a dumb phone with th 12 keypad and tell me how that goes.

That’s not how it goes. I can get a sub cellular modem for my phone. I tell you what, go into an area without any WiFi or cell service for a month with your smartphone of choice and tell me how it goes.

It is not the same thing it was in 2010.

In 2010 there were still usb cellular modems. In 2024 there are devices with a cell chip. It’s not the form factor, it’s the airwaves.

It is a very different world were you can assume for the most part everyone has a smart phone.

Everybody has access to the functions of a smartphone.

That was not the case in when the app store went live. Back then not having a smart phone was the norm.

We have gotten more sophisticated Over time but a smartphone is a convenient form factor. Much like those portable windows computers.

Now an adult no smart phone is different. The world has change a lot in in the last 10-15 years.
20 years ago it was not expect everyone had a cell phone. By 2010 you just assumed everyone has a cell phone. Now we assume everyone has a smart phone.
You still can not assume everyone as a game concol and more important can not guess which one. I can guess your phone OS in 2 guess and be right 99% of the time. Different world.

Rules change as that choice is not the same as it used to be. Now you more or less need a smart phone in today's world. Hell we are seeing kids younger and younger getting smart phones. I dont agree with it but I can fully expect by the time my daughter in jr she most likely will have a smart phone.

 

[Hails09]

That’s not how it goes. I can get a sub cellular modem for my phone. I tell you what, go into an area without any WiFi or cell service for a month with your smartphone of choice and tell me how it goes.

In 2010 there were still usb cellular modems. In 2024 there are devices with a cell chip. It’s not the form factor, it’s the airwaves.

Everybody has access to the functions of a smartphone.

We have gotten more sophisticated Over time but a smartphone is a convenient form factor. Much like those portable windows computers.

What’s that actually got to do with the current discussion

 

[I7guy]

What’s that actually got to do with the current discussion

There’s back and forth on why cell phones are “required” today and as such things tend to go at times, it veers off the topic a bit.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

btw, I don't see you jumping in to correct your fellow EU citizens when they repeatedly say that the EU is here to protect consumers. Why is that?

Because they are arguing for something they think will happen but isn’t going to happen as it’s something EU don’t care for at all and would just be unintentional side effect.

Example saying iOS and android is a duopoly is irrelevant to EU as it’s seen as two seperate markets. And that this aill

Increasing competition between iOS and android, something that might happen but isn’t the intention or goal of EU.

Customers and consumers will benefit, but that’s tangentially related to competition on the market being healthy

 

[H2SO4]

I think some people have a very biased view about how "government" operates. I can't say how it works in other parts of the world. But in this case the procedings were very transparent and various interest groups were invited to participate in the discussions.

Understandable.
Politicians are people just like us. They are no more or less honest than any of us really. The main difference is that what they do may have greater implications and also that a lot more of their dirty laundry tends to get aired.
This politicians are corrupt/don't know anything platitude is exactly that. A platitude.
Even those that don't have an innate knowledge of 'X', should and often do what we do. They ask someone that knows better.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Because they are arguing for something they think will happen but isn’t going to happen as it’s something EU don’t care for at all and would just be unintentional side effect.

Example saying iOS and android is a duopoly is irrelevant to EU as it’s seen as two seperate markets. And that this aill

Increasing competition between iOS and android, something that might happen but isn’t the intention or goal of EU.

Customers and consumers will benefit, but that’s tangentially related to competition on the market being healthy

I'm curious. Does the DMA contain metrics? Does it lay out its intended effects? How does it measure them?

Also, you say "customers and consumers will benefit" but you also say that's not intended. How do you know they will benefit? What are the metrics?

 

[MilaM]

I'm curious. Does the DMA contain metrics? Does it lay out its intended effects? How does it measure them?

Interesting questions worth investigating. I'm looking forward to your analysis. Documents should be available in 24 languages.

 

[webkit]

Apple can’t control that the competition makes a piece of hardware and pays google a $1 because they don’t want to develop their own operating system. This is not an apple problem or a market problem.

Each version is probably forked meaning there are more than two versions. If one wants to be pedantic both iOS and android have their origins in the same place.

Apple may not be able to control the fact that there are only two major mobile and tablet operating systems but they can control their "anticompetitive behavior"and it's the app access restricting anticompetitive behavior that warrants antitrust scrutiny due to the fact there are only two major mobile and tablet OS players.

 

[I7guy]

Apple may not be able to control the fact that there are only two major mobile and tablet operating systems but they can control their "anticompetitive behavior"

What anti competitive behavior? Please cite some very findings?

and it's the app access restricting anticompetitive behavior that warrants antitrust scrutiny due to the fact there are only two major mobile and tablet OS players.

No it’s not anticompetitive behavior.

 

[MilaM]

What anti competitive behavior? Please cite some very findings?

If you want to know more about the DMA, why not go to the source? The reasoning for why this law was necessary is very detailed and surprisingly easy to understand.

Regulation - 2022/1925 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

There is a lot more information on this portal:

Digital Markets Act

The Digital Markets Act is the EU’s law to make the markets in the digital sector fairer and more contestable.

digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu

 

[I7guy]

If you want to know more about the DMA, why not go to the source? The reasoning for why this law was necessary is very detailed and surprisingly easy to understand.

Regulation - 2022/1925 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

There is a lot more information on this portal:

Digital Markets Act

The Digital Markets Act is the EU’s law to make the markets in the digital sector fairer and more contestable.

digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu

That doesn’t answer the question. Usually some determination of a finding is not a wet finger in the air as in; if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then ….

 

[MilaM]

That doesn’t answer the question. Usually some determination of a finding is not a wet finger in the air as in; if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then ….

Were you asking about the fine in the Spotify/Apple case? The decision has not been made public yet as far as I know. There was only the scoop by FT on the weekend.

 

[AppliedMicro]

No you don’t. A smartphone is convenient, but other form factors can do the same job as a smartphone.

They can‘t substitute for a smartphone - or only very poorly. When I‘m out to meet someone or run errands, I‘m not going to lug around a laptop computer to text people, send/receive a picture or find a public transit connection - or even just a place on the maps. Paper maps aren’t really sold in stores anymore - they‘ve been replaced by digital maps on smartphones.

There’s back and forth on why cell phones are “required” today and as such things tend to go at times, it veers off the topic a bit.

...and your stubborn insistence that cell phones/smartphones aren't required doesn't help.

There's not much real-world "back and forth" on that question.
The question if people think one "needs" a smartphone has been answered by the sheer numbers:
👉 „The vast majority of Americans – 97% – now own a cellphone of some kind. Nine-in-ten own a smartphone“

I don‘t know any people below the age of, say 70, that would dispute the fact one „needs a smartphone“ in today’s modern society. Smartphones have become as ubiquitous as cars - probably more so in Europe than the U.S. - and about as „needed“ or useful.

Though there are certainly many that would agree we don't need to stare on our phones nearly as much we do everyday.

The only people (like you) and instances I have come across of people disputing the need for a smartphone on Apple-focused internet forms such as MacRumors are when it's in the context of justifying Apple's App Store terms and conditions and Apple's right to set them "as they please" (Which you can have differing opinions on - and the both of us clearly have )

 

[MilaM]

...and your stubborn insistence that cell phones/smartphones aren't required doesn't help.

It's also a red herring. The EU legislative body decided, that the app economy is an incresingly important part of the economy, and that there should be some rules to ensure fair access to that sector.

The DMA is not an antitrust action directed at one specific company, but a very general framework that applies to many different actors.

You could compare it to an act legislated by US congress, and not some antitrust action carried out by the FTC or a smililar federal institution, if that makes more sense.