So, customers have to pay a 30% higher subscription fee for Spotify on iOS, because Apple needs it's cut. How is that better for consumers? Because it's clear that the margins are so thin in this business, that Spotify can't just "absorb" it. So it has to charge higher prices. Also, you care for Artists compensation, so you would not want them to cut that, I suppose.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Be Fined Over $500 Million in EU Music Streaming Probe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple will start to charge core fine fee for all devices sold in EU.
Apple is set to be hit with a €500 million ($538 million) fine for allegedly breaking EU law over access to music streaming services, according to a Financial Times report.
The focus of the European Commission's investigation has been Apple's policy of preventing streaming music apps from informing iPhone and iPad users within the app that lower subscription prices are available when signing up outside of the App Store.
The investigation began in 2019 after Spotify filed an antitrust complaint against Apple. EU regulators formally charged Apple in the anti-competitive probe in 2021, before the commission last year narrowed the scope of the investigation and dropped a charge of pushing developers to use its own in-app payment system.
According to the paywalled FT report, the Commission will say Apple's actions are illegal and go against the bloc's rules that enforce competition in the single market. Subsequently, it will ban Apple's practice of blocking music services from letting users outside its App Store switch to cheaper alternatives, which has historically given Apple Music an unfair advantage.
The investigation's conclusion will essentially rubber stamp the Commission's preliminary view that Apple's rules equate to "anti-steering" and "unfair trading conditions," in breach of EU antitrust law. The Commission previously said that the rules are "detrimental to users of music streaming services on Apple's mobile devices" given they may end up paying more and "negatively affect the interests of music streaming app developers by limiting effective consumer choice."
Developers are permitted by Apple's App Store Review Guidelines to notify users of alternative buying options through external communications, like email. Apps categorized as "reader" apps, including Spotify, have the ability to incorporate a link in their app directing users to their website for account management. However, Spotify is still not allowed to promote its reduced subscription rates offered on its website directly from within its iPhone app.
Apple has never previously been fined for antitrust infringements by the EU, but it was hit in 2020 with a €1.1 billion ($1.19 billion) fine in France for alleged anti-competitive behaviour. The penalty was revised down to €372 million after Apple appealed.
Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: Apple to Be Fined Over $500 Million in EU Music Streaming Probe
So devs have contracts forcing them to have their apps in the app store? Exclusively at that!?
If Apple dumps an unprofitable market, I think the shareholders would agree it's a smart move.
My complaint is solely with the fact that the EU is using Apple as a cash cow, arbitrarily deciding on fines for laws that are either vague or not on the books at all. That is, simply, unethical behavior by government.
Last edited:
That is a good observation. When I refer to the EU it is the European Union. But for geographical entity Europe I refer to the individual countries in it. The animosity against Brussels by individual members is growing especially in Eastern Europe.
Spotify could fold, then Apple Music would be the only music service on the iPhone. What do corporations do when there is no competition? They raise prices. Great win for consumers!
How exactly is it free? When any purchase made gives Apple a 30% cut. Any subscription made or anything else.
It is quite honestly a stunning delusional stretch to proclaim it is free to host on the App Store when the store generates Apple tens of billions in profit every quarter, mostly from third parties, oh and let's not forget the developer fees you have to pay Apple to develop apps for their platforms in the first place.
I guess the App Store is free if someone else pays your developer fee and the app you post doesn't have any fees or sales or offerings or anyway to make money in it, but then would Apple allow the app?
Yes? Is spotify by contract obliged to have their app in the app store? Exclusively? Yes/no will suffice thank you…
Basic business? Again, why you expect Apple to give its services away for free just simply baffles me. And, btw, 2nd years subscriptions would fall to 15%. That's less than I pay Airbnb for their service. Should Airbnb give this service to me for free?
I honestly don't know how you can make these arguments with a straight face.
Because, for example. Spotify pays nothing (well, a $99 developer fee) for these benefits. That's what free means.
There are lots of business who have figured out how to monetize their business using a free app download.
Spotify is one of them. Netflix does this.
Charging a fee for services is not antithetical to business. It's at the very foundation of business.
"SPOTIFY should get everything from Apple for FREE!!!!!!"
Is not business. I don't know what that is, but it's not business.
Is not business. I don't know what that is, but it's not business.
Right. And they could be grateful to Apple for providing them a lucrative platform. Just as I'm grateful to Airbnb for providing me a platform for my business.
Take all of your arguments and apply them to Airbnb on my behalf, and let's see where your arguments lead.
And I can't understand how you can on the one hand say that competition is vital for a healthy market, but in the second sentence defend Apple's business practices.
This isn't about Spotify wanting to advertise in Apple's App Store that you can get Spotify for less. It's about Apple not letting Spotify advertise within their own product (their app) that you can get Spotify for less.
Using your analogy, this is like Walmart not letting General Mills advertise within their box of Cheerios that you can buy Cheerios for less directly from General Mills.
This is like Walmart not letting Norton advertise that you can get Norton AntiVirus for less through Norton. If you've never used the product (or any antivirus program) before, when the app/subscription expires after 12 months, Norton has often offered a discount to users for a new 12 month subscription. If we applied Apple's rules, then Norton would not be able to offer a discount subscription price within their AntiVirus app. How is this fair? It's their own product.
Last edited:
So you've gone from 'free' to a 'fee' to 'free' again in one sentence, and totally deliberately ignored the fact it sells a product of which Apple takes a 30% cut of each sale. And bans any move to avoid that fee, yet it's free? You are being incredibly narrow with what 'free' mean in this instance. Free at the point of entry ignoring the fee beforehand.
This is not equivalent. There are many marketplaces where owners can advertise their rooms for rent. This is competition. Airbnb is not the only marketplace like it is the case for Apple. By this example, you would have to be for alternative app stores on iOS.
Because again, there's nothing out of the ordinary in Apple's business practices.
Again, apply your argument to my relationship with Airbnb. Your arguments would make no sense. You've manufactured some fairytale idea of business where Apple should be forced to give services to Spotify for free.
Corporations themselves rarely pay. They just pass the increased cost / fines onto the consumer.
I answered that above. This logic has holes like a Swiss cheese.
Huh? There is arguably LESS options available in my market than in the digital marketplace. In the market in which I have my airbnb's, Airbnb probably has a 90% marketshare.
I'm happy to pay Airbnb, who has provided me a platform to earn money. I want Airbnb to be successful, because they allow my success.
I simply don't understand why you think Spotify should pay zero to Apple.
That may be so. And I'd argue you're satifsied, because there is competition, and Airbnb has to provide a good enough service and fees, so owners don't take their business elsewhere. That's the magic of a real market.
I have had iOS devices since 2010. I got used to getting my app's for it App store. My computer side was Windows, applications there were like a ride through Apache country in a Louis L'Amour western. it really has not changed that much. When I got my Mac Studio the Mac App store is a pale cousin of the iOS App Store. But with my long history of Windows Applications I knew what I wanted and what and who to trust. I was told of a subscription based App store for Mac called WebCatalog. It works just like the Apple App Store but features Mac versions of iOS apps and some exclusively for the Mac. There are a lot of Mac App's there that are not listed in the Apple Mac App store. It handles the the billing and the updating. Some Apps like Flight Radar 24 are not easy to load from their websites.