How can you be competitive when your competitor is at the same time asking you 30% of your sales? And you don't have all the freedom it has?
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.
Epic Games and Spotify Say Apple's Latest DMA Changes Are 'Illegal' and 'Deliberately Confusing'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So on that basis, software Developers have no right to charge
ONLY because they have a free / ad supported subscription. They have a more expensive service for premium without the premium quality and a smaller offering. If people want to pay more for less or have a second rate ad supported data stealing service, it’s their choice. The only thing they beat Apple on is their algorithm.
Question: How does an entity decide American tech has too much control and wants to neuter the control without causing a trade war? Answer: write a piece of legislation called the dma. A purposefully obtuse piece of legislation that leaves them guessing. (Except if you’re a dma fan, then it’s crystal clear)
Why does Spotify HAVE to sell through the App Store. They have a big brand name now. They and epic are crying wolf. It’s not a surprise there is a tug of war between them on one side and the dma on the other.
Actually, no. While these rent-seekers might lower their price a bit to persuade you to pay through their payment processor instead of Apple, the prices will go to what the market will bear. What the market will bear is the price they are charging on the Apple platform. The only difference is whether Epic and Spotify have to pay Apple for customer acquisition or they get to freeload.
Which is insane, considering the whole value proposition of Office is to offer an integrated bundle of productivity and comms tools.
Basically, the DMA threatens any Gatekeeper-designated company a fine of 10% of their global revenue regardless if they offer any new services without making them immediately available to competitors.
The fact that vertical integration has been a company's business model for 40 years plays no role.
I get that tech companies need to be regulated and that network effects give big tech companies unfair amounts of power, but the DMA is such a hamfisted and stupid framework that causes as much harm as it does good.
As much as I don’t like some of what Apple does, I have to remember that this is why. They have to deal with thousands of small developers, and then these two. Whatever they do, these two (plus of course Meta) will be there to take maximum advantage.
And users get caught in the middle.
And users get caught in the middle.
I had a dream last night.
The most beautiful dream.
The EU designated Spotify a gatekeeper for digital music distribution and all artists were allowed to distribute their songs on Spotify for free.
Then I woke up, but the sweet image of that dream lives on in my heart.
The most beautiful dream.
The EU designated Spotify a gatekeeper for digital music distribution and all artists were allowed to distribute their songs on Spotify for free.
Then I woke up, but the sweet image of that dream lives on in my heart.
True, but are the rules clear? Which part of the regulations the EU passed is Apple specifically not in compliance with? Why are Spotify and Epic the interpreters of the law? This article is about how the companies say Apple is not in compliance. Shouldn't the EU be making that ruling? Isn't the burden on the EU to write regulations that are clear? The EU made some preliminary comments recently saying Apple did not appear to be in compliance (preliminary judgment doesn't mean the EU was correct, although it might have been). Apple changed what it is doing and before the EU makes a judgment, CEOs jump in with interpretations of illegality. Why does anyone listen to their legal interpretations? Even if they turn out to be correct, they are not legal specialists. Their companies have EU legal counsel, but the laws and issues are so complex it will take years to figure out.
So maybe Apple really is following the rules but some other companies do not like how Apple is doing so. Apple's actions are self-serving, but so are Spotify's and Epic's. Are Spotify and Epic more legitimate corporations than Apple? Because the EU deemed Apple a "gatekeeper", does that mean the other companies are correct?
Last edited:
They do realise the EU doesn’t have power to make businesses provide services for free? Apple will tie the bureacrats up in years of costly litigation and then they’ll lose, probably liable for Apple’s costs as well.
They aren’t going to get a free lunch, period. Hence the ‘loopholes’ in the DMA.
I think there will be a balance struck in the middle somewhere. Eventually.
They aren’t going to get a free lunch, period. Hence the ‘loopholes’ in the DMA.
I think there will be a balance struck in the middle somewhere. Eventually.
How are they freeloading? They wont be using anything on Apple's app store, they will be using someone else's app store and someone else's payment system. So, if they are not going to use Apple's app store or their payment system, how is that 'freeloading when they are using nothing of Apples? apart from what they already pay for (they already pay the yearly app developer fees that allows them to use app developer tools).
Man, Apple must be absolutely killing it in the AAA game space then. What is that killer game title that Apple released that is out-selling Fortnite again? Is it Keynote?
When did Apple Music surpass Spotify? That damn MSM hasn't been reporting on this obviously newsworthy topic in my neck of the woods. Must be some weird mRNA space laser couch copulation conspiracy happening that is causing this news to get buried.
I will say though - you are getting closer. Perhaps if you can't compete in a market, you can just claim that market's customers and charge a commission on all those players selling their services to "your" customers.
Wrong on all accounts, it’s completely unrelated to the DMA.
The Commission is concerned that, since at least April 2019, Microsoft has been tying Teams with its core SaaS productivity applications
The conduct may have prevented Teams'rivals from competing, and in turn innovating, to the detriment of customers in the European Economic Area.
If confirmed, these practices would infringe Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU'), which prohibits the abuse of a dominant market position.
On 14 July 2020, Slack Technologies, Inc. submitted a complaint against Microsoft, alleging that Microsoft illegally tied Teams to its dominant productivity suites.
Article 102 TFEU prohibits the abuse of a dominant position that may affect trade within the EU and prevent or restrict competition. The implementation of this provision is defined in the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003), which can also be applied by the national competition authorities.
Article 11(6) of the Antitrust Regulationprovides that the opening of proceedings by the Commission relieves the competition authorities of the Member States of their competence to apply EU competition rules to the practices concerned.
Here you can read up on it.
Commission sends Statement of Objections to Microsoft over possibly abusive tying practices regarding Teams
The European Commission has informed Microsoft of its preliminary view that Microsoft has breached EU antitrust rules by tying its communication and collaboration product Teams to its popular productivity applications included in its suites for businesses Office 365 and Microsoft 365.
They won't need "luck", because "freeloading off" companies in dominating market positions to promote actual competition is a very clear and transparent goal of the legislation. It's very much a desired feature, not a bug.
Good point. What you fail to mention is, that there is actually competition among streaming services. As an artist, you can choose where you make your songs available. Some artists choose to publish their works only on the platforms they like. There is no competition for app distribution, though, and that is the thing that the law tries to address.
Another example. Does Spotify collect 20% off all money an artist earns outside of the Spotify platform?
By the way, many artists are getting the short end of the stick because of music labels, not because of Spotify. But that's another discussion altogether.
Lol that’s exactly what’s happening right now.
You can host your music on Spotify for free and not get payed if that is what you want.
And take this…. If you want to distribute your music on other platforms at the same time for free…. You can do that without any strings attached :O
Wrong on all accounts, it’s completely unrelated to the DMA.
The Commission is concerned that, since at least April 2019, Microsoft has been tying Teams with its core SaaS productivity applications
The conduct may have prevented Teams'rivals from competing, and in turn innovating, to the detriment of customers in the European Economic Area.
If confirmed, these practices would infringe Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU'), which prohibits the abuse of a dominant market position.
On 14 July 2020, Slack Technologies, Inc. submitted a complaint against Microsoft, alleging that Microsoft illegally tied Teams to its dominant productivity suites.
Article 102 TFEU prohibits the abuse of a dominant position that may affect trade within the EU and prevent or restrict competition. The implementation of this provision is defined in the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003), which can also be applied by the national competition authorities.
Article 11(6) of the Antitrust Regulationprovides that the opening of proceedings by the Commission relieves the competition authorities of the Member States of their competence to apply EU competition rules to the practices concerned.
Here you can read up on it.
Commission sends Statement of Objections to Microsoft over possibly abusive tying practices regarding Teams
The European Commission has informed Microsoft of its preliminary view that Microsoft has breached EU antitrust rules by tying its communication and collaboration product Teams to its popular productivity applications included in its suites for businesses Office 365 and Microsoft 365.ec.europa.eu
You seem to be the expert here, so can you explain to me how "tying Teams with its core SaaS productivity applications" is any different from the vertical integration of different products with Office like they've been doing for over 30 years?
When MS decided to offer Outlook as part of Office, would that not be the same as tying Teams with its core SaaS productivity applications?
What "service" is Apple providing to vendors who wish to offer their own app store running on their own cloud service, using their own payment systems?
Man, you do have some strange dreams. Good thing that the DMA does not have anything to do with forcing Apple to distribute developer apps for free on the App store. Also a good thing that artists who distribute their songs on Spotify are also free to distribute their songs on Apple Music, YouTube music, and any other streaming platform that they want to.
Isn't it kinda weird to be dreaming about precisely the kind of world we already live in?
Is Spotify designated a gatekeeper for digital music distribution? Yep.
Can you distribute your songs on Spotify for free? Of course.
You know what would be really weird? Not having weird dreams
But tell me, in all the years of litigation and complaining Spotify and Epic have done over Apple, have you ever once heard them suggest what payment terms they would settle for?
I have not, as the only outcome they are pushing for is completely free distribution and the DMA is the stick they are attempting to wield here.
It was 1997 when MS decided to offer Outlook as part of Office. Office was not quite as dominant as it is now (though it was rocketing in popularity by then) and Exchange was a completely separate product licensed on its own. At that time, Outlook stand-alone was just another e-mail and calendaring App that was seen to compete with the likes of Eudora, Netscape, and other similar PIMs. If Outlook with its deep integration to Exchange Online (or whatever MS calls it now) were introduced into the Office lineup today, it would probably also be seen in the same anti-competitive light as Teams is today.
It's nothing to do with them. It's not about Epic or Spotify specifically, they don't get to set the terms for everybody else.
You also seem to have not understood what is going on here. Many keep on using the word 'free' and 'freeloading'. The EU's DMA allows developers who provide their app's in the EU to step away from using Apple's app store, Apple's payment system and Apple's app store T&C preventing developers from putting links in their own apps that steer users away from the app. Apple is trying to prevent this by putting in 'fees' to act as a deterrent in developers moving away from Apple's app store.
Apple wants to be in 100% control of the app store, 100% control of every app and 100% control every app developer. The EU has said no to this. When Apple put into it's app store T&C's that developers are not allowed to put links in their apps that steer users away from the app to their own website they put themselves on a collision with the EU because whilst the US might give Apple some leeway, the EU would not and we are seeing the result of this.
Apple want their cake and eat it and they are going to make darn sure developers keep paying Apple regardless of where their app is, where they link to and what payment system they use.
Apple have changed the wording on the EU DMA a number of times but the underlying reasons are still the same, Apple want developers to pay for moving away from Apple's app store. Apple can draw this out for as long as they want, the EU will still be there, just as they are there 10-12 years and counting on the tax issue with Apple and Ireland.
That is the thing. Not all publishers are brave enough to call out Apple. Which tells you something about the relationship between Apple and publishers.