EU Closes Antitrust Probe Into Apple's Ebook App Store Rules

[macfacts]

You conveniently ignored the point about Apple spending over $400 billion this century to build a loyal affluent customer base. Apple gives you access to that, the greatest of their assets. I get that you want it for free. Of course you do. That is freeloading.

it is ok if you like being a tool or product.

 

[I7guy]

it is ok if you like being a tool or product.

The op plus another one billion people.

 

[chrono1081]

but the end user bought the smartphone, why shouldnt the owner be allowed to buy apps/goods from what store they want.

Buy an Android. Everyone knows if you buy Apple you’re buying into a significantly more secure ecosystem and there’s trade offs, one being Apple screens all the apps.

If you didn’t know that that’s on you.

 

[vantelimus]

it is ok if you like being a tool or product.

I think you don’t understand.

I don’t go to the App Store looking for your product. I don’t get ads pushed on me showing your crappy product. I don’t even know what kind of BS thing you want pushed upon me.

I use Apple products so I don’t have to worry about that. All the things you want are available from Google Android and Google Chrome. Go there. Stop trying to screw up the environment I bought because you couldn’t force your will upon me.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Here in the US there are no gatekeepers. If you want to sideload some options:

Yes there are gatekeepers. See the post right before yours:

You conveniently ignored the point about Apple spending over $400 billion this century to build a loyal affluent customer base. Apple gives you access to that, the greatest of their assets. I get that you want it for free.

When you control access to nearly all customers in a duopoly with your biggest competitor, it should be regulated - or made open by law.

I get that you want it for free. Of course you do. That is freeloading.

Apple is handsomely compensated for their innovation (through sales of devices and services). They‘re reaping huge profit from network effects, their bundling the App Store with their devices while locking out competition and unilaterally setting commission pricing on it.

Under these circumstances, the appropriate thing for government is to force them to open up their platform to allow for fair competition - including (and most importantly) on related markets (such as books and other media content).

Actually, a few large corporations own most of the malls in the US. You never find competing malls across the street from one another. They carve up geographies so they do not compete

…but there is no duopoly on retail space.

Stores don't get to use space in the mall for free. If you want to take advantage of all of the foot traffic that is attracted, you not only have to pay rent, but the managers of the mall have to approve the nature of your store. You can't just show up and demand access the way you are demanding it on iOS.

Competitors and regulators aren‘t asking for access to Apple‘s stores.
They‘re asking that Apple allow them to conduct business using their own store application.

Again: Android and iOS are a duopoly.
And duopolies are usually bad for competition and consumers - tought in every business school.

30% „tax“ (commission pricing) for merely allowing access to customers is not economically efficient. It‘s bad for everyone but the monopolist operator.

 

[I7guy]

Yes there are gatekeepers. See the post right before yours:

No there aren’t.

[….]

30% „tax“ (commission pricing) for merely allowing access to customers is not economically efficient. It‘s bad for everyone but the monopolist operator.

Please stop using words that aren’t applicable. Before the digital App Store became a widespread thing, there were different methods of promoting your product or service.

DMA supporters want business to be able to access hundreds of millions of customers for gratis. If you want to get your product or service out there and you feel 30% (which is totally optional-in) is too pricey, then build your own infrastructure and let us know how that turns out.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Please stop using words that aren’t applicable.

Apple (used) to have a monopoly for distribution of iOS apps.
And iOS is a de facto duopoly with Android and its Play Store.

Before the digital App Store became a widespread thing, there were different methods of promoting your product or service.

…and different methods of installing applications on the most popular general purpose computing platforms.

DMA supporters want business to be able to access hundreds of millions of customers for gratis

Not necessarily for free.
But yes, at reasonable terms.

If you want to get your product or service out there and you feel 30% (which is totally optional-in) is too pricey, then build your own infrastructure and let us know how that turns out.

They have and operate their own infrastructure.

Spotify, for example, have their own apps, technology/algorithms and infrastructure - or contracted for that with other providers. And they’ve licensed the audio content. In other words:

Apple does not meaningfully contribute to Spotify serving audio content to its customers. They merely provide an operating system platform. That is why they do not deserve a 30% cut, coupled with exclusivity as the only operator of in-app purchasing services.

👉 Innovation should be rewarded by markets.
👉 Monopolising access to customers should not be rewarded. Such (ab)use should be prevented by governments.

 

[I7guy]

Apple (used) to have a monopoly for distribution of iOS apps.
And iOS is a de facto duopoly with Android and its Play Store.

The iOS App Store is a legal distribution mechanism for iOS apps. Period. Even if it’s the only distribution mechanism. And there is no in fact a duopoly because there is more mobile operating systems.

…and different methods of installing applications on the most popular general purpose computing platforms.

Not on cell phones of the day.

Not necessarily for free.
But yes, at reasonable terms.

Yes for free.

They have and operate their own infrastructure.

Names please.

Spotify, for example, have their own apps, technology/algorithms and infrastructure - or contracted for that with other providers. And they’ve licensed the audio content. In other words:

So you agree getting product and services to iOS customers is not limited to the App Store.

Apple does not meaningfully contribute to Spotify serving audio content to its customers. They merely provide an operating system platform.

Yes they give Spotify the means and way. We have a different meaning of “meaningfully”.

That is why they do not deserve a 30% cut, coupled with exclusivity as the only operator of in-app purchasing services.

In your opinion.

👉 Innovation should be rewarded by markets.

Innovation is not forcing apple to support multiple app stores. That’s the EU playing Robin Hood.

👉 Monopolising access to customers should not be rewarded.

It’s none of governments business.

Such (ab)use should be prevented by governments.

It’s none of governments business.

 

[vantelimus]

When you control access to nearly all customers in a duopoly with your biggest competitor, it should be regulated - or made open by law.

Apple does not, by any means, control access to nearly all customers. Apple has less than 40% of the EU market. They do have a nice slice of affluent customers. They spent a lot of time, money, and effort to build that customer base.

Apple is handsomely compensated for their innovation (through sales of devices and services). They‘re reaping huge profit from network effects, their bundling the App Store with their devices while locking out competition and unilaterally setting commission pricing on it.

First, Apple is compensated based on what the market is willing to pay. Whether that is handsome or exorbitant is irrelevant. Users have their choice of phones from many manufacturers. They choose Apple because they are willing to pay the prices Apple charges.

Second, they aren't locking out anyone. Any company that wants to avail themselves of Apple's market is free to do so as long as they abide by the terms of service. That includes paying for access like in every other marketplace in the world, analog or digital, and obeying content/service restrictions. If you don’t like those conditions, consider venturing into the Android market, where you’ll find a larger and more diverse customer base, including those who are less discerning and less affluent.

Under these circumstances, the appropriate thing for government is to force them to open up their platform to allow for fair competition - including (and most importantly) on related markets (such as books and other media content).

…but there is no duopoly on retail space.

I get that you think it is unfair. I agree that business requires regulation and enforcement, especially when users are disadvantaged. But, that isn't the case here. You as a consumer are not disadvantaged. You have your choice of many app stores on Google and now on Apple in the EU. The alternate app stores just haven't made a difference.

You as a business person are just carping because you don't want to pay for the value Apple has spent decades and $100s of billions building.

Competitors and regulators aren‘t asking for access to Apple‘s stores.
They‘re asking that Apple allow them to conduct business using their own store application.

They're asking that Apple give them access to Apple's greatest asset for free. They want to freeload.

Again: Android and iOS are a duopoly.

Android isn't a single operating system. But even if you want to treat it that way, you've had alternate app stores there and they haven't made much of a difference. Google Play dominates because consumers, regardless of your rhetoric, don't want that much choice. You can disagree with that, but that is what the science (behavioral economics, and behavioral psychology) and the market are tell you.

And duopolies are usually bad for competition and consumers - tought in every business school.

Did you go to business school? I did. I went to two different business schools that have "leftist" reputations. What is actually taught is laissez-faire capitalism and how to get around the laws.

30% „tax“ (commission pricing) for merely allowing access to customers is not economically efficient. It‘s bad for everyone but the monopolist operator.

The keystone markup price is twice wholesale. That 30% fee (15% for low volume apps, and 0% for free apps) is lower and on par with other digital market places.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple does not, by any means, control access to nearly all customers. Apple has less than 40% of the EU market

Together with Google they do (as I said - I believe the other competitor they‘re forming a duopoly with need not be named but is obviously Google).

They spent a lot of time, money, and effort to build that customer base.

…and they have been rewarded for that a lot of revenue, earnings, money.

Users have their choice of phones from many manufacturers.

Neither they nor developers have a sensible choice in operating system or mobile application store for phones.

The smartphone market clearly is very competitive. The ones for their operating systems and distribution of applications are not.

Any company that wants to avail themselves of Apple's market is free to do so as long as they abide by the terms of service.

Once companies have monopolised (or, in this case, duopolised) a market, their terms and conditions will be regulated by competition law and agencies. Especially when they serves as an important input or platform for other businesses.

You as a consumer are not disadvantaged

I am, when consumer pricing includes 30% transaction costs on sales.

You have your choice of many app stores on Google and now on Apple in the EU. The alternate app stores just haven't made a difference.

Not yet. Because regulation has just entered into force in very jurisdictions around the world.
And Apple have been fighting tooth and nail to comply with it as little as possible.

That said, the impact has been felt with regards to game streaming apps and emulators.

You as a business person are just carping because you don't want to pay for the value Apple has spent decades and $100s of billions building.

Of course I do. I personally spent thousands of dollars (equivalent) on Apple hardware. So did developers - and third-party developers d their products are the main reasons why smartphones are so popular. Without them, the iPhone wouldn’t be a thing today.

And those third-party developers deserve to be fairly compensated on their products and services.

Google Play dominates because consumers, regardless of your rhetoric, don't want that much choice. You can disagree with that, but that is what the science (behavioral economics, and behavioral psychology) and the market are tell you

These are products/services with huge network effects. I can acknowledge the fact that consumer usage and spending converges on one, two, maybe three operating systems. Just as for desktop computers: basically natural oligopolies. And that’s what needs to be regulated.

Did you go to business school? I did.

So did I.

That 30% fee (15% for low volume apps, and 0% for free apps) is lower and on par with other digital market places.

Microsoft, Epic or others do it for way less.
So do others.

The Apple App Store doesn’t provide anything that companies like Epic, Match group, Spotify require - and that they couldn’t set up (or contract from others) much cheaper.

 

[vantelimus]

Together with Google they do (as I said - I believe the other competitor they‘re forming a duopoly with need not be named but is obviously Google).

You need to be clear about the topic you’re discussing because you sometimes equivocate between talking about phone hardware, operating systems, and App Stores.

For phones, Apple and Google do not form a duopoly. Apple has less that 40% of the market with Samsung (31.12%), Xaiomi (12.95%), Huawei(2.82%), and Oppo (2.36%) rounding out the top 5.

If you mean operating system, that's different, but not as much as you think. Sure, Google's Android has better than 50% of the market. But it is spread across several manufacturers, each of which uses its own proprietary UI and extensions. The only manufacturer who offers a near-stock version of Google's Android (besides Google itself) is the EU company Nokia.

If you mean App stores, Android has had alternate app stores for a while. So there was no duopoly when the EU implemented the DMA. And now, due to the EU's little snit, Apple also offers them.

Google Play and Apple's App Store still have a majority of the market, but only because consumers don't trust other App stores unless they can identify a trusted brand associated with the store. In addition, the behavioral sciences have shown that consumers just don't care about Vesteger's opinions on market options. Consumers simply don't want that much choice.

If you mean eBook stores, the actual subject of this article, then Apple and Google are dwarfed by Amazon. In addition, there are ample competitors for the eBook market in the EU, including Rakuten, Barnes&Noble, Lulu, Georg von Holtzbrink, etc.

…and they have been rewarded for that a lot of revenue, earnings, money.

You’re shifting back to hardware, but it’s only part of Apple’s offerings. Their software provides most of the value, especially seamless interoperability across their ecosystem. The full value of Apple’s products isn’t unlocked without the entire ecosystem, and that’s what people pay for. That’s the value you attack.

Neither they nor developers have a sensible choice in operating system or mobile application store for phones.

So, you are saying that iOS and Android aren't sensible choices? That is simply hilarious. Please, be my guest. Produce a sensible choice. You don't even have to start from scratch as there are open source operating systems (many flavors of Android, many flavors of Linux, Sailfish, Plasma, Open Harmony, KaiOS) you can fork as the basis for your own version. Please please please, give the world a sensible choice. LMAO.

The smartphone market clearly is very competitive. The ones for their operating systems and distribution of applications are not.

Let's look at operating systems first.

Google dominates because the nature of non-regulated economics makes actors tend towards their own specializations where they can add differential advantage over the competition. For example, Samsung makes great hardware. They could make their own software, but they would not provide any extra value by doing so. Indeed, they would harm the value of the products because their customers would likely not be able to leverage the huge investment in apps that have been made for Android. Most other manufacturers, even those in the EU, made the same economic calculation as Samsung.

Apple actually keeps Google from being a monopolist by providing their own operating system instead of using Android. Rather than applaud their initiative and their success, which aligns with your putative goal of stimulating competition, you want to lump them in with Google and cry duopoly. That's just precious.

As for App Stores, you have zero to complain about. EU legislation did what you want. Both iOS and Android allow alternate app stores. In fact, Google has allowed that for years. The fact that the Google App Store dominates because users trust Google and that app makers don't want to deal with a multiplicity of distribution channels should have told you that the EU legislation would do little. Your problem is you don't like human nature and you deny the science which describes it.

I am, when consumer pricing includes 30% transaction costs on sales.

As I said, the keystone markup on average over all markets is 50% over wholesale. Deal with it. The 30% is lower than average and commensurate with other digital markets. It compensates Apple for them giving you access to their customer list, using their distribution network, and using their App Store for both marketing and sales. You want to deny there is value in all of that, but that's only because you want to freeload. The intensity of your plea does not change the facts.

So did I [go to business school].

Odd. There are things in marketing, economics, and behavioral sciences that are taught in the schools I attended that don't appear to be reflected in your arguments.

 

[vantelimus]

Apple does not meaningfully contribute to Spotify serving audio content to its customers. They merely provide an operating system platform. That is why they do not deserve a 30% cut, coupled with exclusivity as the only operator of in-app purchasing services.

It's not a cut. It's a markup on the price of the product. You pay a markup on just about everything you buy. The average keystone markup is 50%.

That 30% is commensurate with what is charged by Sony’s PlayStation Store, Microsoft’s Xbox Store, and Nintendo’s eShop.

Spotify isn't paying for serving its audio content. It is paying for access to the customer list (a very valuable one at that since it is full of people with money and a propensity to buy), a distribution and update channel for its App, a digital marketplace which attracts customers, payment processing, and Apple's brand value and good will as they boost trust and confidence that Spotify's app isn't riddled with Trojans.

If YOU don't value all of that, then you're perfectly free to distribute your app on Vladimir's Discount App Store, where you can get access to the same customer list if only people trusted Vladimir enough to not offer shady apps.

👉 Innovation should be rewarded by markets.

Spotify hasn't innovated a thing. They jumped into a market that was already well populated. They are a me-too business with a bad model and a CEO trying to blame everyone else for its poor performance.

👉 Monopolising access to customers should not be rewarded. Such (ab)use should be prevented by governments.

Spotify is the dominant music streaming service in the EU. It is widely used on the iPhone. It doesn't make its money off of app sales. It makes its money off of subscriptions. I don't see Apple hindering it in any way. In fact, Apple allows Spotify to use its customer list through the App Store.

Keep arguing your opinions. The more you do, the more obvious it is to people that you are carping about not being able to freeload.

 

[davide_eu]

Websites, email, social media etc it’s not as if there aren’t other options. You can sell to iPhone users any way you want. If you want to use iOS specific facilities, like selling to Costco you gotta follow the rules.

But the phone has been sold to the user... Your analogy is that when you go to buy at costco, ford will ask you a % because you have used their car (even if you have bought it) to reach costco.

 

[davide_eu]

It's not a cut. It's a markup on the price of the product. You pay a markup on just about everything you buy. The average keystone markup is 50%.

That 30% is commensurate with what is charged by Sony’s PlayStation Store, Microsoft’s Xbox Store, and Nintendo’s eShop.

Spotify isn't paying for serving its audio content. It is paying for access to the customer list (a very valuable one at that since it is full of people with money and a propensity to buy), a distribution and update channel for its App, a digital marketplace which attracts customers, payment processing, and Apple's brand value and good will as they boost trust and confidence that Spotify's app isn't riddled with Trojans.

If YOU don't value all of that, then you're perfectly free to distribute your app on Vladimir's Discount App Store, where you can get access to the same customer list if only people trusted Vladimir enough to not offer shady apps.



Spotify hasn't innovated a thing. They jumped into a market that was already well populated. They are a me-too business with a bad model and a CEO trying to blame everyone else for its poor performance.



Spotify is the dominant music streaming service in the EU. It is widely used on the iPhone. It doesn't make its money off of app sales. It makes its money off of subscriptions. I don't see Apple hindering it in any way. In fact, Apple allows Spotify to use its customer list through the App Store.

Keep arguing your opinions. The more you do, the more obvious it is to people that you are carping about not being able to freeload.

Guy,

You are trying to defend something that doesn't exist.

The key point is that a$$le is trying to block a transaction between a phone owner and a third party. That's all.

I'm very proud EU is designing a path and I hope it will be followed worldwide to make that behavior illegal.

 

[I7guy]

But the phone has been sold to the user... Your analogy is that when you go to buy at costco, ford will ask you a % because you have used their car (even if you have bought it) to reach costco.

No my analogy is the vendor has to pay Costco a fee.

 

[I7guy]

Guy,

You are trying to defend something that doesn't exist.

The key point is that a$$le is trying to block a transaction between a phone owner and a third party. That's all.

I'm very proud EU is designing a path and I hope it will be followed worldwide to make that behavior illegal.

You shouldn’t be proud of draconian regulations that will not benefit consumers in the long run.

 

[davide_eu]

You shouldn’t be proud of draconian regulations that will not benefit consumers in the long run.

I'm proud, I'm proud... at the beginning regulations are always seen as "draconian" when they hit somebody... But in the long term they are win-win...

 

[davide_eu]

No my analogy is the vendor has to pay Costco a fee.

You don't understand - a$$le is forcing two indipendent parties to pay a bribe/tax/anything... to itself.

Let's make it in a different way:

You go to your bank, you withdraw some money and Ford would 30% of that because you have used their brand.

 

[I7guy]

You need to be clear about the topic you’re discussing because you sometimes equivocate between talking about phone hardware, operating systems, and App Stores.

For phones, Apple and Google do not form a duopoly. Apple has less that 40% of the market with Samsung (31.12%), Xaiomi (12.95%), Huawei(2.82%), and Oppo (2.36%) rounding out the top 5.

If you mean operating system, that's different, but not as much as you think. Sure, Google's Android has better than 50% of the market. But it is spread across several manufacturers, each of which uses its own proprietary UI and extensions. The only manufacturer who offers a near-stock version of Google's Android (besides Google itself) is the EU company Nokia.

If you mean App stores, Android has had alternate app stores for a while. So there was no duopoly when the EU implemented the DMA. And now, due to the EU's little snit, Apple also offers them.

Google Play and Apple's App Store still have a majority of the market, but only because consumers don't trust other App stores unless they can identify a trusted brand associated with the store. In addition, the behavioral sciences have shown that consumers just don't care about Vesteger's opinions on market options. Consumers simply don't want that much choice.

If you mean eBook stores, the actual subject of this article, then Apple and Google are dwarfed by Amazon. In addition, there are ample competitors for the eBook market in the EU, including Rakuten, Barnes&Noble, Lulu, Georg von Holtzbrink, etc.



You’re shifting back to hardware, but it’s only part of Apple’s offerings. Their software provides most of the value, especially seamless interoperability across their ecosystem. The full value of Apple’s products isn’t unlocked without the entire ecosystem, and that’s what people pay for. That’s the value you attack.



So, you are saying that iOS and Android aren't sensible choices? That is simply hilarious. Please, be my guest. Produce a sensible choice. You don't even have to start from scratch as there are open source operating systems (many flavors of Android, many flavors of Linux, Sailfish, Plasma, Open Harmony, KaiOS) you can fork as the basis for your own version. Please please please, give the world a sensible choice. LMAO.



Let's look at operating systems first.

Google dominates because the nature of non-regulated economics makes actors tend towards their own specializations where they can add differential advantage over the competition. For example, Samsung makes great hardware. They could make their own software, but they would not provide any extra value by doing so. Indeed, they would harm the value of the products because their customers would likely not be able to leverage the huge investment in apps that have been made for Android. Most other manufacturers, even those in the EU, made the same economic calculation as Samsung.

Apple actually keeps Google from being a monopolist by providing their own operating system instead of using Android. Rather than applaud their initiative and their success, which aligns with your putative goal of stimulating competition, you want to lump them in with Google and cry duopoly. That's just precious.

As for App Stores, you have zero to complain about. EU legislation did what you want. Both iOS and Android allow alternate app stores. In fact, Google has allowed that for years. The fact that the Google App Store dominates because users trust Google and that app makers don't want to deal with a multiplicity of distribution channels should have told you that the EU legislation would do little. Your problem is you don't like human nature and you deny the science which describes it.



As I said, the keystone markup on average over all markets is 50% over wholesale. Deal with it. The 30% is lower than average and commensurate with other digital markets. It compensates Apple for them giving you access to their customer list, using their distribution network, and using their App Store for both marketing and sales. You want to deny there is value in all of that, but that's only because you want to freeload. The intensity of your plea does not change the facts.



Odd. There are things in marketing, economics, and behavioral sciences that are taught in the schools I attended that don't appear to be reflected in your arguments.

There were many great points made in this post. But the bolded is especially interesting given people throw around terms like monopolists and duopoly.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You need to be clear about the topic you’re discussing because you sometimes equivocate between talking about phone hardware, operating systems, and App Stores.

I'm very clear that I'm talking about software: operating systems, apps and digital transactions - exactly what's being regulated by the European Union and their DMA. Hardware devices aren't (well, with regards to radio spectrum and safety, but not through competition law).

Sure, Google's Android has better than 50% of the market. But it is spread across several manufacturers, each of which uses its own proprietary UI and extensions

The User Interface isn't the issue. There are many to choose from - and they're used to differentiate hardware products given that the sale of mobile OS separately from hardware isn't really a "thing").

The issue is when an OS developer leverages their gatekeeping power to extract rent and/or compete unfairly in related markets. Such as the ones for applications and media content.

So, you are saying that iOS and Android aren't sensible choices?

Beyond them there is no sensible choice.
There is no established third operating system.

Produce a sensible choice. You don't even have to start from scratch as there are open source operating systems (many flavors of Android, many flavors of Linux, Sailfish, Plasma, Open Harmony, KaiOS) you can fork as the basis for your own version.

I'm well aware of them. These "third" options are all irrelevant in "western" (or European) markets - for lack of an established ecosystem of third-party apps.

No one, no consumer is asking for a "third" alternative operating system without the established ecosystems iOS and Android have. And no other company is able to front-load the costs of establishing one (unless, maybe, when you're operating in a huge but "politically shielded" market like China).

As for App Stores, you have zero to complain about. EU legislation did what you want. Both iOS and Android allow alternate app stores.

Apple intentionally made them unviable (and unable to compete) on their platform with their fee structure.

As I said, the keystone markup on average over all markets is 50% over wholesale. Deal with it.

That's an invalid comparison.
If you really went to business school, the Apples to Oranges nature of the comparison should be obvious to you.

Apple does not buy and stock apps or in-app purchases from third-party developers.
Because, you know, that would entail actual business risk.

They're charging for something that has (basically) zero marginal cost.

It compensates Apple for them giving you access to their customer list, using their distribution network, and using their App Store for both marketing and sales. You want to deny there is value in all of that

No, definitely not.
There is considerable value in it - it's just that Apple monopolises that value through their signing certificates.
As for marketing and sales, companies like Epic, Spotify or Netflix don't require that from Apple at all.

Odd. There are things in marketing, economics, and behavioral sciences that are taught in the schools I attended that don't appear to be reflected in your arguments.

I'm sure your business school taught you the importance and benefits of markets that have low transaction costs, low entry barriers and competition.
Apple embodies the antithesis to that.

Spotify isn't paying for serving its audio content. It is paying for access to the customer list

Exactly.
They're paying monopoly rent - that goes straight into Apple's bottom line.

And that's exactly what legislation and regulation should get rid of. Mobile operating systems, applications and in-app purchases have become mature markets by now. And 30% commission for "customer access" as transaction costs are bad for competition and make for inefficient economies.

👉 Innovation should be ecoonomically rewarded. Service should be rewarded. Gatekeeping access to customers should not. Not for firms with monopoly power.

Spotify hasn't innovated a thing. They jumped into a market that was already well populated. They are a me-too business

Neither has Apple innovated anything with their "Music" service. Even less so than Spotify.

Thankfully, both streaming services are subject exposed to competition.
And legislators and regulators should ensure that Apple does not anticompetitively leverage their iOS platform in music streaming.

Spotify is the dominant music streaming service in the EU. It is widely used on the iPhone. It doesn't make its money off of app sales. It makes its money off of subscriptions. I don't see Apple hindering it in any way.

They're hindering them from fairly competing - by prohibiting them from making transactions at the consumer point of interaction.

Charging Spotify, their biggest competitor, a 30% for that isn't fair competition.

 

[macfacts]

There were many great points made in this post. But the bolded is especially interesting given people throw around terms like monopolists and duopoly.

It isn't illegal to be a monopolist, it is when you abuse that position which makes it illegal.

 

[I7guy]

I'm very clear that I'm talking about software: operating systems, apps and digital transactions - exactly what's being regulated by the European Union and their DMA. Hardware devices aren't (well, with regards to radio spectrum and safety, but not through competition law).

Apples profits are being regulated under the guise of consumerism, given their "important" nature as deemed by the EU.

The User Interface isn't the issue. There are many to choose from - and they're used to differentiate hardware products given that the sale of mobile OS separately from hardware isn't really a "thing").

The issue is when an OS developer leverages their gatekeeping power to extract rent and/or compete unfairly in related markets. Such as the ones for applications and media content.

Yes, agree. Hypothetically that would be anti-trust if there were a finding.

Beyond them there is no sensible choice.
There is no established third operating system.

This is not apples problem and the EU made it Apples' issue.

I'm well aware of them. These "third" options are all irrelevant in "western" (or European) markets - for lack of an established ecosystem of third-party apps.

No one, no consumer is asking for a "third" alternative operating system without the established ecosystems iOS and Android have. And no other company is able to front-load the costs of establishing one (unless, maybe, when you're operating in a huge but "politically shielded" market like China).


Apple intentionally made them unviable (and unable to compete) on their platform with their fee structure.

It's their prerogative. The socialist nature of the EU shows through clearly in this post. What's mine is yours mentality through regulation.

That's an invalid comparison.
If you really went to business school, the Apples to Oranges nature of the comparison should be obvious to you.

Apple does not buy and stock apps or in-app purchases from third-party developers.
Because, you know, that would entail actual business risk.

They're charging for something that has (basically) zero marginal cost.

That is the nature of a for-profit company. It's up to the the people who use the services to decide if using the services is right for them.

No, definitely not.
There is considerable value in it - it's just that Apple monopolises that value through their signing certificates.

And they are entitled.

As for marketing and sales, companies like Epic, Spotify or Netflix don't require that from Apple at all.

No, they want access to Apples' one billion customer for 👉NOTHING.👈

I'm sure your business school taught you the importance and benefits of markets that have low transaction costs, low entry barriers and competition.
Apple embodies the antithesis to that.

It's their prerogative as a company and yours as a consumer and a dev to decide to do business with them.

Exactly.
They're paying monopoly rent - that goes straight into Apple's bottom line.

Perfectly legal.

And that's exactly what legislation and regulation should get rid of. Mobile operating systems, applications and in-app purchases have become mature markets by now. And 30% commission for "customer access" as transaction costs are bad for competition and make for inefficient economies.

Hopefully with the changes in EU leadership and US leadership there will less of the ******** going foward.

👉 Innovation should be ecoonomically rewarded. Service should be rewarded. Gatekeeping access to customers should not. Not for firms with monopoly power.

It is not up for grabs for governments to take company's innovations and distribute it like sand in the wind. Anybody who feels differently is aboard a train that values socalism, imo.

Neither has Apple innovated anything with their "Music" service. Even less so than Spotify.

Irrelevant.

Thankfully, both streaming services are subject exposed to competition.
And legislators and regulators should ensure that Apple does not anticompetitively leverage their iOS platform in music streaming.

And Spotify does not get a free pass either.

They're hindering them from fairly competing - by prohibiting them from making transactions at the consumer point of interaction.

This is course is a core difference in philosophy. Nobody needs an iphone, but given it's unique popularity everybody wants in on Apples' dime. Governments want to assist that, in some cases.

Charging Spotify, their biggest competitor, a 30% for that isn't fair competition.

It is because Spotify is gaining access to Apples customer base.

 

[nostradumbass]

The Belgians being at the center of the EU clearly have their priorities right.

Gambling, prostitution, slavery, trafficking, drugs. All normalised even though an advanced society should not have any of these primitive human behaviors.

Belgium's sex workers get maternity leave and pensions under world-first law

They will be entitled to official employment contracts, health insurance and sick days.

www.bbc.co.uk

What you should be worried about is the shape of your USB port and how bad it is for Apple to keep your device secure from malware. Such crimes!

 

[Zest28]

That's the problem, apple forces you to use the apple app store if you want to sell digital goods for the iPhone, then takes a 30% cut.

Same thing the EU does. And if you optimize the "cut" Apple pays, they will cry and you need to pay a larger "cut" because they don't want EU countries to compete on their "cut".

Rules for thee, but not for me.

 

[Zest28]

Not worth it. EU already started folding, wait for few months when US starts targeting EU companies for their shenanigans last few years. They will lay off American companies.

Trump already said he is looking to impose tariffs on the EU, because the USA is in a trade deficit with the EU. Meaning, more goods from the EU is being imported (like cars) than goods from the USA are exported to the EU.

So in the end, the EU is not a very good trading partner. Trump wants to promote more domestic goods (American citizens should buy American cars instead).