Can you point me to where, in that article, it uses the term "monopoly?"
If you're going to suggest that someone read the press release, perhaps you should read it first?
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.
EU Fines Apple $2 Billion for Anti-Competitive Behavior Toward Spotify
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you're going to suggest that someone read the press release, perhaps you should read it first?
I was sceptical Apple's App Store was a "large part" behind Spotify's success, when it is also -- if not more -- successful on Android, PC, Mac and basically any other platform on which it runs.
Beyond that I'm absolutely aware that Apple provides a lot of support in terms of APIs etc to developers, but the App Store is just one way of supporting developers and I'm pretty sure they also provide material support on the Mac.
I'm also convinced that the App Store is a good service for many developers, but I find it difficult to argue that developers should have to use it if they don't want to. Sure they will then not get broader Apple support in terms of handling payments, taxes etc, but not everyone needs that.
So? I'm an Apple customer and I've never quite understood why Apple should have any right to view me as a monetisable asset. I've already paid them handsomely for the hardware.
If I decide to shop on the App Store, then Apple should absolutely be compensated for that, but I simply don't understand why anyone should have to pay for "access" to consumers like me.
By selling stuff on the store? How Apple monetises the store is their business as long as it's compliant with all legal requirements, but I just don't understand why the store shouldn't have to compete with others.
If it's such a good service as Apple keeps claiming then it has nothing to worry about.
But Apple keeps claiming that the App Store is such good value that everyone is head over heels for it while also so fragile that it needs to be protected from competition at all cost.
Last edited:
So if Apple did pull out the iOS devices, how would you feel and be affected?
Sure it sounds like a huge fine but compared to what Apple make in the EU, it's small and annoying.
And will be appealed.
And in the name of compromise, it will be reduced or removed.
You'd think by now the EU might heave realised it would be better putting some anticompetitive effort into a little war in Ukraine and ensuring energy for member states were more pressing than a music streamer needing to state prices in app.
Someone suggested it isnt hard to actually find and subscribe to Spotify... type "Spotify.com"
You'd think people would have worked out in the app store page there's a link the Developer Website.
An ideal place to learn about products, support AND PURCHASING.
Yet if you tap it, the web page that opens doesnt even tell me about plans!
Just shows my playlists.
They can't even find some screen real estate on their own webpage to tell me about upgrading to a Family Plans?
Spotify should be fined for being antisteering to themselves.
Apple have asked for a 30-15% commission if the sales lead comes from their outlet.
Customer are still free to sign up via another outlet without commission being paid to Apple and sign in with their existing or newly created username.
There is no "degradation" of the product aside from prevention of steering customers towards Spotify's preferred method of sales (direct) to circumvent that commission.
Imagine if Apple were allowed to have signs all over Best Buy telling customers they could buy Macs cheaper at www.apple.com how would that go down?
The only part of the process that could be considered anti-competitive IMHO is that it requires Spotify users to go through the exhausting process of googling "sign up for spotify" after they download the app
OR
They pay a commission for newly acquired customers that Apple have allowed via one-click sign up for via IAP.
An easy, garaunteed sale is something that you pay for in any business. Spotify does not want to pay for that privilege.
Spotify is only as successful as their paid tier customers not their "active users".
Last edited:
"Hi, I'm from Spotify, here to pick up a check.
...What do you mean we don’t get the money? You're keeping it? All of it?!"
...What do you mean we don’t get the money? You're keeping it? All of it?!"
Cuz they have no other arguments. What do you expect them to say? "Yes, we do rip people/dev offs"? I hope EU will punish them again for that DMA thingy.
“Apple is currently the sole provider of an App Store where developers can distribute their apps to iOS users throughout the European Economic Area (‘EEA')”, in fact is monopoly explained in a nutshell.
A firm that is the only supplier or seller in a market is said to have a monopoly. A lack of competition allows the firm to charge a much higher price for goods and services, thus generating more revenue.
- https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Monopoly
A monopoly is an enterprise that is the only seller of a good or service. In the absence of government intervention, a monopoly is free to set any price it chooses and will usually set the price that yields the largest possible profit.
- https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Monopoly.html
Want more explanations?
This is some welcome news to wake up to on a Monday morning. Apple’s going to get hit with more fines if they decide to keep being cute with how they’re “complying” with the DMA.
Read due to demagogues, which is what I think you meant.
And this is why I think Apple deserves what they're getting. They are deliberately twisting the truth.
Apple Music is the ONLY music service that can integrate with the iPhone. Until very recently it was the ONLY one usable on HomePod. Now they've sort of added YouTube Music.
I don't like governments interfering with businesses, but I also don't like businesses straight up lying and abusing their power.
Sony/Nintendo do the exact same thing with their platforms. They lose money on developer programs but make money from the cut.
Apple is not a governmental organization. Apple cannot force any other company to do whatever they want. However, the EU can force Apple to do whatever they want. A company is not a government. My relationship with Apple is voluntary, unlike with the EU.
Good.
The European Commission today fined Apple €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) for anti-competitive conduct against rival music streaming services. In a response published on its website, Apple fiercely attacked the Commission's decision, as well as Spotify's behavior.
The fine comes as the conclusion to a long-running investigation by the EU, triggered by a complaint from Spotify, into Apple's treatment of third-party music streaming services on the App Store. The Commission now says that Apple abused its dominant position in the market by forbidding music streaming apps to tell users about cheaper subscription prices outside the app.
In an extensive public response, Apple noted that while Spotify has a dominant, 56 percent share of Europe's music streaming market and a "large part of their success is due to the App Store," the company does not pay anything to Apple because it refuses to sell subscriptions in its app. Apple listed a large number of services that it provides to Spotify for free, such as distribution, APIs, frameworks, TestFlight, App Review, and in-person engineering assistance. "But free isn't enough for Spotify," Apple says. "They also want to rewrite the rules of the App Store — in a way that advantages them even more."
Apple said that Spotify claimed in 2015 when it started working on the investigation with the European Commission that the "digital music market had stalled, and that Apple was holding competitors back." "Unfortunately for their case, Spotify continued to grow," Apple added.
Apple noted that three different related cases mounted against it by the European Commission over the past eight years consistently found no evidence of consumer harm and no evidence of anti-competitive behavior.
Apple also said that it is set to comply with the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) within days, alluding to the release of iOS 17.4, which includes a number of significant changes for users in Europe to meet the legislation's requirements. It believes that today's fine is "an effort by the Commission to enforce the DMA before the DMA becomes law," since it is "not grounded in existing competition law." Apple plans to appeal the decision.
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: EU Fines Apple $2 Billion for Anti-Competitive Behavior Toward Spotify
Not before time.
Or maybe, just maybe this is about Apple being anti-competitive.
The fine is being levied because Apple forbade music streaming apps from tell their users about cheaper subscription prices outside the app. Apple says "Spotify wants to bend the rules in their favor by embedding subscription prices in their app without using the App Store's In-App Purchase system."
This is akin to a retailer telling a magazine publisher that they cannot offer their readers a less expensive price such as through the use of subscription inserts
and that readers can only buy the magazine through the retailer and at the magazine's cover price.
Ridiculous.
Unless your app is Uber, Amazon, Walmart, etc... then you don't have to pay anything ...
I would also argue that sales from within the App are not "apple's outlet"
Yes there is, it is consumer hostile to prevent the placement of a 'sign up' button in the app if that button links to a web view that lets me sign up. It is consumer hostile to prevent a simple link that opens safari. It adds friction and inconvenience, small in the grand scheme of things but this friction does exist.
No one is asking to put links in the App Store app itself, just in the Apps that they create... if someone creates an app that app isn't apple's property just because it was distributed through their store.
It costs Apple nothing to allow Spotify and others to link to payment from within the app, how do we know this? Because they already charge hundreds (possibly thousands) of companies nothing.
No, your reply is emblematic.
I made a reasoned argument that it’s very alike to a tax.
You, on the other hand, now resort to merely labelling others as haters, “having no understanding” and call the conversation “silly” and “tedious” - rather than engaging in intellectual conversation.
Last edited:
I said “most” of the companies. The fact that Spotify is one of the biggest EU “tech” companies is very telling.
If Apple contests the fine, it may or may not be removed. However, it will take years for the decision and Apple has to pay the fine now.So if Apple did pull out the iOS devices, how would you feel and be affected?
Sure it sounds like a huge fine but compared to what Apple make in the EU, it's small and annoying.
And will be appealed.
And in the name of compromise, it will be reduced or removed.
You'd think by now the EU might heave realised it would be better putting some anticompetitive effort into a little war in Ukraine and ensuring energy for member states were more pressing than a music streamer needing to state prices in app.
Someone suggested it isnt hard to actually find and subscribe to Spotify... type "Spotify.com"
You'd think people would have worked out in the app store page there's a link the Developer Website.
An ideal place to learn about products, support AND PURCHASING.
Yet if you tap it, the web page that opens doesnt even tell me about plans!
Just shows my playlists.
They can't even find some screen real estate on their own webpage to tell me about upgrading to a Family Plans?
Spotify should be fined for being antisteering to themselves.
I state we could argue it. Not that it is right or wrong. Clearly Spotify enjoys a healthy lead in music streaming while not being able to advertise on iOS or even offer IAP. So their argument is not a strong one.
IMO, if they allowed IAP even at a higher price on the store. And on their website let uses know they could sign up directly for less. MOST people would use it. But some folks may want to keep it easier and purchase via the app.
Same for Netflix. They really can't argue (in my opinion) that they are suffering, since they are doing just fine and not selling directly via the app. If I am not mistaken, Apple is on Google Play store for music and tv services. I see an IAP for music on the web (I don't own Android, so i can't see it from the phone level).
Spotify and the EU are grifters and rent seekers. There should be diplomatic consequences for the EU's continuous harassment of American companies.
Spotify's lack of profitability over the course of its existence is not the result of any action by Apple, it is because music streaming, as a standalone business, is not sustainable at scale. I don't think Apple, Google, Amazon or anybody else is making money there either. SirusXM (Pandora) is harder to read because it's not a standalone streamer. Pandora's parent is 81% owned by Liberty media which owns sports teams, the F1 Group and Live Nation (one of the more obtuse sets of interlocking companies).
But back to my point. Grifters and rent seekers looking to shore up an EU company with global name recognition, who's poor profit performance is due to factors related to its chosen business model, at the expense of an American company.
Spotify's lack of profitability over the course of its existence is not the result of any action by Apple, it is because music streaming, as a standalone business, is not sustainable at scale. I don't think Apple, Google, Amazon or anybody else is making money there either. SirusXM (Pandora) is harder to read because it's not a standalone streamer. Pandora's parent is 81% owned by Liberty media which owns sports teams, the F1 Group and Live Nation (one of the more obtuse sets of interlocking companies).
But back to my point. Grifters and rent seekers looking to shore up an EU company with global name recognition, who's poor profit performance is due to factors related to its chosen business model, at the expense of an American company.
Last edited:
The App Store and iOS app distribution and installation is an absolute Apple monopoly.
I actually would be happier with Apple's position that "we should be paid" if it was consistent. If they took a commission from everyone including Microsoft (Office), Netflix, Target, Walmart, McDonalds, etc...
No one seems to want that though because I think we all realize that it would be terrible for the native app ecosystem and most of these apps would disappear.... Many native apps would become websites, the iPhone would be worse etc...
I think everyone implicitly knows how important third party Apps are to the health of the iPhone and as such Apple's rules are inconsistent and carve out many exceptions to encourage people to develop apps and take 100% of the revenue. Only in areas where Apple can't bully them do they actually manage to enforce their commission.
It's crazy how this is their argument, "oh Spotify continued to grow *vs our own music streaming service* despite the arbitrary restrictions they had to endure from us". That's more a testament of how good Spotify's service is than anything else.
Also Spotify does pay what any developer is required to pay unlike what Apple is suggesting.
Apple has to understand that they are in a special position thanks to their own music streaming service, they are also a competitor to Spotify(even if they don't view themselves as that), this is why they were fined.
That analogy is poor in so many ways.
1. BMW doesn't sell cars to consumers at all. BMW sells them to dealers who then sell them to customers.
2. Plenty of dealers sell both BMWs and Volvos. They'll be in separate lots, but often when you see what appears to be separate dealerships directly next to each other, they're actually the exact same dealership, just a different selection of vehicles.
3. Prohibiting others from selling your product doesn't make you a monopoly. Prohibiting your competition from being able to sell their products in the manner they want to the customers who want it makes you a monopoly. The only one who should be setting rules about how Spotify can distribute their software should be a government.
I think something worth considering is how Apple conducts business internally. When they ask the Apple Music team how profitable they've been, do they subtract out the 30% cut that Apple takes from other developers? Do they subtract out all the development fees that they charge other developers? I strongly suspect they don't, which is a strong indication that this fees are utterly BS and that Apple uses them to kneecap competitors like Spotify.