Yeah agreed. Didn't Spotify team up with Epic and Tile and Match and try to recruit others? I mean this sounds like Cartel like behaviour.
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 Likely to Charge Apple With Anti-Competitive Behavior This Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Twice as many people does not translate to sales or more money. I would argue Android is more likely to be the dominant OS in the EU.
Typical EU rubbish once again. Pandering to the corporations. I will lay this out. I use iOS I like it I like that my payment details can basically be hidden and I can pay for things through Apple's ecosystem. If this goes ahead the EU can then be responsible for peoples financials being messed with? I mean Spotify does not have 2FA nor does Netflix. Spotify could easily just point people to ay through their website if they want more money. Netflix does. Apple is not obliged to let them on their store.
This is insanity. I am ashamed of being an EU citizen every time something like this happens.
Does anybody know if there is something concrete we can do as private citizens to stop stuff like this from happening?
Does anybody know if there is something concrete we can do as private citizens to stop stuff like this from happening?
Ah yes... the "Coalition for App Fairness"
Maybe Apple should form their own... call it the "Coalition of It's My Damn Platform and You Will Play by My Rules"
Or... why doesn't Spotify, Epic, Tile, and Match just quit the Apple App Store if they don't like the rules?
Oh they can't? Because it would be suicide if their products aren't available to a billion iPhone users?
Hmmm interesting... well maybe the Apple App Store is valuable after all. Then those companies should obey Apple's rules. Pay the 15%-30% to be in this great store.
They have two choices: Pay the piper... or leave the App Store. Seems simple enough.
I'm really not a fan of this 3rd option where governments force companies to change their rules to suit other companies.
IMO, this is what has happed per the App Store.
When it was originally rolled out by Apple, nobody imagined that it would be as successful as it is today. Nobody viewed the 30% commission as being anticompetitive because the primary comparison for selling software in a "store" was brick/mortar, which had much worse terms for developers. Yes, you could sell software individually from a web site at that time for a 0% commission, but that isn't a "store" comparison. The purpose of a "store" is to consolidate a lot of products into a single location so that consumers don't have to hunt out each product individually. They can simply browse the store. Both the "store" model and the "sell from a web site" model have advantages and disadvantages.
With that in mind, there were a lot of people that believed Apple was making a competitive mistake with the "walled garden" approach to the App Store. They believed that the "open" approach (which was just a variation of the desktop style of software sales and distribution) would ultimately win out. That belief was largely based on the dominance of Windows outside of mobile. Many people believed that model would simply take over on phones as well since the majority of consumers appeared to prefer it on desktop. But it didn't.
Which brings us to today and all of the anticompetitive posturing. I believe that it's primarily the result of the people who thought the Windows model would also dominate on mobile being wrong. They're upset that they were wrong and their "plan B" is to try and use judges and legislators who don't necessarily understand the history of software sales to treat the Windows model like it's the "fair" model and force the Windows model to be the winner on mobile.
When it was originally rolled out by Apple, nobody imagined that it would be as successful as it is today. Nobody viewed the 30% commission as being anticompetitive because the primary comparison for selling software in a "store" was brick/mortar, which had much worse terms for developers. Yes, you could sell software individually from a web site at that time for a 0% commission, but that isn't a "store" comparison. The purpose of a "store" is to consolidate a lot of products into a single location so that consumers don't have to hunt out each product individually. They can simply browse the store. Both the "store" model and the "sell from a web site" model have advantages and disadvantages.
With that in mind, there were a lot of people that believed Apple was making a competitive mistake with the "walled garden" approach to the App Store. They believed that the "open" approach (which was just a variation of the desktop style of software sales and distribution) would ultimately win out. That belief was largely based on the dominance of Windows outside of mobile. Many people believed that model would simply take over on phones as well since the majority of consumers appeared to prefer it on desktop. But it didn't.
Which brings us to today and all of the anticompetitive posturing. I believe that it's primarily the result of the people who thought the Windows model would also dominate on mobile being wrong. They're upset that they were wrong and their "plan B" is to try and use judges and legislators who don't necessarily understand the history of software sales to treat the Windows model like it's the "fair" model and force the Windows model to be the winner on mobile.
The EU took action against the PayTV market because the sporting rights were held by a small group of organisations. So now the customers pay the same amount to the original organisation but must buy additional channels if they want to watch all the matches.
The EU also saw that cookies and tracking was a problem, so they directed that web pages must have this awful cookie banner which is not user friendly.
The EU did do well with the Microsoft browser choice screen and I’m sure there are other things they did well. Their recent form however has not been so great.
I wonder how this will end up for Apple users. Most likely we will end up with competing app stores and payment systems which are great for competition and user choice, but are entirely unregulated.
Is that a better system than a single store which limits content types and where every second app seems to be free with in app purchases? I’m sure we’ll find out. If only there was an organisation focused on customer and user experience which could help the EU to shape how an open market might look.
The EU also saw that cookies and tracking was a problem, so they directed that web pages must have this awful cookie banner which is not user friendly.
The EU did do well with the Microsoft browser choice screen and I’m sure there are other things they did well. Their recent form however has not been so great.
I wonder how this will end up for Apple users. Most likely we will end up with competing app stores and payment systems which are great for competition and user choice, but are entirely unregulated.
Is that a better system than a single store which limits content types and where every second app seems to be free with in app purchases? I’m sure we’ll find out. If only there was an organisation focused on customer and user experience which could help the EU to shape how an open market might look.
Good. Apple are blatantly guilty.
Kill app stores.
Kill app stores.
I would say a bunch of bitter bureaucrats that can't get their house in order and can never agree with each other! Failure experiment!So glad UK gave them a kick.
Ah, the "coalition for App fairness" a.k.a. "coalition for pure greed and free rides" is at it again. Breaking iOS's UX, security and privacy with their fragmentation. People who think any kind of consumer benefit will come of this are in for a rude awakening. Rather than decreasing prices, we will end up having to pay the same but through all kinds of poorly integrated payment systems. Mission accomplished.
I literally said that it was in breach of EU competition law on this forum on the day it was announced.
These things happen slowly, but it is, and I was right.
None of which require paying Apple 30% or whatever for an app as long as it is free. A music subscription is not a must have, phones work just fine without one for all those examples.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Apple could, for example, allow apps to advertise subscription options beyond the app store but move to a per download charge for subscription based apps that do that; which would potentially cost more and be an upfront costs where if too few people subscribe the app becomes a money loser.
Define the market for which it is a breach of EU competition law and how it breaks the EU competition law.
Netflix already figured this out. They don't want to pay Apple's 30% so they don't let people sign up inside the app anymore. You must create an account on their website.
Amazon already figured this out. They don't want to pay Apple's 30% so they don't let people buy Kindle books inside the app anymore. You must buy Kindle books on their website.
So why hasn't Spotify gone this route? Why are they getting Governments involved?
Amazon already figured this out. They don't want to pay Apple's 30% so they don't let people buy Kindle books inside the app anymore. You must buy Kindle books on their website.
So why hasn't Spotify gone this route? Why are they getting Governments involved?
This is the same EU that this week filed to sue a manufacturer of a life-saving vaccine provided at cost, that they don’t want to use themselves anyway.
Not being allowed to advertise an alternate method of purchase is standard in the industry, regardless of whether it's a "store" on a phone or a "store" on the web. I don't think the EU would be able to limit a change like that just to Apple.
Yes, you could renounce from your nationality and try to get one from outside the EU.
I'm probably dim, but ahem I have a Spotify subscription and bought that outside of the Apple App Store for price X. I can download the Spotify app and use that subscription with it. In fact so can my family as it is a family subscription. There is no need to buy it through Apple as I got discounts through my Internet Service Provider for it.
So what is this really about? Does Netflix and the EU want to establish price fixing across all retailers for Spotify subscriptions? Nobody is forced to buy the subscription through Apple.
So what is this really about? Does Netflix and the EU want to establish price fixing across all retailers for Spotify subscriptions? Nobody is forced to buy the subscription through Apple.
LOL Well put. You couldn't make it up could you. The original idea of the EEC was a good one, but when it morphed into the EU and they started to grow too big.
Hahaha they might. Simple as that.How did Apple FanBoys used to say?
There are enough alternatives out there, I you don't like it, move along.
Same applies here, if Apple don't like the rules of EU market, move along.
Simply as that... hahaha
Because if you have a chance at a free ride on the App Store why not try it? The EU is also very sensitive to monopoly complaints so it was probably worth a shot from their perspective.
Because their main competitor does sign up people through the app, giving them a competitive advantage. And if Spotify were to put subscriptions in their app, their main competitor would get a significant chunk of that revenue. That's a patently unfair situation.
I don't understand how people can look at those facts and think Apple are in the right here. The idea that because they created the phone they should somehow be entitled to a cut of every payment running through that phone, is absolutely mad.
EU competition law doesn't require monopoly market share, or even majority market share. It just requires the company to have a material ability to affect market pricing. Apple easily meets that criteria for the mobile device market.
One would note that Google has already lost (well, settled because they were going to lose) a similar case.