EU Likely to Charge Apple With Anti-Competitive Behavior This Week

[Nuno Lopes]

If I buy Spotify subscription through Apple then yes, Apple has resources taken.

What resources? The payment and billing resources they forced Spotify to use with no practical need For their businesses. This sounds like creating a problem and offer the solution at 30% markup.

EDIT: I’m sorry. The closer you look the fishier it gets.

 

[Ethosik]

What resources? The payment and billing resources they forced Spotify to use with no practical need For their businesses. This sounds like creating a problem and offer the solution at 30% markup.

Like I said. Any billing issue is directed to Apple’s customer service. Do you think those people have $0 salaries?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Like I said. Any billing issue is directed to Apple’s customer service. Do you think those people have $0 salaries?

No I don’t think so. But why is it being directed to Apple’s customer service? Is there a natural law dictating that Spotify can’t or does not have the ability to provide their own billing and payment system? They seam to be able to do that everywhere else but in iOS … so it can’t be a natural law right?

I think Spotify is quite happy to pay for the App Store to host and distribute their app, as well as for the app review process.

Why doesn’t Apple simply sets a price for this reviewing, hosting and distributing the apps, just like a web site hosting service or a cloud service, and than also offer its 30% share pricing option for businesses that cannot pay that price or find that Apple’s Customer Service can do a better job than they can.

The problem I think would be sorted.

PS: I know why. Because it would be non speculative.

 

[jlc1978]

No I don’t think so. But why is it being directed to Apple’s customer service? Is there a natural law dictating that Spotify can’t or does not have the ability to provide their own billing and payment system? They seam to be able to do that everywhere else but in iOS … so it can’t be a natural law right?

IIRC, you can signup for Spotify on the web and still use the iOS app; so it seems like they have tehir own billing system setup as well..

I think Spotify is quite happy to pay for the App Store to host and distribute their app, as well as for the app review process.

Why doesn’t Apple simply sets a price for this reviewing, hosting and distributing the apps, just like a web site hosting service or a cloud service

they have. It costs 30% of the app's price or subscription costs.

 

[neomorpheus]

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

The sad reality is, the apple fanboys or rabid cult members, as I call them, are the only group of customers that demand less instead of more from their sacred devices.

Example, want to rile them up? simply ask for options for more stores or allowing sideloading on their sacred devices. they will literally try to find you and kill you.

I wish that I could install RetroArch on my iPad Pro and enjoy some retro gaming, but nooo, apple cant make money out of me that way, since I already have my roms (backed them up from my already owned cartridges, so save it), so they blocked the app.

Or if I want to use a proper build of Firefox instead of Safari with a Firefox skin.

 

[_Spinn_]

This is stupid. It's not like the App Store is a new development. iOS has always been locked down.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

IIRC, you can signup for Spotify on the web and still use the iOS app; so it seems like they have tehir own billing system setup as well..



they have. It costs 30% of the app's price or subscription costs.

1. Yes Apple gives them a backdoor. It would worst if it didn’t and the anti trust would be faster. So kind.

2. Spotify does not sell an App. It’s sells a music subscription. the App is there as a device for customeees to listen to music streamed by them, through a technical infrastructure and innovation built by them. That is precisely why is in courts. That cost is justifiable only by the number of current and potential Spotify customers it holds “ransom”. Not by the App Store service it self that at market prices would be closer to web site hosting and cloud services like Azure. With the exception probably to the universal billing system Apple offers, that a lot of businesses don’t need really.

So if 50% of Spotify customers haven’t chosen the iPhone, yet just only just say 10% there would be no problem. yet the fact is that this business is being leverage by another Apple business, the device business.

And no, iPhone users aren’t voting this practice with they wallets. First this is a unconstitutional expression, politically motivated. It’s an abortion of democratic values. Secondly users are buying a device, a better camera, better display, performance, better life etc. This is extremely profitable for Apple, great nothing wrong. But this is not approving an unconstitutional expression.

Imposing such requirement, digital services to start building competing hardware devices to any and all digital services to compete with them at digital service level is an abuse of market share. It is actually Spotify and the iPhone business bringing customers to the App Store, not so much the other way around. By it self would charge zilch, would have nothing, no value, yet somehow it comes up with a 30% markup of value and 78B in revenue … a Siphone

EDIT: Maybe Govs should take a lesson from Apple. Considering that the digital material is so malleable, they could develop a software device that would be required to be present in all Shops, something like in app payment, we’re the money would go to the Gov. They would take their cut in taxes and than transfer the money to the businesses a couple of months later or so. It would be interesting to see how western businesses would react to that.

They would call it Gov Store, or US Store, in-place purchases.

 

[Robospungo]

Good.

 

[Robospungo]

This is stupid. It's not like the App Store is a new development. iOS has always been locked down.

It’s not stupid. Lawmakers and regulators were late to act. But better late than never.

You can’t get a clearer example of violating antitrust and engaging in anti-competitive behaviour than these locked-down app stores.

There’s only 2 operating systems for phones (99.99% market share). It’s long overdue that this gets dealt with by regulators.

 

[Hessian]

> Does what's best for the consumer and for developer
> Gets charged a fine for doing the right thing.

Pretty stupid, EU.

Those jealous of the power seek to limit it. The more totalitarian the entity leans, the quicker their response. Russia first, EU next. USA not far behind based on rhetoric lately.

 

[Hessian]

It’s not stupid. Lawmakers and regulators were late to act. But better late than never.

You can’t get a clearer example of violating antitrust and engaging in anti-competitive behaviour than these locked-down app stores.

There’s only 2 operating systems for phones (99.99% market share). It’s long overdue that this gets dealt with by regulators.

Regulation is for those who seek to manipulate outcomes. Those seeking to manipulate outcomes seek the power that comes with said manipulation. Those seeking that level power are not looking out for your best interest.

You can choose to not purchase a phone. Power gained by such regulators is not as easily removed. Your votes with dollars are far quicker than those at the ballot.

 

[Hessian]

Google does not sell your data, they sell Ad “slots” based on your data, but not directly your data. They would be stupid to sell your data, and giving that precious database out of hands. In other words both companies Apple and Google use your data to improve their services the same way, but Apple plays the good guy in public.

Apple sees those purchasing its phones as services as customers. Google see companies buying ads as the customers. Tim Cook said it best, if you're not the customer you're the product. People are Googles product, companies are their customers.

You can enter the relationship knowing this, but most people do not recognize this key difference. Your post exhibits this misunderstanding of the relationship differences.

 

[iPadified]

AZ haven’t though, that’s the point.

Proof?

 

[MacBH928]

I have been following Apple for a long time, I still do not see any monopolistic actions. Everything Apple offers has a 1:1 alternative out there. In fact, I think Apple is the smaller player in near all markets they compete in except maybe iPads, Apple Watch, and AirPods

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

I am one of those people, although not a fanboy, and I totally agree with you. In fact, this is exactly what Apple did in China, and agreed to CCP rules.

 

[iPadified]

Good luck with that one Did you read the contract? Which ever civil servant agreed to 'best reasonable endeavours...' now has to prove what those are and why Astra-Zeneca did not employ 'best reasonable endeavours...'.

It is not like this was a great contract and it wasn't know already https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-was-warned-eus-astrazeneca-contract-lacked-teeth-documents/

No I did not but I have followed it in the news and the case is not so black and white. As I understand it is the too many doses was sent to UK and elsewhere instead of staying in EU so, EU as usual, was fooled.

That the company can fail a vaccine is obvious for anyone of minute knowledge of drug or vaccine development and therefore the clause "best reasonable endeavours". They would not have get sued for failing. AZ succeeded, somewhat at least, but chose not to deliver sufficiently to EU.

 

[goobot]

Technically

Technically that platform was for selling music , that is a different market to streaming music. As it was installed early in iOS a challenge against iTunes would be difficult as it could be cited as a reason why people bought into the ecosystem in the first instance.

I wouldn’t say streaming music vs buying it is a separate market no different than dealerships that sell and lease cars

 

[ForkHandles]

Of course, rules are often watered down to the point the lack real teeth to become merely recommendations; or may never get made even if there are compelling reasons for a common set of rules. Look at the EU's attempt the develop a framework for C19 vaccination certificates as an example.

Agree.

What it does well, it did well on, eh investing in projects.
It’s main problem is that it is not a reactionary organisation, it needs time to plan, discuss, coordinate, review, implement and evaluate everything it does. It didn’t have time, so it didn’t have the structure to work quickly.

 

[ForkHandles]

I wouldn’t say streaming music vs buying it is a separate market no different than dealerships that sell and lease cars

People have been buying music since the gramophone was invented. It is a very established market place with very well known names such as EMI, Geffen, polydor, island, vertigo, decca et al.
None of those suppliers stream music!
It’s a different market place.

 

[goobot]

People have been buying music since the gramophone was invented. It is a very established market place with very well known names such as EMI, Geffen, polydor, island, vertigo, decca et al.
None of those suppliers stream music!
It’s a different market place.

It different like smartphones are to dumb phones, and like dumb phones streaming will and has replaced the idea of selling music

 

[ForkHandles]

No I did not but I have followed it in the news and the case is not so black and white. As I understand it is the too many doses was sent to UK and elsewhere instead of staying in EU so, EU as usual, was fooled.

That the company can fail a vaccine is obvious for anyone of minute knowledge of drug or vaccine development and therefore the clause "best reasonable endeavours". They would not have get sued for failing. AZ succeeded, somewhat at least, but chose not to deliver sufficiently to EU.

When the Uk govt stitched AZ and Oxford university together they added a ‘ Britain first’ clause. All doses made by AZ in any territory had to go to the Uk.
In other words, we royally screwed the EU over.
the EU were unaware of this clause when they put their order in before us

 

[cyb3rdud3]

The EU have screwed up again, and are trying to deflect. Same shameful tricks they’ve been playing with lots of other activities not least Brexit.

 

[jimdoc]

And considering there are twice as many people in the EU than the US that's unlikely to happen 😂

~445 million in the EU; 332 million in the US. About 34% more…

 

[Kabeyun]

They own the store. How do you quantify their store-related costs and expenses since they are not exactly, directly paying themselves?

You seem to be focused on the word “commission.” I’m focused on this repeated “30%”.

 

[Michael Scrip]

It's been almost 6 years since Spotify sent emails pleading to their customers to stop using Apple's billing and switch to direct billing through Spotify themselves.

How did that work out? Are there still people paying the higher price through Apple's App Store? Are there no new customers signing up directly via the Spotify website?

Perhaps Spotify should fix those things first... like Netflix did.

Spotify urges iPhone customers to stop paying through Apple’s App Store

The Apple Music rival sends out an anti-iTunes PSA

www.theverge.com

 

[coffeeboat]

They aren't competitors, Spotify has lots of Music that I can't get on Apple Music and Vice Versa. And you can buy both. They are cross platform applications as well. There is the consumer choice.

Spotify and Apple Music aren't competitors, ooookay then!

Yet Spotify has doubled their subscriber base since 2017 and now has 150+ million subscribers. Apple Music, which you're saying has an unfair advantage, has less than half that many subscribers.

Completely irrelevant to whether or not its fair, since not all those subscribers will be using iPhones. Spotify also have plenty of other advantages to give them that lead, mainly the fact that they've been around for way longer internationally. But in the US, where iPhone usage is higher than average, Apple Music actually has more subscribers - weird!

If Spotify wants access to Apple's giant, very valuable userbase... then Apple should get something in return.

Having said all that... there is a way for Spotify to give nothing to Apple: have people sign up on their website.

Then Spotify gets ALL the money. You'd think Spotify would prefer that anyway... so they have your actual email address and credit card on file.

Apple got their money when I paid them £800 for a phone. It's mine now. They shouldn't be gatekeeping how other companies can sell their services to me.
Yes people can sign up on the website but that's missing the point - why should they have to? Why shouldn't Spotify be able to ask for your email and credit card through the app? You're saying Apple are entitled to a cut because they made the phone and now they own all the users? It's such a weird argument to me.

The simple fact is - Apple gains a real advantage when they can tell their competitors that any potential customer who just downloaded their app has to close the app back down, find the website, and sign up there (oh and you can't tell the customer that's what they have to do, they have to figure it out on their own). And if you want a slicker onboarding process, you need to give a big chunk of that subscription to Apple, every month. It's crazy that anyone is defending it.