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

[dogslobber]

EU looks out for the little guy.

 

[page3]

Proof?

I think you’ll find proof needs to come from the EU, after all they’re the ones making the accusations.

However seeing as you’ve asked, I’ll see if I can give a bit of context.

• EU leaders haggled for months over cost and didn't sign early contracts, despite AZ producing it not-for-profit.

• EU publicly claimed AZ were in violation of contract. AZ denied it. Then the Commission released the contract redacted, but they redacted it incorrectly which let people see the EU was lying and AZ was telling the truth.

• EU regulators reached same decision as UK regulators but much slower. At one point when asked why they still hadn't approved it, their answer was something like "AZ didn't contact us yet". Apparently proactively reaching out was not imaginable.

• Multiple EU leaders then claimed the vaccine didn't work, which turned out to be another lie.

• Then they briefly attempted to violate the supposedly sacrosanct and inviolable Northern Ireland protocol to stop AZ vaccine being exported from the EU (which didn't have any) to the UK (which had lots). Beyond making no sense at all this also showed the EU had been lying again for years during the Brexit negotiations, as they repeatedly claimed to be totally committed to NI peace process and would never accept anything that could lead to a border. All tossed out the window just weeks after the UK/EU transition period ended.

• EU repeatedly claimed to hate vaccine nationalism and find it totally unacceptable. Then they blocked export of AZ vaccine meant for Australia from Italy. Then they lied again and claimed the UK had blocked exports of vaccine materials to the EU, which had never happened.

• Then they started claiming the vaccine is dangerous, although according to AZ this is once again not supported by the data (similar to the claim it doesn't work).

They're lucky AZ is still willing to work with them at all.

 

[I7guy]

This.
Apple can leave the market if they find meeting regulatory requirements cost way too much. Nobody is needing Apple for anything.

Correct. Or they can fight it, the same way posters fight it, when told there is another operating system available for mobile phones.

 

[ForkHandles]

I think you’ll find proof needs to come from the EU, after all they’re the ones making the accusations.

However seeing as you’ve asked, I’ll see if I can give a bit of context.

• EU leaders haggled for months over cost and didn't sign early contracts, despite AZ producing it not-for-profit.

• EU publicly claimed AZ were in violation of contract. AZ denied it. Then the Commission released the contract redacted, but they redacted it incorrectly which let people see the EU was lying and AZ was telling the truth.

• EU regulators reached same decision as UK regulators but much slower. At one point when asked why they still hadn't approved it, their answer was something like "AZ didn't contact us yet". Apparently proactively reaching out was not imaginable.

• Multiple EU leaders then claimed the vaccine didn't work, which turned out to be another lie.

• Then they briefly attempted to violate the supposedly sacrosanct and inviolable Northern Ireland protocol to stop AZ vaccine being exported from the EU (which didn't have any) to the UK (which had lots). Beyond making no sense at all this also showed the EU had been lying again for years during the Brexit negotiations, as they repeatedly claimed to be totally committed to NI peace process and would never accept anything that could lead to a border. All tossed out the window just weeks after the UK/EU transition period ended.

• EU repeatedly claimed to hate vaccine nationalism and find it totally unacceptable. Then they blocked export of AZ vaccine meant for Australia from Italy. Then they lied again and claimed the UK had blocked exports of vaccine materials to the EU, which had never happened.

• Then they started claiming the vaccine is dangerous, although according to AZ this is once again not supported by the data (similar to the claim it doesn't work).

They're lucky AZ is still willing to work with them at all.

You couldn’t be less well informed.
When Uk govt stitched AZ and Oxford together it gave them £31m and put in a Brittan First clause.
the Eu gave them £23m for research.
the eu put in an order the day before Uk, however Britain First meant all supplies, wherever manufactured, went to the Uk

The eu, very poorly designed for crisis management, were left on the back foot. The eu is based on internationalism so they never thought about the benefits of Vaccine Nationalism to their 27 members, unlike the Uk, usand more recently India.
What happened next was messy and was born out of being locked out of the supply chain by the Uk and USA for AZ vaccine.
Ultimately no country is safe until all countries are safe by being vaccinated.

 

[Michael Scrip]

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.

It worked for Netflix... the largest video streaming service in the world. And it worked for Amazon Kindle... the largest e-book vendor in the world.

So why wouldn't it work for Spotify... the largest music streaming service in the world?

Apple built a nice playground. And apparently a lot of companies want to play in it. Agreed?

But these companies can't play for free. Apple must get something for it.

Maybe it shouldn't be 15% or 30%... but it's gotta be something.

In the physical world... you have to pay rent in the shopping mall before you can even start making money in your store. Or you sell your products to a retailer at a wholesale price and the store marks it up.

Or... these companies can simply go the website route and have direct access to their customers. That seems better for Spotify anyway. Then they'd have all the customer data and be in charge of handling all matters pertaining to billing and customer service. Leave Apple out of it completely.

Right now I can download the Spotify app to my iPhone and log into Spotify using the credentials I created outside the App Store. Then Apple gets nothing from me... while Spotify gets everything.

But Spotify wants more... they want direct customer billing *and* the slicker onboarding process of the Apple App Store.

Unfortunately that's not allowed at this point. We'll see if Apple will be forced to change their rules.

Looking back... what events led up to Netflix and Amazon Kindle leaving App Store billing? Did Governments get involved? It seemed to have worked out for Netflix and Amazon. Probably some backroom deals... handshakes... etc.

Though perhaps Spotify burned up any goodwill by complaining to Governments and demanding charges to be filed...

It's probably not the best idea to start fights and/or file lawsuits against the very same platform you want to be on...

 

[Shirasaki]

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?

Because Spotify is not big enough to be in the position to negotiate any deal with Apple?

 

[jlc1978]

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.

They allow companies to sell subscriptions outside of the App Store so they aren’t gatekeeping companies from offering services separately.

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.

Like any store, if you want to reach their customers they take a cut. Apple has a very lucrative customer base that Apple created and has value. Apple is entitled to make money off of that base, just like any other store.

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.

That slicker on boarding process is what Apple charges for and if you want to use it you pay. Apple could simply charge fees for placing an app in the App Store and per download for subscription apps, but that would mean paying upfront before you get any revenue and potentially not making it up with subscription revenue. Apple instead covers lets developers see what their market is like at very little cost and even lets them avoid any costs if they chose.

Spotify even gets ad revenue from free subscriptions without sharing it with Apple. They basically want all the advantages of the App Store and access to the customer base without paying anything beyond the developers fee.

I think Spotify is desperate to counter decreasing margins as competition in streaming heats up and sees this as an easy way to do it. They may find it to be a Phyrric victory.

 

[I7guy]

[...]Apple instead covers lets developers see what their market is like at very little cost and even lets them avoid any costs if they chose.
[...]

This is one of the best points I've seen made. The financial risk of failure for an app in the app store is nominal. Yeah you may have to buy a mac, spend time learning to code, but you are not putting your house on the line by becoming a dev and creating an app.

Maybe apple should get rid of the fees, but charge $100K to put an app in the app store. (That certainly would do wonders for the ecosystem /s).

 

[Ethosik]

Because Spotify is not big enough to be in the position to negotiate any deal with Apple?

What deal did Netflix get or Kindle get? All Spotify needs to do is have a screen like Netflix has.

 

[Shirasaki]

What deal did Netflix get or Kindle get? All Spotify needs to do is have a screen like Netflix has.

Yes, and Apple refuses to offer Spotify that “deal” so Spotify can do what Netflix and Amazon has been done. “Reader” app category is created because of Netflix and Amazon.

 

[rafark]

Once again, Apple does not have a 30% App Store commission.

Yes it does.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Did Apple come up with the term "reader" app because of Kindle ebooks?

But if Netflix is also considered a "reader" app... why isn't Spotify?

I'm not seeing much difference between streaming video and streaming audio.

If Apple defines a "reader app" as an app that gets its content and subscriptions from existing sources outside of Apple... then Netflix, Kindle, and Spotify all qualify for this.

In fact... Apple just needs to suck it up and let all these types of apps do their thing. Any app that gets its content from other parts of the wider internet... they need to be classified as this.

Apple isn't delivering Netflix movies or Kindle books from their servers... and they wouldn't be streaming Spotify music from their servers either.

And because of this... Apple isn't handling these companies' customers. These companies are solely responsible for acquiring customers, billing, and providing customer service. There will also be no way to sign up inside the app. Thus it is the companies' responsibility to get their customers to download the app and log in with their account.

Would that make Spotify happy?

Clearly Spotify is unhappy with Apple's terms.

So... what should the terms be?

We hear a lot of complaints... but not many solutions given.

 

[page3]

You couldn’t be less well informed.
When Uk govt stitched AZ and Oxford together it gave them £31m and put in a Brittan First clause.
the Eu gave them £23m for research.
the eu put in an order the day before Uk, however Britain First meant all supplies, wherever manufactured, went to the Uk

The eu, very poorly designed for crisis management, were left on the back foot. The eu is based on internationalism so they never thought about the benefits of Vaccine Nationalism to their 27 members, unlike the Uk, usand more recently India.
What happened next was messy and was born out of being locked out of the supply chain by the Uk and USA for AZ vaccine.
Ultimately no country is safe until all countries are safe by being vaccinated.

The EU order came many months after the UK. No amount of saying otherwise will change this fact. My comments stand.

Edited to add, AstraZeneca signed an agreement made back in May with the UK, which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the UK“. This was three months before the EU. The UK also invested resource and funds at that time.

With regards to Apple vs Spotify, unfortunately in my case Apple do not provide the solution I need (namely casting) and until they do they are not a suitable alternative.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I think you’ll find proof needs to come from the EU, after all they’re the ones making the accusations.

However seeing as you’ve asked, I’ll see if I can give a bit of context.

• EU leaders haggled for months over cost and didn't sign early contracts, despite AZ producing it not-for-profit.

• EU publicly claimed AZ were in violation of contract. AZ denied it. Then the Commission released the contract redacted, but they redacted it incorrectly which let people see the EU was lying and AZ was telling the truth.

• EU regulators reached same decision as UK regulators but much slower. At one point when asked why they still hadn't approved it, their answer was something like "AZ didn't contact us yet". Apparently proactively reaching out was not imaginable.

• Multiple EU leaders then claimed the vaccine didn't work, which turned out to be another lie.

• Then they briefly attempted to violate the supposedly sacrosanct and inviolable Northern Ireland protocol to stop AZ vaccine being exported from the EU (which didn't have any) to the UK (which had lots). Beyond making no sense at all this also showed the EU had been lying again for years during the Brexit negotiations, as they repeatedly claimed to be totally committed to NI peace process and would never accept anything that could lead to a border. All tossed out the window just weeks after the UK/EU transition period ended.

• EU repeatedly claimed to hate vaccine nationalism and find it totally unacceptable. Then they blocked export of AZ vaccine meant for Australia from Italy. Then they lied again and claimed the UK had blocked exports of vaccine materials to the EU, which had never happened.

• Then they started claiming the vaccine is dangerous, although according to AZ this is once again not supported by the data (similar to the claim it doesn't work).

They're lucky AZ is still willing to work with them at all.

Good summary. They are behaving like the client from hell, it is amazing indeed that AZ continues to deal with them.

 

[page3]

Good summary. They are behaving like the client from hell, it is amazing indeed that AZ continues to deal with them.

Thanks. I personally know someone on the Oxford research team and while she’s a Mac user and would no doubt have a valuable opinion on Apple vs Spotify, she too busy working all hours trying to save lives.

 

[ForkHandles]

The EU order came many months after the UK. No amount of saying otherwise will change this fact. My comments stand.

Edited to add, AstraZeneca signed an agreement made back in May with the UK, which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the UK“. This was three months before the EU. The UK also invested resource and funds at that time.

With regards to Apple vs Spotify, unfortunately in my case Apple do not provide the solution I need (namely casting) and until they do they are not a suitable alternative.

The EU put in an order many months after the Uk government stitched AZ and Oxford together, where UK added a Britain first clause in early May.

Uk subsequently put in an order for vaccine, once it has been created, one day after the EU, knowing that our Vaccine Nationalism would render the EU order pointless.

I think we agree on these timings. Which is why I am confused to see your earlier post blaming the EU for Vaccine Nationalism when clearly the UK started it. I don’t recall Pfizer, having any such tie ins to the EU or Germany, although I do recall the USA trying to séquestre all intellectual property from Pfizer.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

A last note following my previous post.

I am against dismantling the App Store. I think it’s a valuable service to iOS user as I am. I believe that in such eventuality is an Apple interpretation of a Potential regulation out of these cases, not a direct consequence. Apple will have a lot of profitable instruments that can use. Opening in app purchase processes to third parties out side the App Store, including digital services own does necessarily lead to a worst App Store experience. The digital matter is externally malleable.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

The EU put in an order many months after the Uk government stitched AZ and Oxford together, where UK added a Britain first clause in early May.

Uk subsequently put in an order for vaccine, once it has been created, one day after the EU, knowing that our Vaccine Nationalism would render the EU order pointless.

I think we agree on these timings. Which is why I am confused to see your earlier post blaming the EU for Vaccine Nationalism when clearly the UK started it. I don’t recall Pfizer, having any such tie ins to the EU or Germany, although I do recall the USA trying to séquestre all intellectual property from Pfizer.

Nope you are misinterpreting those clauses to suit your own narrative. The English Law based contract is more specific because ahem it is based on English Law There is a first big difference.

Further more that details in the contract not only covered the supply of vaccines but also the entire supply chain. So it is just a smarter and better contract.

It actually focussed on that the British supply chain will be appropriate and sufficient for the supply of the doses as purchased by the UK. With clauses that AZ would be on the hook for meeting shortfall, and also includes penalties if they don't. Again just a smarter and better contract but doesn't mean a British first clause at all.

And to totally finish it off, they thought about changing markets as well as in Brexit and already included provisioning for that such that the contract covered other manufacturing facilities.

The UK hasn't been the one trying interfere with this unlike the EU as @page3 has succinctly and clearly already covered but you seem to entirely ignore.

 

[ForkHandles]

Nope you are misinterpreting those clauses to suit your own narrative. The English Law based contract is more specific because ahem it is based on English Law There is a first big difference.

Further more that details in the contract not only covered the supply of vaccines but also the entire supply chain. So it is just a smarter and better contract.

It actually focussed on that the British supply chain will be appropriate and sufficient for the supply of the doses as purchased by the UK. With clauses that AZ would be on the hook for meeting shortfall, and also includes penalties if they don't. Again just a smarter and better contract but doesn't mean a British first clause at all.

And to totally finish it off, they thought about changing markets as well as in Brexit and already included provisioning for that such that the contract covered other manufacturing facilities.

The UK hasn't been the one trying interfere with this unlike the EU as @page3 has succinctly and clearly already covered but you seem to entirely ignore.

You’ve used a lot of words there and said nothing of any relevance. What is your point, ‘English law is smarter’?
Honestly it’s no wonder we voted to resign our membership with that level of analysis going on.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

You’ve used a lot of words there and said nothing of any relevance. What is your point, ‘English law is smarter’?
Honestly it’s no wonder we voted to resign our membership with that level of analysis going on.

Hmm so instead of arguing the points made you decide to argue the person making them

A grown up debate should focus on the points made. You don’t seem to be disputing them nor providing evidence to that effect.

I’m not even British so have no skin in this game other than that it means that I get kicked out of the country. But that doesn’t matter, it’s not about me. It’s about objectively looking at what is actually happening.

 

[ForkHandles]

Hmm so instead of arguing the points made you decide to argue the person making them

A grown up debate should focus on the points made. You don’t seem to be disputing them nor providing evidence to that effect.

I’m not even British so have no skin in this game other than that it means that I get kicked out of the country. But that doesn’t matter, it’s not about me. It’s about objectively looking at what is actually happening.

So you dislike the EU because they are kicking you out of England? You might just find that was our PM’s fault.

I would debate your points, but honestly, you haven’t made any, I refer you to my previous post.

 

[jlc1978]

A last note following my previous post.

I am against dismantling the App Store. I think it’s a valuable service to iOS user as I am.

I agree. It offers many benefits to users and developers.

I believe that in such eventuality is an Apple interpretation of a Potential regulation out of these cases, not a direct consequence.

A more interesting question will be what about other digital services? Let's say the EU rules a company cannot prevent another from advertising the availability of a product so that Spotify is allowed to put an in app link to their website. Will Sony and MS have to let developers put links to their website where you can but the game for less? Can they refuse to carry games that do so? Can Apple refuse Spotify's request to be on the App store or charge it a fee to be available? A B&M store can refuse to carry a product, and charge slotting fees.

A more outlandish consequence could be for Spotify. Can a label or songwriter add an ad to their music? A popular band could sell ad space with say a 5 or 10 sec intro or end piece to a song, and charge advertiser for it or simply advertise their website. If Spotify wants the right to put their purchase info on their Apple app why can't the same opportunity be provided to Spotify's content owners? After all, all the work went into creating the content, all Spotify does is host and stream it. Far fetched, but a creative lawyer may find a way to use the law in ways that the original authors never considered.

Apple will have a lot of profitable instruments that can use. Opening in app purchase processes to third parties out side the App Store, including digital services own does necessarily lead to a worst App Store experience. The digital matter is externally malleable.

As I have pointed out in previous posts, I think it could make things worse for developers, especially small ones, as Apple looks for ways to recoup the lost revenue.

 

[coffeeboat]

Apple built a nice playground. And apparently a lot of companies want to play in it. Agreed?

But these companies can't play for free. Apple must get something for it.

Maybe it shouldn't be 15% or 30%... but it's gotta be something.

Actually I don't agree. As I said before, they already got something when I paid for the phone. You're making the same points again and not really engaging with the arguments I've made against them, so I think we might have to just agree to disagree.

They allow companies to sell subscriptions outside of the App Store so they aren’t gatekeeping companies from offering services separately.

I said they are gatekeeping how other companies can sell services to me.

Like any store, if you want to reach their customers they take a cut. Apple has a very lucrative customer base that Apple created and has value. Apple is entitled to make money off of that base, just like any other store.

Why shouldn't Apple get a cut of everything I buy through the Amazon app then? Or from any of the food delivery apps? Why shouldn't Microsoft get a cut of every Steam game bought through the Steam app on Windows? After all, they're entitled to make money off of their very lucrative customer base of Windows users right? If you believe Apple are in the right here, and you're going to be intellectually honest with yourself, you have to believe all those things would be right too.

That slicker on boarding process is what Apple charges for and if you want to use it you pay. Apple could simply charge fees for placing an app in the App Store and per download for subscription apps, but that would mean paying upfront before you get any revenue and potentially not making it up with subscription revenue. Apple instead covers lets developers see what their market is like at very little cost and even lets them avoid any costs if they chose.

By "slicker onboarding process" I just mean Spotify being able to sign you up through the app rather than having to go to the website. That's something Spotify could write and implement themselves presumably, so why would Apple charge for it? If a developer doesn't want to write their own solution and would rather save time by using Apple's IAP system instead, then sure, Apple is more than entitled to whatever cut they ask for.

Spotify even gets ad revenue from free subscriptions without sharing it with Apple. They basically want all the advantages of the App Store and access to the customer base without paying anything beyond the developers fee.

Huh? Why would they share the revenue from ads that they sold with Apple?? I'm not sure what advantages of the App Store they really need - presumably if it wasn't a requirement for putting your app on iPhones they wouldn't use it.

 

[neomorpheus]

But these companies can't play for free. Apple must get something for it.

Holy lord, talk about blind worshiping.

Apple got "something" when you paid for that device.

Spotify is paying for their servers, internet access and everything else, why the heck do they need to hand Apple any money from that?

And if the problem is because the hold the app on their store, then provide an option to sideload the damn app.

 

[jlc1978]

I said they are gatekeeping how other companies can sell services to me.

And I disagree with that because developers are free to sell subscriptions outside of the IAP process, they just can't advertise them in app. Even so, a user can go to the app store and from there to the developers website, so IMHO Apple is hardly a gatekeeper that locks other ways of selling out.

Why shouldn't Apple get a cut of everything I buy through the Amazon app then? Or from any of the food delivery apps?

Apple decided to differentiate from subscription based services and selling goods.

Why shouldn't Microsoft get a cut of every Steam game bought through the Steam app on Windows? After all, they're entitled to make money off of their very lucrative customer base of Windows users right? If you believe Apple are in the right here, and you're going to be intellectually honest with yourself, you have to believe all those things would be right too.

Maybe because its a sale and not a subscription, or MS just decided not to have a closed eco system. Still, it's their call and they could have tried to if they wanted.

By "slicker onboarding process" I just mean Spotify being able to sign you up through the app rather than having to go to the website. That's something Spotify could write and implement themselves presumably, so why would Apple charge for it? If a developer doesn't want to write their own solution and would rather save time by using Apple's IAP system instead, then sure, Apple is more than entitled to whatever cut they ask for.

It's Apple's ecosystem and user base and they get to decide how to access it.

Huh? Why would they share the revenue from ads that they sold with Apple??

You missed my point. Spotify is able to access Apple's user base and use App Store resources for little more than the develop's fee to offer free ad based streams and make money off of that. Nothing wrong with that, but I think Spotify is being disingenuous to claim it's unfair that Apple wants to prevent them from signing up paying customers in app and still use Apple's resources to access the user base essentially for free.

I don't hear Spotify saying "Apple should let us sign people up in app and not take a cut but simply charge us a flat per download fee and for reviewing and approving our app when we update it."

They want to be, essence, a free rider on what Apple built.

Apple has cut out the middle man and significantly increased the share of revenue developers get as well as removing a lot of the risks and cost associated with bringing an app to market, as well as given developers access to a huge and lucrative market. If developers had to do things the old way, go through distributers to get to retailers, cover the costs associated with making the app available, and pay each person along the way they'd see a lot less than 70%.

30/15% may not be the right number, but 0/0% isn't either.

As I've said before, Apple could simply charge for things they do now as part of the annual developer fee, a move that would hurt small developers a lot more as they have to upfront cash with no certainty of any sales.

I'm not sure what advantages of the App Store they really need - presumably if it wasn't a requirement for putting your app on iPhones they wouldn't use it.

Uh - access to Apple's large user base so they can stream ads or sell subscriptions and make money?