EU Prepares to Charge Apple in Antitrust Dispute With Spotify

[Rob_2811]

That's barely a scratch that doesn't even require a band-aid, but yeah they've been fined for various things in various countries looking for a money-grab.

Apple won't just be able to throw money at this.

If found guilty there won't just be a fine there will be a series of requirements for them to comply with to ensure they are not future breaches.

Same as the sanctions imposed on Google in the three EU cases against them.

 

[farewelwilliams]

I can ONLY get apps for iOS from one place - the App Store.

THAT is a complete monopoly.

Nintendo eShop is a monopoly then.
Microsoft Xbox Store is a monopoly then.
Playstation Store is a monopoly then.
Oculus Quest Store is a monopoly then.
Tesla is a monopoly then.
Roku is a monopoly then.
Sony Play Memories for cameras is a monopoly then.
Samsung Family Hub apps for refridgerators is a monopoly then.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Apple/Google are a part of a duopoly which controls access to billions of devices we depend on in our daily lives.

Android makes up 86% of the marketshare.
Android lets you install third party app stores.
Therefore 86% of the market has access to third party app stores.

 

[ctyrider]

**** the protections.

Hard to argue with such well thought out and articulated argument. Luckily, those protections do exist and will continue to exist, whether you like it or not.

 

[I7guy]

Wow thanks man what an honour, too bad we can’t see eye to eye on basic customer rights

Basic customer rights? Nobody is forcing anybody to buy an iphone. That is basic customer rights, right there.

 

[ctyrider]

Nintendo eShop is a monopoly then.
Microsoft Xbox Store is a monopoly then.
Playstation Store is a monopoly then.
Oculus Quest Store is a monopoly then.
Tesla is a monopoly then.
Roku is a monopoly then.
Sony Play Memories for cameras is a monopoly then.
Samsung Family Hub apps for refridgerators is a monopoly then.

I am sure that's the argument Apple will be attempting to make in court, but the argument is weak.

None of those things are a massive general-purpose computing platform that is iOS. You can come up with all sorts of examples of specialized consoles and single-purpose appliances - they are not analogous to what we are dealing with here.

Microsoft was found in violation of US Sherman Act in 2000 for very similar practices to what Apple is doing. We will see what happens with Spotify case, but I see the chances of courts ruling against Apple to be 50/50.

 

[I7guy]

I am sure that's the argument Apple will be attempting to make in court, but the argument is weak.

None of those things are a massive general-purpose computing platform that is iOS. You can come of all sorts of examples of specialized consoles and single-purpose appliances - they are not analogous to what we are dealing with here.

Microsoft was found in violation of US Sherman Act in 2000 for very similar practices to what Apple is doing. We will see what happens with Spotify case, but I see the chances of courts ruling against Apple to be 50/50.

Maybe explain exactly how the Microsoft case dovetails with Apple in 2021, because as an arm-chair lawyer I don't see a similarity.

 

[ctyrider]

Maybe explain exactly how the Microsoft case dovetails with Apple in 2021, because as an arm-chair lawyer I don't see a similarity.

You don't see any similarities between the way Microsoft leveraged Windows to advantage their native services (Internet Explorer) over competitors (Netscape).. and the way Apple leverages App Store rules to advantage TV and Music over say Netflix and Spotify? Maybe try harder?

 

[Alan Wynn]

Annoying app behavior rules that often don't have anything to do with user experience and aren't applied consistently at all. Some are unwritten. The least consistently applied rules have to do processing payments and similarity to other apps.

Not sure which payment processing rules you mean, but I do think that they should have a pre-clearance process. One should be able to submit a description of an app, and mock-ups of it UI and get told: No, that is definitely not going to be accepted, yes, if you produce an app that looks like this and does what you say it will do, it will be accepted into the store (assuming it meets the normal technical review process) or we think it might be problematic, but you are welcome to submit it for a full formal review.

You really don't know if they'll accept your app until after you've built the entire thing.

That will always be true, as there are issues that could only be found during code review, but with pre-clearance, at least one can be told no at a much earlier point.

Also, lack of choice for tooling, and Apple's own tooling is bad. Xcode is the worst IDE I've used since Eclipse, and their GUI APIs suck unless you use React Native and skip all that.

My experiences differ from yours, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Excessive censorship too, but that didn't affect me personally. I can understand them having rules about speech, but they went overboard and did a lot of witch-hunting against other devs. Like when they took down a Civil War game because, of course, the Confederate side in it has a Confederate flag in its historical context.

Here is where I agree with your position that some of their decisions are dumb, but think they have the right to make them. If they had a much larger share of their market (like Facebook, Google, Twitter or YouTune do), I think there is a stronger case against content based speech restrictions.

All things considered, I'd rather develop apps for web.

Totally reasonable. Completely possible to do most applications this way and has certain advantages.

 

[hot-gril]

Microsoft was found in violation of US Sherman Act in 2000 for very similar practices to what Apple is doing. We will see what happens with Spotify case, but I see the chances of courts ruling against Apple to be 50/50.

In hindsight, even that ruling didn't change anything for the better. Didn't even change what they intended to change.

Tech moves fast. Microsoft naturally lost its dominant position to competitors with a better vision, the way it's supposed to be.

 

[ctyrider]

Not sure which payment processing rules you mean, but I do think that they should have a pre-clearance process. One should be able to submit a description of an app, and mock-ups of it UI and get told: No, that is definitely not going to be accepted, yes, if you produce an app that looks like this and does what you say it will do, it will be accepted into the store (assuming it meets the normal technical review process) or we think it might be problematic, but you are welcome to submit it for a full formal review.

Meh. Pre-clearance or not, as long as Apple remains the sole judge, jury and executioner of what developers are able to distribute on iOS - this will always continue to be a problem.

The only way to mitigate this is to force Apple to allow developers to publish iOS apps outside of App Store. Like you can do on Android, or MacOS, or Windows.

 

[hot-gril]

Here is where I agree with your position that some of their decisions are dumb, but think they have the right to make them. If they had a much larger share of their market (like Facebook, Google, Twitter or YouTune do), I think there is a stronger case against content based speech restrictions.

It's not that I don't think they have the right, I just don't want to support it. Or deal with it if it ever bites me.

Apple is a big PR target. If customers or someone powerful is screaming at Apple to take down apps for speech, they'll do it without a second thought. It's understandable from their perspective, but I don't like it.

 

[hot-gril]

Hard to argue with such well thought out and articulated argument. Luckily, those protections do exist and will continue to exist, whether you like it or not.

Sorta, but they're so weak that I'm not all that concerned.

 

[Shirasaki]

Get a computer if you want complete control. iOS is fine how it is.

As a developer I'm more inclined to support iOS because of how hard it is to pirate apps. If piracy was allowed on iOS (which is essentially what you're asking) then the only reason to support iOS is taken away.

and then I switch to being a web developer. Can't pirate webapps.

Yes. Let’s turn iPhone back into iPhone (2007) days, where only web app is allowed. No native app support. It should work fine for a LOT of people I believe. /s

 

[hot-gril]

Meh. Pre-clearance or not, as long as Apple remains the sole judge, jury and executioner of what developers are able to distribute on iOS - this will always continue to be a problem.

The only way to mitigate this is to force Apple to allow developers to publish iOS apps outside of App Store. Like you can do on Android, or MacOS, or Windows.

That's precisely the problem and why I terminated my relationship with Apple. I like my new job better. Other devs, big and small, accept it. If I had different preferences like Alan, I probably would too. Choice for everyone is good.

 

[hot-gril]

Yes. Let’s turn iPhone back into iPhone (2007) days, where only web app is allowed. No native app support. It should work fine for a LOT of people I believe. /s

It unironically would work fine if Apple would support PWAs properly instead of intentionally limiting them. Web standards have progressed a lot since 2007. If Apple went all-in on web, they could support even more native functionality. React Native is living proof of this concept; half the apps you use are probably made in that.

Just wouldn't work for performance-sensitive things. JavaScript is a total hog, despite what anyone says, but most apps don't do a whole lot of processing, so it doesn't matter usually.

 

[I7guy]

You don't see any similarities between the way Microsoft leveraged Windows to advantage their native services (Internet Explorer) over competitors (Netscape).. and the way Apple leverages App Store rules to advantage TV and Music over say Netflix and Spotify? Maybe try harder?

Maybe they aren’t the same? Not even close?

 

[farewelwilliams]

I am sure that's the argument Apple will be attempting to make in court, but the argument is weak.

None of those things are a massive general-purpose computing platform that is iOS. You can come up with all sorts of examples of specialized consoles and single-purpose appliances - they are not analogous to what we are dealing with here.

Microsoft was found in violation of US Sherman Act in 2000 for very similar practices to what Apple is doing. We will see what happens with Spotify case, but I see the chances of courts ruling against Apple to be 50/50.

The "general purpose computing" argument by Epic is a weaker argument.

The Playstation Vita has a 3G cellular chip in a portable device. It has a music player, can watch netflix, has mapping software, social apps like Twitter, has an internet browser, play games, etc...basically everything a phone can do but somehow that's not general purpose computing? Hell, it can even make phone calls with Skype.

The next Nintendo portable console is rumored to have 5G capabilities too.

 

[hot-gril]

Maybe they aren’t the same? Not even close?

Company has a platform, in the form of an OS, and allows third-party apps on it but competes with their own first-party apps that don't play by the same rules.

I think they're the same thing and defend the company's right in both cases

 

[I7guy]

Company has a platform, in the form of an OS, and allows third-party apps on it but competes with their own first-party apps that don't play by the same rules.

I think they're the same thing and defend the company's right in both cases

In how many cases? One? Microsoft did the same thing in concept, excepting the differences were payoffs under the table...which makes it totally different and also Apples' infringement is alleged.

 

[hot-gril]

In how many cases? One? Microsoft did the same thing in concept, excepting the differences were payoffs under the table...which makes it totally different and also Apples' infringement is alleged.

I don't understand, what payoffs under the table? "Acting as both a player and referee to deliberately disadvantage other app developers" (from the article) accurately describes both scenarios, at least in a cynical POV.

 

[Alan Wynn]

It's not that I don't think they have the right, I just don't want to support it. Or deal with it if it ever bites me.

I got that. I was not arguing that you felt differently, just going a bit further saying that I do not think it even becomes a problem until someone has over at least 75% of the market.

Apple is a big PR target. If customers or someone powerful is screaming at Apple to take down apps for speech, they'll do it without a second thought. It's understandable from their perspective, but I don't like it.

As long as it is not currently favored speech, you are correct.

 

[Alan Wynn]

In hindsight, even that ruling didn't change anything for the better.

Yup.

Didn't even change what they intended to change.

Agreed.

Tech moves fast. Microsoft naturally lost its dominant position to competitors with a better vision, the way it's supposed to be.

I am curious when you think they lost their dominant position, and to whom? I see two things that combined to make them much less important.

The public internet (in particular vs. MSN), with web applications and search.

The rise of smart phones with iOS/iPadOS being the critical starting point.

I had a friend on the PowerPoint team. They had an iOS version complete, but were not allowed to release it until Satya Nadella took over. They were first forced to produce a version for Windows based tablets that never worked that well. The big loss for MicroSoft was that it took so long that people started using KeyNote/Pages/Numbers and Google Slides/Docs/Sheets and realized they did not need MS Office. They still have a large share of the corporate office application, but no where near what it was.

 

[Michael Scrip]

These solutions do not appease those who complain loudest and just make the experience worse for those of us that prefer things as they are.

Sure. Like I said... I was just exploring some alternatives.

We all know what problems some developers have. But no one seems to offer potential solutions. Like... what Apple would actually have to do if they are legislated to.

The way some people talk around here... they envision anti-trust crushing Apple's entire business model.

For the record... I'm fine with the App Store as is. But I'm just a humble iPhone user. I'm not a billion-dollar VBucks vendor or E-Book seller or streaming media service...

😎

 

[Tech198]

I wish Apple allowed an alternative to load applications on IOS (not developer mode). Yes, this could expose users to malicious applications that could cause them harm, but users could still chose to only load applications from the Apple store. We can load any application we want on MacOS, Windows or Linux, ... just not IOS.

Apple locks down iOS, better for users, but then also makes it more of a target to be 'anti' this. Kinda makes you think Apple didn't know what it was heading into