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 to Investigate Apple Over Spotify's Antitrust Complaint
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please, people are forced by Apple to use their App Store, not that they want to. Apple is the one that is greedy here as the App Store has no benefit and is worse for consumers as we are not free to install whatever we want to install.
I would be happy if Apple got rid of the Apple store and allow users to install whatever they want like I can do on my Mac and PC.
LoL, I don't care.
WOWyou have don't understand this subject at all. You don't understand how EU works, I hope you don't live in Europe because it would make it even more embarrassing.
I do live in the EU (as evidenced by my numerous references to “here in the UK” in my previous posts) and I do understand how it works...I just think it is an utterly ridiculous system which does more harm than good!
This article (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.thejournal.ie/apple-tax-ireland-7-4241938-Sep2018/?amp=1) states that Ireland offered tax breaks to Apple but the EU ruled they were illegal...hence my point that the EU shouldn’t be allowed to determine taxation policy in a member state. I know that it can...I’m just saying that I don’t think that it should be and that not allowing a member state to set their own tax policy to entice corporations to their country is - again in my opinion - anti-competitive as I believe it amounts to something akin to “price fixing”...NOT price fixing...just something like it.
If you live in the EU (your profile doesn’t say) and you like the EU then all good...I can’t say you’re wrong...I just hate the EU and all it stands for...and I believe that, like you, I am entitled to my opinion. However, what is fact is that Apple paid all the taxes it was asked to by the Irish government...it was the EU and not Ireland that said Apple owed more.
You want apple to get rid of the App Store
. The App Store and quality of apps because of it, is one of the tentpoles of owning an iOS device.
Do you even have an iOS device?
You missed the point entirely with a strawman argument. Come back when you learn what that is.
Just as a brief aside, and apologies for de-railing the thread, but am I the only one who gets frustrated with a seemingly ever-growing group of people whose only rebuttal for an opinion (or even facts) is to respond with personal slurs?
When challenged to provide a counter-argument (or even facts) they either simply continue with the personal comments or simply refuse to engage! I have witnessed this in real life and online numerous times and, after pondering the subject for a while, I think I may have found a potential reason why...
By submitting their own facts or citations they are admitting that facts are an important (if not crucial) part of establishing the truth. In doing so they also establish that the other person’s facts have to be admitted as evidence - evidence that could eventually prove them wrong!
So rather than try to prove they are right they would rather ensure that they aren’t proved wrong...because, however much we may disagree with them, we cannot deny them their opinion. It seems somewhat of a Phyrric victory to me...be to each their own I guess. I just wish that these people would properly join in a discussion with an open mind and actually contribute something meaningful and, you never know, change some minds along the way!
Again, sorry for the temporary de-railment but I do wish more people on this forum (and others) would engage in conversation rather than simply say “OMG you’re so stupid”. I think it would benefit us all...
Note: I have stated my opinions on this thread and others but I will openly say that my mind can be changed...so this is an offer to all those that disagree with me to enter into a conversation, a civil conversation, and present me with your arguments. I will listen...I will consider...and I may change my mind and agree with you.
When challenged to provide a counter-argument (or even facts) they either simply continue with the personal comments or simply refuse to engage! I have witnessed this in real life and online numerous times and, after pondering the subject for a while, I think I may have found a potential reason why...
By submitting their own facts or citations they are admitting that facts are an important (if not crucial) part of establishing the truth. In doing so they also establish that the other person’s facts have to be admitted as evidence - evidence that could eventually prove them wrong!
So rather than try to prove they are right they would rather ensure that they aren’t proved wrong...because, however much we may disagree with them, we cannot deny them their opinion. It seems somewhat of a Phyrric victory to me...be to each their own I guess. I just wish that these people would properly join in a discussion with an open mind and actually contribute something meaningful and, you never know, change some minds along the way!
Again, sorry for the temporary de-railment but I do wish more people on this forum (and others) would engage in conversation rather than simply say “OMG you’re so stupid”. I think it would benefit us all...
Note: I have stated my opinions on this thread and others but I will openly say that my mind can be changed...so this is an offer to all those that disagree with me to enter into a conversation, a civil conversation, and present me with your arguments. I will listen...I will consider...and I may change my mind and agree with you.
Ouch.
You once again proved that you don't understand how EU works. EU Commission's report was very clear and it makes irrelevant and pointless all the things you've said.
Anyway you only managed to prove my initial point. I mentioned the Ireland case and you automatically started to make irrelevant claims.
I like the truth not the EU.
I respect myself enough that you wont see posts from me where I share my irrelevant feeling(just to waste time) and state multiple times I could be wrong here when a simple google search makes your entire post absolutely unnecessary.
Last edited:
BuffaloTF isn’t making a straw man argument. He isn’t refuting your original point by changing it...he is simply stating that, while you are correct that there is no ability for Apps to bypass the iTunes billing via an in-app button to divert to the company website to sign up, there exists an alternative (important word) for App developers who wish to not pay Apple a commission and have people sign up via their website.
A counter-argument is not the same thing as a straw man argument...
[doublepost=1557394044][/doublepost]
As for the “ouch”...I agree...I hope to no longer be part of the EU very soon!
The article I linked to says that even the Irish Department of Finance believes that the EU ruling was wrong...I don’t see how linking to an article which states that the people who determine who much tax is owed said themselves that the EU was wrong and are appealing it is either “pointless” or “irrelevant”...and further I was linking to somebody else’s claims (the Irish Government in this case)...not making my own in this post.
And your final point...well...my feelings are not irrelevant to me...but they may be to you. Likewise your feelings and opinions may be irrelevant to me. If feelings and opinions were banned from this forum then it would be a ghost town! Yes I do state that I could be wrong...that’s an invitation for a discussion. I clearly did do a Google search and found an article that backed up what I said. I’m sure I could have found an article that backs up your position as well...but why am I obliged to research an opposing position (your position) just to prove you right?? You want to prove me wrong...the onus is on you!
I have provided a source for my opinion...you are asking me to provide a source for yours...how strange!!
That's absolutely irrelevant, they signed a treaty and they agreed with certain terms regarding Competition at the EU free market level.
The EU Commission was the only one that was right in this situation that's why neither Ireland or Apple were able to do anything about it. The end.
Astonishing.
My point is backed up by the outcome of the situation. Wake up, we are in 2019.
That's why I see no reason to share them, oh and because I have real arguments and that's all I need.
Last edited:
Good lord! You do realise that laws are fluid and dynamic and are challenged all the time don’t you? By not allowing people to challenge laws through appeals and due process you are creating a totalitarian state...not a democracy! If an appeal is turned down then fair enough...but you seem to be implying that nobody should be allow to challenge a legal ruling based on unique circumstances...and that, my European friend, is quite scary to me!! :/
Plus the fundamental point of my argument that you seem to be ignoring is that you claim that Apple didn’t pay what they owed...they DID...twice!! They paid what Ireland said they owed initially...and then when the EU over-rules Ireland...they paid that amount too! Ireland was the one that didn’t abide by the EU rules...not Apple...
That's irrelevant.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with EU's rules regarding competition on the free EU market and feelings that come from a limited understanding of the situation don't count. The end.
Now you are just twisting things. Apple was forced by the EU commission to pay the rest of the taxes they owed.
Anyway both Apple and Ireland were wrong and were proven wrong by the EU commission. The end.
After you were caught not respecting the rules and the laws you have no moral authority to suggest that they are wrong and they should be changed.
Last edited:
You quoted me talking about charges. You can view that yourself, I’m not sure what’s confusing.
I also don’t know why you posted more of the TOS. Do I need to copy and paste my last reply verbatim? Because I provided you with how it works.
It was a strawman argument.
I simply stated that Apple should not get a cut of Netflix subscriptions on iOS.
This was countered by yes they should because Apple provide the subscription mechanism and merchant services.
Here in lies the issue. Apple forbids companies to use their own subscription in iOS apps.
Then said person comes in and tries to argue that Apple does allow this but changed the playing field to add some small print that *only allowed in browser. Hence the strawman when we are discussing in App subscriptions and Apples cut.
Again, you’re making an accusation using words you don’t understand. Last time it was using “facetious” in a sentence. This time it is “straw man”. This isn’t a set up. This isn’t a hypothetical intentionally created to defeat you.
This is reality that just came and defeated you, not a theory. Just because Spotify makes it intentionally difficult to do, doesn’t mean other companies aren’t intelligent. Look at Netflix, which does exactly this. Spotify gives you a 30 digit random-character username to fumble with rather than include a register username page in the app. They’re a poorly-run company, so this should come to no surprise that they’re too dumb to figure out what others easily have done.
You are not allowed to have subscription buttons in Apps. That is why netflix pulled out of subscriptions in iOS apps.
The streamlined process is just not there,
[doublepost=1557397800][/doublepost]
Go look them up and come back when you understand. Your arguments hold no water. There is no point conversing with a strawman argument. Apple does not allow Netflix to offer subscriptions in app period. Yet you go on a strawman talking about how it is possible. For that reason I am just going to ignore you.
[doublepost=1557398068][/doublepost]
It is against Apples terms and conditions. Perhaps you would like to quote Apple as to where it is allowed.
Apple has made its position very clear.
I just linked you the part of the TOS that does not allow you to use email as a way to encourage a subscription purchase outside of the app for multi platform apps. Not sure why it’s hard to understand that
This is the most nonsensical statement repeated in these forums. I don't get the magical characteristics about iPhones that bestow an obligation of Apple to make them work however someone on the Internet says they must. Personally, if a product doesn't work the way I want it to work, I DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT! How difficult is that for people to understand? Or is there some secret Apple mafia out there forcing people to buy iPhones?
Good grief!
Thats a poor argument. If the only way to change a company was by me personally not buying from that company I would have no companies to buy from.
I just linked you the part of the TOS that does not allow you to use email as a way to encourage a subscription purchase outside of the app for multi platform apps. Not sure why it’s hard to understand that
Then I guess Netflix better get banned from the App Store. And I better get a ticket for going 31 in a posted 30... or, maybe, the emails aren’t a problem.
Go look them up? I just defined the word in my reply! And in the other I gave you an antonym.
Netflix doesn’t offer subscriptions in the app, and the button to do so was removed last year after having been there forever. I never said they did either of these things at any point. I highlighted that they’ve made it easy to do so without it. And it’s consistent to the signup process on Android too. And to avoid problems with both, their “Help” screen has their customer service *call you* to walk you right thru it. So, again, Spotify is electing to make it more difficult than it actually is.
And there we have it! Ireland/Apple signed a treaty and agreed with certain terms in order to be allowed to enter a certain marketplace. As they signed that treaty they shouldn’t really complain about the terms and should accept the EU’s decision. Now let’s swap a few words...
Spotify signed a contract and agreed certain terms in order to be allowed to enter a certain marketplace. As they signed the contract they shouldn’t really complain about the terms and should accept Apple’s decision...
See what I did there??
[doublepost=1557416845][/doublepost]
I am not a developer so perhaps one of the forum members who is a developer could chime in here...is there anything in the Developer T&Cs/TOS which prevents you from offer sign-up routes/special offers in your own, private email communications with your customers via email and entirely outside of the App Store?? I find that hard to believe...
Edit: I see that ipponrg actually quoted part of the ToS which shows exactly that...and I admit that I am surprised by that...but it’s there in black and white! I understand why Apple wouldn’t want to lose revenue...but to try to control what a company communicates to its customers in private email communications is definitely overreach in my opinion!
So what about ads? I’m not a Spotify user...does the app show video/graphic ads or stream audio ads? Is there any restrictions on the content of those ads because Spotify could argue that it streams the same ads to all free users regardless of how they signed up and what platform they were listening on...does the ToD mention that at all?
Last edited:
Thankfully Apple, consumers and developers all would laugh at your idea.
- Thanks to the App store, the price of apps has plummeted. Most, 85%, are FREE.
- Thanks to the App store, the nearly one BILLION iOS users have a secure platform where apps are screened for security and privacy. Any problems with the App you downloaded and Apple gives you a refund directly. You never need to share your private information with the developer
- Thanks to the App store, a one person developer anywhere in the world can pay a $100 and have instant access to close to a BILLION people anywhere in the world, and all the developer has to do is worry about their App. Apple screens the customers, takes care of all billing, and spends the billions to maintain the platform that makes it all possible. Those many hundreds of thousands of developers couldn't exist without the App store.
- Thanks to the App store the developer community has raked in close to 150 BILLION dollars!
But Apple DID respect the law! They were told by Ireland you have to pay X. They paid X. Then the EU came along and said you have to pay Y extra...and they paid Y extra. They were never “forced”...they were told...and complied...TWICE!!
Ok, I don’t know where you live...but let’s say you have an accountant...a reputable one...one who is supposed to know taxation law in your country. So you hand over your accounts and then your accountant - your source of authority - does what they do and says “You owe 10k in tax”. You say “OK no problem and you pay the 10k. Then...some time later...the Tax Agency in your country writes to you and says “Actually...your accountant was wrong...you actually owe an additional 10k”. The first thing that most people would do is query that. The second thing that they would do once it had been confirmed that the Tax Agency was right (anybody can make a mistake) would be to pay the balance. Do you know what wouldn’t be the third thing they did...or even the fourth thing...or the fifth...or the thousandth thing? They wouldn’t accept any blame or culpability and they wouldn’t feel any guilt!
When you are told by an authority on the subject (the Irish Government in the case of Apple) that you owe a certain amount of taxes...then you accept that as being fact owing to the position of authority of the person telling you the information. Sure, you may ask them to double check if it seems overly high or low...but if they assure you then you go with it. Nobody will not accept their accountants figures unless they personally and independently verify them with the tax authority...that’s madness! You make an assumption that the qualified individual/firm (or government who actually created the tax policy on Apple’s case) knows what they are doing and you pay as instructed.
So tell me, in the scenario above, would you accept culpability if your accountant made an error - or a misinterpretation of tax law - and you were held legally responsible?
Unfortunately I can’t go deeper into my politcal views on this as I’m sure my comments would be deleted because of the PRSI rules...which I understand...but the notion that simply being found guilty of breaking a law means that a) the law must be “just” and b) that - as a “law breaker” - you have no right to even campaign to have it changed it borderline regressive! All I will say in this regard...and I know that I may well get my post deleted because of it...is “Brunei”..:
Last edited:
Would users care? It's not like Spotify is offering any incentive to users to sign up outside the app. Who's going to type in a URL to a website when they can just touch the subscribe button?
[doublepost=1557420187][/doublepost]
Hardly a refutation of my statement. If you don't like the way a product works, don't buy it. If you willing buy it knowing it doesn't work a certain way, you have grounds to complain that you've been "forced" to buy the product or "forced" to use it in the way it was designed and advertised. It's even sillier to make this statement when there are so many obvious alternative products that do support the features you want.