EU to Investigate Apple Over Spotify's Antitrust Complaint

[truthertech]

Just because Apple sets the rules doesn't mean they are not anti-competitive. Hence the EU's decision to investigate the situation. Apple will have to justify treating digital goods differently than other services or physical goods; something that I personally don't believe and that you can't rationally justify either (and no, their store their rulez is not rational).

Actually, the issue of digital versus physical goods and services won't be an issue before the EU as no one disputes that Apple has the right to not be involved in those areas. Otherwise, the EU would be considering whether Apple should be forced to charge Uber, Amazon, etc., for the physical goods and services that are sold through their Apps.

The actual issue raised, improperly IMO, by Spotify is whether Apple can build a store and then sell a product in it as a lesser price than its competitors? If Apple didn't sell Apple Music, then this particular issue wouldn't be before the EU.

Lastly, when you claim it is ""for a company to be able set the rules for the products that are sold in their stores, you do realize that is exactly how it is done and has been done for most of humanity? You may not agree with it, but that is the essence of capitalism and free markets. If you and I get together today with a group of venture capitalists and decide to offer a music streaming business with an App, we don't get to tell Google and Apple what they get to charge us to use their App stores, any more than we get to dictate to Macrumors to use their site to advertise.

 

[The Phazer]

I’m sure I’m not.

That's not really relevant. You are wrong.

Does Spotify sell a subscriptions on its website?

Can’t be wrong about that.

Yes, they do, but the basis of the antitrust complaint is that they are not allowed to link to their website in app or take payments through a credit card in app, because the App Store terms prohibit this. So users have to guess you can go to the Spotify app, and that effects take up.

If you want to use apples platform for a digital subscription you will go through apple.

And the fact that you have no choice without Apple barring you from telling people what they are is the issue.

If they can do it substantially cheaper they don’t need apple do they?

They have their website.

Is apple barring them from offering a recurring subscription for their own website?

No, they don’t.

Apple bars them from informing users who download the Spotify app that it's possible to subscribe on Spotify's website. That's the primary basis for the complaint.

 

[FFR]

You can sell digital goods via transactional and subscription mechanics on Android without using Google Play. Spotify is a good example of this - if you open the Spotify app you get sent to a signup form on Android, unlike iOS. Amazon run their Comixology store and let you pay via Paypal or credit card on Android for comics, but on iOS you can't do that, you've got to figure out that you need to go to the Comixology website, buy the books there (or subscribe to their unlimited service) and then come back and log in to the iOS app. And Comixology can't tell you in app that this is the process.

Yes android is more lax when it comes to everything.

As you put it apple is fair when it comes to recurring digital subscriptions they don’t allow it with any of their developers.

 

[FFR]

No but they are barring them from making any mention of it in software they have written for Apple devices.

Are they barring them from selling a subscription on their website?

 

[78Bandit]

Uber, Amazon, eBay, etc. are apps with physical goods and physical services. None of them uses iTunes as a payment portal.

If they did apple would take a cut.

Spotify is not selling a physical good or physical service like Uber
It’s digital and it’s recurring, if Spotify wants to sell a recurring digital subscription through iTunes it’s going to be 30% for the first year and 15% after that. Just like everyone else and just like on android.

Apple isn’t forcing Spotify to do anything. Spotify sells a subscription through their website and are welcome to do so in the app store if they follow apples guidelines, like every other app developer.

Serious question. Does Spotify use Google to collect and remit payments? I know Google Play offers similar commission rates for developers who choose to have payments go through Google, but I was under the impression Spotify linked to and used their own subscription service to handle payments.

The digital vs. physical distinction is arbitrary. True, they don't use iTunes as a payment portal, but that is what Spotify is asking for themselves as well.

 

[TVOR]

No they don't.

https://artistscollectingsociety.org/information-artists/

Artists have a resale right and can take fees under European law.

Well you learn something new every day...and in this case it's actually something utterly ridiculous! But it seems like it exists so...yeah...ok....European law to the rescue of artists who want to sell their art and then take a further commission if somebody makes money from a secondary sale! Talk about entitlement!

When you make a piece of art, you decide how much you want for it. You factor in your time, your materials, an amount for your skill...and you set a price that you are happy with. If somebody else, through luck or design, manages to sell your work for double what you originally sold it for, why on earth should you get a commission on that increased price?? You set your price originally...be happy with it! If I get a job that pays, let's say 40k per year...and my work earns the company 80k per year...should I be entitled to extra? Of course not...I set my price (my salary) and it doesn't matter how much the company makes off the back of my work...

In any case, that website doesn't seem to indicate that the artists retains any kind of ownership/rights to the work, just that they are due a commission from any resale. I realise that it might seem like a subtle distinction, but it's quite important.

Edit: Also, what about if the artist does the work on commission? Surely they don't retain any rights to any kind of royalty/commission on future sales in that scenario?? That would be like a decorator being able to charge you a percentage of the sale value of your house that you hired them to decorate! I swear...the world is going more insane by the day if artists have a claim on resale of commissioned work!

 

[truthertech]

Walmart doesn't operate in Europe. If you want to sell in Europe, you have to follow the rules.

More fake news. Better tell that to the 160K employees they have in the UK working in over 600 stores. LOL.

 

[Rob_2811]

Are they barring them from selling a subscription on their website?

Are you just going to keep posting the same thing over and over again ?

 

[falainber]

Uber, Amazon, eBay, etc. are apps with physical goods and physical services. None of them uses iTunes as a payment portal.

If they did apple would take a cut.

Spotify is not selling a physical good or physical service like Uber
It’s digital and it’s recurring, if Spotify wants to sell a recurring digital subscription through iTunes it’s going to be 30% for the first year and 15% after that. Just like everyone else and just like on android.

Apple isn’t forcing Spotify to do anything. Spotify sells a subscription through their website and are welcome to do so in the app store if they follow apples guidelines, like every other app developer.

Apple forces Spotify not to do the thing they want to do namely to serve the customers (including offering subscriptions) in their own app. That's the problem that you are trying very hard to ignore. Apple wants 30/15% for the services they have nothing to do with. As far as Spotify is concerned, Apple can charge 100% fee for the stuff they do do (i.e. distributing Spotify app via App Store - which happens to be free). Spotify are also perfectly capable hosting and distributing their app themselves from their own web site. Apple is simply in a racket business. They force the companies to use their store and then charge them for it. Eventually Apple may end up charged under RICO.

 

[FFR]

That's not really relevant. You are wrong.



Yes, they do, but the basis of the antitrust complaint is that they are not allowed to link to their website in app or take payments through a credit card in app, because the App Store terms prohibit this. So users have to guess you can go to the Spotify app, and that effects take up.



And the fact that you have no choice without Apple barring you from telling people what they are is the issue.



Apple bars them from informing users who download the Spotify app that it's possible to subscribe on Spotify's website. That's the primary basis for the complaint.

Sorry it’s anticompetitive if apple Barr’s the company from selling a subscription anywhere except iTunes.
Which is not the case here.

Users are free to get a subscription if they want from the website.

If they couldn’t it would be anticompetitive.

 

[FFR]

Are you just going to keep posting the same thing over and over again ?

Isn’t that what your doing?

 

[BuffaloTF]

There is no way inside the Spotify app to direct users anywhere. You can’t link to their website or have language that says go to spotify.com to sign up. And I’m not sure what you mean by they want subscription management solution for free. Can you explain?

Yeah... there is. It used to tell you to “visit our website to subscribe”. Now they’ve replaced that with a smartass comment that’s confusing. Their problem, not Apple’s.

And subscriptions... they’re maintained within your Account Settings under Subscriptions. You can see every subscription Apple manages for you.

 

[FFR]

Apple forces Spotify not to do the thing they want to do namely to serve the customers (including offering subscriptions) in their own app. That's the problem that you are trying very hard to ignore. Apple wants 30/15% for the services they have nothing to do with. As far as Spotify is concerned, Apple can charge 100% fee for the stuff they do do (i.e. distributing Spotify app via App Store - which happens to be free). Spotify are also perfectly capable hosting and distributing their app themselves from their own web site. Apple is simply in a racket business. They force the companies to use their store and then charge them for it. Eventually Apple may end up charged under RICO.

Does apple force Spotify to not offer any subscription unless it was through iTunes?

Oh wow a Rico felony for apple.
What some posters dream about.

Which iPhone do you use again?

 

[Rob_2811]

Isn’t that what your doing?

They are using their platform and it associated rules and policies to stifle competition. They are banning third parties from using marketing techniques that the regularly use themselves. That is anticompetitive behaviour no doubt about it.

Posting that Apple hasn't stopped Spotify doing what they like on their own website on the open web is absolutely absurd.

 

[78Bandit]

Yeah... there is. It used to tell you to “visit our website to subscribe”. Now they’ve replaced that with a smartass comment that’s confusing. Their problem, not Apple’s.

And subscriptions... they’re maintained within your Account Settings under Subscriptions. You can see every subscription Apple manages for you.

I think most people know what a subscription is. Spotify is not asking to use Apple's subscription management for free. The issue here is Spotify does not want to use Apple at all to manage the subscriptions; they want to use their own sign-up and payment services.

 

[FFR]

They are using their platform and it associated rules and policies to stifle competition. They are banning third parties from using marketing techniques that the regularly use themselves. That is anticompetitive behaviour no doubt about it.

Posting that Apple hasn't stopped Spotify doing what they like on their own website on the open web is absolutely absurd.

Stifling the competition.

Apple has a market share of less than 20% in Europe. Your statement was .

Posting that Spotify is still able to acquire subscriptions through their website and have a functioning app on apples App Store is proof that apple is not anticompetitive

Perhaps that’s why you want me to stop posting it.

It’s rather common sense.

 

[LovingTeddy]

If apple forced sellers like you claim, Spotify would not be able to sell subscriptions anywhere outside the App Store.
Which isn’t the case here.

Spotify wants to use apples subscription service with iTunes or AppStore as the payment portal without paying apple a fee. That’s not going to work.

Apple’s own rule prevent Spotify link users to Spotify.com directly from App and force subscription through App Store.

You can’t have both. You can’t disallow app developer link their payment system through app and in the main time charge develop for any transactions done through in app purchase.

I cannot stand on paying more on iOS while paying less on Android. Exactly same services, but more expensive on iOS side.

Apple create iOS and only allow app developer distribute app through App Store. I have great issue with this. You cannot he seller and judge at same time. I absolutely want third party App Store on iOS.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I think you have been out in the Aussie sun a little too long my friend! Do you think, when you walk into a supermarket and see "brand name" products there, that the brands get 100% of the price charged? Of course not, the "retailer" makes a profit because they have invested heavily in infrastructure and building up a customer base which the brand benefits from in exchange for giving the retailer a profit...basic economics...

Two HUGE differences. The App Store is vastly different from other retail.

First, there are many supermarket options for consumers to choose from, and the supermarkets compete with each other directly. I can buy pasta sauce from Walmart today, and Stop&Shop next week. I can compare their prices directly, and choose which one to buy from today. I can't do any of that with app stores. If I have an Apple device, I must use Apple's App Store. If I have an Android device, I must use Google's Play Store. The cost of switching is high, so consumers rarely do it (certainly not week to week on a whim). A developer must put their apps in both app stores to reach their audience.

Second, supermarkets buy products from the manufacturer before they sell them to the consumer. Meaning the manufacturer makes the sale before the consumer actually buys anything. Apple does not pre-purchase app licenses from developers. If a manufacturer doesn't like how the supermarket is competing with their own in-house brand, they can choose to stop selling to that supermarket (knowing there are a dozens of other supermarkets out there to sell in). This gives them some power to set terms (ever notice how the in-house brand is usually on a lower shelf? - big brand have the power to require this). When there are only two stores, and the developer has to be in both of them, there is no power and no option to pull out.

 

[justperry]

We all know which side the EU is on.

You know that's not the case, they just have a different system than the US, rules are different on either side of the pond, on both sides you have to play by the rules, bugger off if you don't like it or play the game.

Exactly what Apple should be telling Spotify. When they accepted the TOS of their Developer Account it would have outlined what the terms were (financial terms included). Spotify agreed to those terms but, after having agreed to them, they are now running to the EU saying it's unfair! If it was unfair then why did you agree to it in the first place?

Things like this really get on my nerves! People sign up for something and then complain that it's unfair...as if the world somehow owes each and every person a perfectly customised life experience where they never have to deal with anything that's difficult, "offensive" (ugh) or unfair! Wouldn't it be lovely if that were possible? The trouble is, what is "fair" to one person could be grossly unfair to another person...you simply can't have a world where everybody is happy about everything all of the time. Universal Fairness is simply a nebulous concept as everybody has different goals in life and different things that make them happy. So if the outcome that would make Person/Corporation A happy would simultaneously make Person/Corporation B unhappy...why should Person/Corporation A get their way? Who makes that call?

You completely missed my point, but whatever, not even going to explain.

I do want to reply to your comment on this issue though.
Apple changed the rules by launching their own Music streaming service, Apple pays $0, Spotify pays 30%, there's your conflict.
There was no problem before until Apple launched a similar service, If Apple stayed out of Music streaming Spotify wouldn't complain.

 

[Rogifan]

Perhaps because it’s a recurring fee on a digital service through the App Stores payment system.

Uber is a service but it’s not a subscription, if it were apple would take a cut of the subscription as well.

Only because Apple allows Uber to bill me in-app but they don’t allow Spotify to do the same

The subscription through the amazon app is using amazons payment system, you don’t get charged through the iTunes app for any of Amazon purchases or subscriptions.

Same with eBay using PayPal and not your iTunes or App Store account.

If they did apple would take a cut.

That’s what Spotify wants, to use apples
Payment system for a recurring fee and not pay apple anything. That’s not fair.

Apple should kick Spotify out. Problem solved for everyone.

What is your source for this? When did Spotify say this?

Yeah... there is. It used to tell you to “visit our website to subscribe”. Now they’ve replaced that with a smartass comment that’s confusing. Their problem, not Apple’s.

And subscriptions... they’re maintained within your Account Settings under Subscriptions. You can see every subscription Apple manages for you.

Because it’s against App Store rules. Pull up the kindle app. All it gives you is a sign-in screen. At the dry bottom it tells you you need a free amazon account but nowhere does it give you a link or tell you where to go....because Apple doesn’t allow it.

 

[FFR]

Apple’s own rule prevent Spotify link users to Spotify.com directly from App and force subscription through App Store.

You can’t have both. You can’t disallow app developer link their payment system through app and in the main time charge develop for any transactions done through in app purchase.

I cannot stand on paying more on iOS while paying less on Android. Exactly same services, but more expensive on iOS side.

Apple create iOS and only allow app developer distribute app through App Store. I have great issue with this. You cannot he seller and judge at same time. I absolutely want third party App Store on iOS.

But apple doesn’t prevent Spotify from acquiring users on their own website?

No one is forcing you to pay more, you can get a subscription with Spotify for less, on their website, if you couldn’t yours and Spotify’s argument would have merit.

Why not?
There is a reason apple users want to use apples payment portal, that they built an maintain.

You can have all the issues you want, doesn’t mean much.

3rd party app stores aren’t very secure, if you want that android, has you covered.

If you don’t like what apple is doing you probably shouldn’t buy their products.

I personally like what apple has created and it’s easier to have all my subscriptions on one platform, it’s why I buy and use apple products... and I’m not alone.

 

[falainber]

Does apple force Spotify to not offer any subscription unless it was through iTunes?

Oh wow a Rico felony for apple.
What some posters dream about.

Which iPhone do you use again?

Yes, Apple force Spotify to not offer any subscription (unless it was through iTunes) in Spotify app.

There is a separate thread for discussing my iPhone. This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread so stop trolling.

 

[FFR]

Only because Apple allows Uber to bill me in-app but they don’t allow Spotify to do the same


What is your source for this? When did Spotify say this?


Because it’s against App Store rules. Pull up the kindle app. All it gives you is a sign-in screen. At the dry bottom it tells you you need a free amazon account but nowhere does it give you a link or tell you where to go....because Apple doesn’t allow it.

Are you saying apple allows you to charge Uber to your iTunes account?

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...mmission-unfair-european-commission-complaint

They call it a tax.

 

[Cosmosent]

Bravo !

This main problem this App Dev has with AAPL is one of App Discovery.

 

[TVOR]

You completely missed my point, but whatever, not even going to explain.

I do want to reply to your comment on this issue though.
Apple changed the rules by launching their own Music streaming service, Apple pays $0, Spotify pays 30%, there's your conflict.
There was no problem before until Apple launched a similar service, If Apple stayed out of Music streaming Spotify wouldn't complain.

With all due respect, you seem to be saying that Apple launching a competing service is anti-competitive! Surely preventing Apple from launching a competing service would be anti-competitive?!

In any case, you said quite clearly that the 30% wouldn't be a problem if Apple wasn't a direct competitor. So what if Apple priced Apple Music at $12.99...would that then be fair? That would "level the playing field" for Spotify...right? But it would also drive up prices for consumers so where's the benefit? What about if Apple somehow had to pay the same 30%/15%...but still chose to price their offering at $9.99 meaning that their net revenue was only $6.99? Or just dropped their subscription price to $6.99 per month so they were making the same net revenue as Spotify with a $9.99 per month subscription. Would that be fair? Or would Spotify then go crying to legislators that Apple were trying to price them out of the market?

Because I'm pretty sure that the definition that legislation which stated that a corporation wasn't allowed to actually reduce their profits would be both ridiculous and certainly anti-consumer...but at least if there was government mandated price-fixing which removed one of the fundamental forces of a free-market economy then at least it would be "fair" for everyone...right?