EU Welcomes Apple's App Store Changes, Epic Slams 'Junk Fees'

[MilaM]

“Developers have to be on iOS to reach the ~30% of the European market that represent iOS users, but musicians don’t have to be on Spotify to reach the ~65% of the European market that represent Spotify users” is a very interesting take.

I suspect not many musicians have the clout to get casual fans to switch streaming providers.

It's 100% of iPhone users.

If Spotify changed terms to the disadvantage of musicians it would be easy for musicians to organize a mass exodus. That keeps Spotify somewhat in check with their pricing.

If Apple raises fees, there is nothing you can do as a publisher because there is only one store.

 

[eifelbube]

Maybe the one EU consumer tech giant? You know the one whose market the EU decided was magically the only one that didn’t require regulation, despite having almost 60% of the market and more than twice the marketshare of its nearest competitor? The one that even though it meets all criteria to have the law apply, the law will never apply to it because the EU specifically excluded its market from being subject to the law? That one.

Oh yes, I know all about Spotify. I agree that it is highly likely the EC intentionally “placed” Spotify outside of gatekeeper bunch by sparing music streaming from core service designation. I already knew that Spotify’s numbers would make them a gatekeeper otherwise — I do not have to be enlightened about that and I do not dispute these numbers. But Spotify’s single-service* impact on the digital services market pales against the multiple software and hardware product dominance of the Goopple duopoly. Meta has multiple products with 270 million advertising reach in Europe, Spotify has 105 million subscribers.
* video services are a fraction of YouTube, Netflix, or Prime Video offerings and audience

More importantly:
I asked @unregistered4U for proof on his claim that EU companies — that is, the plural of company— pushed the EU to go after Apple. He did not provide it but asked me to search for it. I did, found nothing, and had I continued searching beyond the top 4 results, eventually, yes, one singular company would have come up with… Spotify. They are always cited in defense of the argument that EC regulations target US companies. Another Sweden-based syndrome: The Spotify Syndrome.

The DMA is not perfect. But I prefer a regulatory approach to consumer protection over letting abuse happen until the courts have to be involved years later (as we currently see with suits against Meta). For example, there has been an A.I. act passed by the EU, while there is no such regulation in the US.

Looking at the current services fee compliance issue, it appears that Apple and the EU are getting on better terms. The witch hunt by the very few and always the same EU critics on MR is becoming an embarrassment. Might be time for them to redirect the government interference complaints to efforts at stopping the tariff sheriff from turning the world economy upside down. 🙃

 

[BaldiMac]

It's a large platform but doesn't control a major gateway. Unlike platforms that control underlying operating systems, app stores, etc. through which users access various products/services, Spotify does not control those major access layers that businesses must use to reach end users.

I have no idea what adding the word “major” does for your argument other than create your own arbitrary distinction. The situation is the same. Spotify does control the major access layers that businesses (artists) must use to reach end users on its platform. In fact, their terms are much less friendly.

One is controlling a major broad gateway and the other isn't. Spotify "competes" for iOS users and their spending on music/podcast services, while Apple (which also offers music/podcast services), by contrast, actually controls the OS and the principal app-distribution and in-app payment infrastructure (as "gatekeeper") that all sorts of businesses must use to reach the broader and lucrative iPhone user market.

Nope. Spotify also actually controls the platform and the principal music-distribution and payment infrastructure (as "gatekeeper") that all sorts of businesses (artists) must use to reach the broader and lucrative Spotify user market.

 

[eifelbube]

But it does in fact meet the criteria written into the law!

• Significant impact on internal market: Either €7.5 billion annual EU turnover for 3 years OR €75 billion market cap
  • Spotify's 2025 market cap: $130B, 2024's: $92B
• Important gateway: 45 million monthly active EU users AND 10,000 yearly active business users
  • Spotify has approximately 181-182 million monthly active users in Europe
  • There are over 11 million artists and creators (i.e., business users) on the Spotify platform

Just excluded due to good ol’ fashioned protectionism.

That’s true, Spotify would be a gatekeeper. Still, that the EU let them escape is a lesser evil than no regulation. The DMA is there to stay. The ship has sailed, as you recently stated. Let’s hope the relationship between Apple and the EU improves. I am much more worried about the soloist in Donald County who has the power to single-handedly regulate ballrooms into national security projects.

 

[eifelbube]

Good to know that they DO know how to get AI summaries. 🙂 I was just going to instruct them how to enter their text to get an AI summary! Saved some typing.

I prefer proof from people making unsubstantiated claims, or admission of fault when they are unable to produce it.

 

[eifelbube]

What specific CPS criteria are you referring to?

Saying that they didn’t use to meet the other thresholds is a pretty ridiculous argument considering that they do currently meet those thresholds. And have for more than two years.

The “harm” Spotify did eventually —raising prices by €1— with the help of a clever almost Trump-like maneuver of exempting music streaming from core platform service designation is peanuts to what Google did with preferential search manipulation for which the DMA recently fined them. Streaming services raise prices all the time, just got the message from ESPN+ a few days ago. Apple raised prices too. You are right that Spotify now exceeds the tbresholds the DMA sets to become a gatekeeper. But it is moot because music streaming is not a CPS — must make Apple happy too.

 

[eifelbube]

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't necessarily see it that way. The DMA is fundamentally about regulating "large" digital platforms/services that control major gateways (such as operating systems, app stores, search engines, browsers, etc.) between businesses and users. Unlike other "gatekeepers," Spotify does not control a comparable bottleneck.

While I do not rule out an act of protectionism on the part of the EU, the numbers of services the duopoly controls and gates compared to Spotify definitely warrants gatekeeper status when revenue and user base size thresholds are reached.

 

[Abazigal]

I actually wonder if there’s any middle ground to be found. The DMA closes a lot of doors to solution finding and that’s the way Vestager wanted it. I think what we’ll see is simply more and more features not offered in the EU or features only available in the two largest regions.

I feel like there is this massive disconnect between what people expect Apple to do under the DMA, and what Apple does end up doing. When the law was first announced, there were many people who were convinced that this would spell the end of the walled garden ecosystem as we know it.

Fast forward 2 years, and developers mostly get a few percentage points shaved off the App Store cut, it seems like the majority of customers are still staying within the App Store, and a lot of the much-vaunted promises simply didn’t materialise.

Right from the start, I was fairly confident that Apple would find a way to navigate the demands of the DMA while giving up as little as possible (be it control or profits), and I think it’s safe to conclude that’s precisely what has happened here.

 

[surferfb]

It's 100% of iPhone users.

Spotify has 100% of Spotify users.

Apple has 30% of EU mobile users.
Spotify has 65% of EU streaming music users.

I don’t understand how you’re arguing “developers have to be on iOS if they want to reach iOS users” but “musicians don’t have to be on Spotify if they want to reach Spotify users.”

If Spotify changed terms to the disadvantage of musicians it would be easy for musicians to organize a mass exodus. That keeps Spotify somewhat in check with their pricing.

I suspect that would be significantly more difficult than you say.

If Apple raises fees, there is nothing you can do as a publisher because there is only one store.

You do exactly what the musician does if Spotify raised prices - pull your app and hope your super fans follow but accept the vast, vast majority of your users aren’t going to follow.

It’s exactly the same on both platforms.

How are you arguing they are different?

 

[BaldiMac]

The “harm” Spotify did eventually —raising prices by €1— with the help of a clever almost Trump-like maneuver of exempting music streaming from core platform service designation is peanuts to what Google did with preferential search manipulation for which the DMA recently fined them. Streaming services raise prices all the time, just got the message from ESPN+ a few days ago. Apple raised prices too.

I have no idea what any of that has to do with what I said. I never said anything about Spotify raising prices.

You are right that Spotify now exceeds the tbresholds the DMA sets to become a gatekeeper.

Exactly.

 

[webkit]

I think music artists would like to have a word with you about how they have to go through Spotify!

I'm not saying artists or users may not have to "go through" things with Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, etc. but it doesn't rise to the additional and broader control (already discussed) that DMA designated gatekeepers have.

 

[webkit]

I have no idea what adding the word “major” does for your argument other than create your own arbitrary distinction. The situation is the same. Spotify does control the major access layers that businesses (artists) must use to reach end users on its platform. In fact, their terms are much less friendly.

"Major" as in controlling additional and broader access layers (OS, app stores, etc.) that businesses rely on to reach and transact with end users, giving gatekeepers significant influence over the terms and conditions of that access.

Nope. Spotify also actually controls the platform and the principal music-distribution and payment infrastructure (as "gatekeeper") that all sorts of businesses (artists) must use to reach the broader and lucrative Spotify user market.

That's more narrow. As mentioned above, this is about DMA designated "gatekeepers" controlling additional and broader access layers.

 

[surferfb]

That's more narrow. As mentioned above, this is about DMA designated "gatekeepers" controlling additional and broader access layers.

But the law doesn’t say that. It says “if your service falls into one of these categories and you meet the rquirements.” There’s no “you have to control broader and additional access layers.” In fact, there was a proposal put forward to add a requirement that a company must offer more than one core platform service but it was rejected during debate.

I know you said you’d prefer YouTube was removed, but it really seems like retconning to say “Spotify doesn’t count for a good reason.” If YouTube was a private company the DMA would apply. So what’s the good reason?

There are two plausible explanations for why video streaming platforms and music streaming platforms are treated differently. The first is it shouldn’t apply to video streaming, but the EU included it because YouTube is owned by Google, which strongly suggest that the DMA was indeed written to target American companies. The second is that it should apply to music streaming, but music streaming was intentionally excluded because Spotify owns that market and is European.

Either one of those explanations lays completely bare the false narrative that the DMA is about protecting consumers. There is no rational reason for it to apply to YouTube and not Spotify unless you care about where one of the two companies is located or who they’re owned by.

 

[eifelbube]

Government overreach affects your life such as wearing a helmet, seat belts, how many children you can have, the size of a serving of French fries, etc.

It should be self evident but maybe it isnt, laws are necessary for society to function.

Government overreach on the one hand and laws are necessary on the other appear to contradict each other.

Bicycle Helmet Law In The USA [State-by-State Map]

An interactive map showing bicycle helmet law in each US state. With statistics on the effectiveness of helmet use.

brainlaw.com

Motorcycle Helmet Law Map - Helmet Laws by US State Map

Motorcycle helmet laws by state map show you which US state has laws mandating helmet usage with no exceptions, which states do not currently have any law regarding motorcycle helmet usage and which states have helmet usage laws but allow for exemptions.

motorcyclehelmetlawsbystate.com

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I mean he's right. The EU might aswell scrap the Digital Markets act if they accept that. Weak.

 

[eifelbube]

Either one of those explanations lays completely bare the false narrative that the DMA is about protecting consumers.

That may be true for you subjectively, but it is definitely not true objectively. The iPhone mirroring and current chatbot interoperability issue are arguable. But these recent examples below prove that the claim is false in the absolute terms in which it is stated.

EU AI Act: What Actually Applies on 2 August 2026 - Technology Org

Key takeaways Two speeds, one deadline For two years, 2 August 2026 sat in compliance calendars as the

www.technology.org

EU Makes Switching Between Android and iPhone Easier - tovima.com

Starting June 1, new EU rules simplify data transfers between Apple and Android devices, removing long-standing barriers for consumers who switch platforms

www.tovima.com

 

[surferfb]

That may be true for you subjectively, but it is definitely not true objectively. The iPhone mirroring and current chatbot interoperability issue are arguable. But these recent examples below prove that the claim is false in the absolute terms in which it is stated.

EU AI Act: What Actually Applies on 2 August 2026 - Technology Org

Key takeaways Two speeds, one deadline For two years, 2 August 2026 sat in compliance calendars as the

www.technology.org

EU Makes Switching Between Android and iPhone Easier - tovima.com

Starting June 1, new EU rules simplify data transfers between Apple and Android devices, removing long-standing barriers for consumers who switch platforms

www.tovima.com

No, it is true objectively. Just because you don’t want to see it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Are there a few bits that are better for consumers when looked at singularly? Sure. But all in all consumers worldwide are far worse off than they would have been had the EU been able to restrain its instincts. Less innovation, fewer features, worse user experiences, worse security. All just to say “we did something” because they think making things worse is better than being irrelevant.

 

[webkit]

But the law doesn’t say that. It says “if your service falls into one of these categories and you meet the rquirements.” There’s no “you have to control broader and additional access layers.” In fact, there was a proposal put forward to add a requirement that a company must offer more than one core platform service but it was rejected during debate.

"Additional and broader access layers" was my way of identifying operating systems, app stores, etc. i.e., beyond just the end-user app. "Additional" as in more layers and "broader" as in not specifically just audio/music related.

For example, if someone previously (before DMA regulations kicked in) wanted Spotify app on an iPhone, they first had to use Apple's operating system which controlled access to Apple's App Store and then had to use Apple's App Store and follow Apple's related terms and conditions to be able to download, use, etc. the Spotify app. Multiple layers controlled by Apple before getting to the app.

Because of the DMA's iOS, App Store, etc. "gatekeeper" designations, some of Apple's control over the process have been loosened. No longer does someone in the EU necessarily have to use Apple's App Store, payment system, etc. to access, buy, use apps. Now users and developers have more flexibility in how they, find, acquire, market, etc. apps.

I know you said you’d prefer YouTube was removed, but it really seems like retconning to say “Spotify doesn’t count for a good reason.” If YouTube was a private company the DMA would apply. So what’s the good reason?

There are two plausible explanations for why video streaming platforms and music streaming platforms are treated differently. The first is it shouldn’t apply to video streaming, but the EU included it because YouTube is owned by Google, which strongly suggest that the DMA was indeed written to target American companies. The second is that it should apply to music streaming, but music streaming was intentionally excluded because Spotify owns that market and is European.

Either one of those explanations lays completely bare the false narrative that the DMA is about protecting consumers. There is no rational reason for it to apply to YouTube and not Spotify unless you care about where one of the two companies is located or who they’re owned by.

Whatever the EU reason(s) may be, I just don't think video sharing platforms like YouTube should be included unless someone can convince me otherwise.

 

[surferfb]

"Additional and broader access layers" was my way of identifying operating systems, app stores, etc. i.e., beyond just the end-user app. "Additional" as in more layers and "broader" as in not specifically just audio/music related.

For example, if someone previously (before DMA regulations kicked in) wanted Spotify app on an iPhone, they first had to use Apple's operating system which controlled access to Apple's App Store and then had to use Apple's App Store and follow Apple's related terms and conditions to be able to download, use, etc. the Spotify app. Multiple layers controlled by Apple before getting to the app.

Which many users see as a service. I want developers to have to go through all of that. Because I trust Apple to have my interests in mind way more than I trust developers to. (To be clear, that doesn’t mean I trust Apple to have my interests in mind)

And if users don’t want that, they could have used Android. And if developers didn’t like it, they could have chosen to not to develop for iOS. Because as much as the EU dislikes it, the free market exists and users and developers have agency.

The option for a closed ecosystem shouldn’t be taken away from everyone because the EU doesn’t understand the benefits. Thankfully they’ve mitigated the damage as best they could (but definitely not completely eliminated), and calmer heads at the EU have come to their senses and accepted a compromise.

Because of the DMA's iOS, App Store, etc. "gatekeeper" designations, some of Apple's control over the process have been loosened. No longer does someone in the EU necessarily have to use Apple's App Store, payment system, etc. to access, buy, use apps. Now users and developers have more flexibility in how they, find, acquire, market, etc. apps.

And it’s now easier for scammers to trick users into installing compromised apps. Which we’ve already seen happen since the DMA passed.

All for something that practically zero consumers are asking for, and the ones who were asking for could have purchased an Android device, because as much as the EU denies it, the free market exists.

Whatever the EU reason(s) may be, I just don't think video sharing platforms like YouTube should be included unless someone can convince me otherwise.

Something we agree on!

 

[webkit]

Which many users see as a service. I want developers to have to go through all of that. Because I trust Apple to have my interests in mind way more than I trust developers to. (To be clear, that doesn’t mean I trust Apple to have my interests in mind)

Not sure what you mean by "wanting developers to have to go through all that." This is about providing alternatives and potentially cheaper/better/more favorable terms not necessarily an "easier" process.

And if users don’t want that, they could have used Android. And if developers didn’t like it, they could have chosen to not to develop for iOS. Because as much as the EU dislikes it, the free market exists and users and developers have agency.

It's not easy for developers to simply walk away from a large, lucrative app market like iOS/iPhone. Something like 55% to 60% of EU consumer spending on mobile apps/in-app purchases/subscriptions is through Apple's App Store.

The option for a closed ecosystem shouldn’t be taken away from everyone because the EU doesn’t understand the benefits. Thankfully they’ve mitigated the damage as best they could (but definitely not completely eliminated), and calmer heads at the EU have come to their senses and accepted a compromise.

People will still be able to use the App Store, App Store payment system, etc. as I do not expect many developers to leave the App Store. Developers may utilize alternatives, similar to how physical goods manufacturers may use their own online store as well as alternatives, but will continue to use the App Store. Unless Apple does some crazy, the App Store will still dominate but if developers can save money and get better/more favorable terms in other stores, they will use those too.

And it’s now easier for scammers to trick users into installing compromised apps. Which we’ve already seen happen since the DMA passed.

Many scam/deceptive apps slip through and stay active for months in Apple's App Store too.

All for something that practically zero consumers are asking for, and the ones who were asking for could have purchased an Android device, because as much as the EU denies it, the free market exists.

Based on what? Have you read surveys/studies on this? I think the number of users and developers who would be open to alternative app stores on iOS is a lot more than "practically zero."

 

[BaldiMac]

"Major" as in controlling additional and broader access layers (OS, app stores, etc.) that businesses rely on to reach and transact with end users, giving gatekeepers significant influence over the terms and conditions of that access.

Again, Spotify is the same. Both are platforms that businesses rely on to reach and transact with end users, giving them significant influence over the terms and conditions of that access. It’s just that Spotify’s terms are more strict.

That's more narrow. As mentioned above, this is about DMA designated "gatekeepers" controlling additional and broader access layers.

Like “major”, you’re now using “controlling additional and broader access layers” to create an arbitrary, undefined distinction. I have deliberately substituted Spotify for Apple in each of your arguments to show that they are equivalent.

 

[webkit]

Again, Spotify is the same. Both are platforms that businesses rely on to reach and transact with end users, giving them significant influence over the terms and conditions of that access. It’s just that Spotify’s terms are more strict.

The difference has to do with the additional and broader control Apple has. Spotify only controls their app but Apple controls the bottleneck (OS, app store, etc.) that all sorts of EU businesses have to go through (or at least had to before DMA regs kicked in) to reach iOS/iPhone users/customers.

Like “major”, you’re now using “controlling additional and broader access layers” to create an arbitrary, undefined distinction. I have deliberately substituted Spotify for Apple in each of your arguments to show that they are equivalent.

The "major" I was referring to was Apple's additional (more layers) and broader (not just an audio/music app) control. Things controlled by Apple that all sorts of EU businesses have to go through (or at least had to before DMA regs kicked in) to reach iOS/iPhone users/customers. This is "major" compared to Spotify which only controls its audio/music app.

 

[I7guy]

Not sure what you mean by "wanting developers to have to go through all that." This is about providing alternatives and potentially cheaper/better/more favorable terms not necessarily an "easier" process.

Real competition, rather than taking apples business and giving it away almost free would accomplish that. For most of the apps, this has little benefit to consumers imo.

It's not easy for developers to simply walk away from a large, lucrative app market like iOS/iPhone. Something like 55% to 60% of EU consumer spending on mobile apps/in-app purchases/subscriptions is through Apple's App Store.

So you admit the App Store is lucrative and with that being said, maybe apple is NOT overcharging on fees and commissions.

People will still be able to use the App Store, App Store payment system, etc. as I do not expect many developers to leave the App Store. Developers may utilize alternatives, similar to how physical goods manufacturers may use their own online store as well as alternatives, but will continue to use the App Store. Unless Apple does some crazy, the App Store will still dominate but if developers can save money and get better/more favorable terms in other stores, they will use those too.

The regulations are overreach,imo. Sure devs may save money, it not likely customers will.

Many scam/deceptive apps slip through and stay active for months in Apple's App Store too.

Throw the baby out with the bath water?

Based on what? Have you read surveys/studies on this? I think the number of users and developers who would be open to alternative app stores on iOS is a lot more than "practically zero."

IMO, no matter what is a lose-lose for all.

 

[BaldiMac]

The difference has to do with the additional and broader control Apple has.

Nope. That’s just something you made up. The EU doesn’t make that distinction as evidenced by including video streaming services as a CPS.

Spotify only controls their app but Apple controls the bottleneck (OS, App Store, etc.) that all sorts of EU businesses have to go through (or at least had to before DMA regs kicked in) to reach iOS/iPhone users/customers.

Again, just replace Apple with Spotify and the equivalent terms.

Spotify controls the bottleneck (platform, subscriptions, payments, etc.) that all sorts of EU businesses have to go through to reach Spotify users/customers.

 

[webkit]

Real competition, rather than taking apples business and giving it away almost free would accomplish that. For most of the apps, this has little benefit to consumers imo.

"Real" alternative iOS app store competition which Apple has (or at least had) been blocking.

So you admit the App Store is lucrative

I've long said the App Store was lucrative. It has been people like you who have been downplaying it and suggesting developers can easily just walk away and go somewhere else.

and with that being said, maybe apple is NOT overcharging on fees and commissions.

By blocking/stifling alternative iOS app store competition, Apple has been hindering the market from deciding if Apple’s fees are "fair" or not. Various alternative app stores have lower fees.

Throw the baby out with the bath water?

My point was that the App Store has also had scam/deceptive apps that slip through and stay active for months.