European Commission 'Concerned' About Apple's Streaming Music Plans

[barkomatic]

If the real motivation is the fear that Apple may use its influence to discourage free streaming music--then the investigation is valid.

However, I do think that in some cases the EU goes too far and over-regulates innovative ideas into ruin. Contrast that with the United States which tends to shy from regulation--and strangely it has the same effect sometimes. . .

 

[psylence2k]

These are the same people that approved the purchase of Beats, correct? What did they think Apple was going to do? Of course Apple is going to release a streaming service. Why is that a concern now and not when they approved the purchase? Seems silly to me, but I am sure there is more to it than I am aware of, or at least I hope so.

I dont think it's simply about them just building a streaming service but the alleged business practices and influence on labels they're rumored to implement that the EU might deem as anti-competitive.

 

[Rafterman]

You can't take a dump in Europe without regulators being "concerned".

 

[dredeman]

Kill the artists: Pirate

Support the artists. Pirate.

What egotist stupidity is this. Apple pays the artists a more or less reasonable amount of money. Spotify pays a lot less, but pirats steal which is simply a crime, certainly from the moral POV.

 

[budselectjr]

This is why the EU can't have nice things.

 

[bushido]

and Kanye too..

with the difference being that Jay-Z just launched a streaming service

You can't take a dump in Europe without regulators being "concerned".

 

[LordVic]

These are the same people that approved the purchase of Beats, correct? What did they think Apple was going to do? Of course Apple is going to release a streaming service. Why is that a concern now and not when they approved the purchase? Seems silly to me, but I am sure there is more to it than I am aware of, or at least I hope so.

I think the fear EU has is that they'll do what they did in the e-book price fixing scandal.

its more of an oversight just to make sure no collusion is going on.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Interesting how everyone is defending apple and having a dig at the EU commission without knowing the facts.

Wonder if these same people will also complain when their free spotify or other service that is funded by ads loses labels.

Think of the consequences that this article is hinting at.

Have you ever recevied ad revenue before? Because it's crap. The primary purpose of including ads is to be irritating so that users will stop being cheapskates and pay for your product.

Spotify makes roughly $3/month from users that listen to ads vs. $10/month from users that pay.

It wasn't a sustainable business model, and everyone in the industry knows it (they've said so repeatedly.) I just upgraded to Spotify Premium after being ad supported since it first came stateside.

 

[Rogifan]

If the real motivation is the fear that Apple may use its influence to discourage free streaming music--then the investigation is valid.

However, I do think that in some cases the EU goes too far and over-regulates innovative ideas into ruin. Contrast that with the United States which tends to shy from regulation--and strangely it has the same effect sometimes. . .

So you can investigate companies because you have concerns over something they might do in the future? Does the EC have specific evidence that Apple is trying to kill off ad-supported streaming music?

 

[bushido]

So you can investigate companies because you have concerns over something they might do in the future? Does the EC have specific evidence that Apple is trying to kill off ad-supported streaming music?

sure, why not? just like the police can search a citizens home cuz they "may" be a "terrorist" (that word is getting thrown around so much it almost lost its meaning btw)

 

[zin]

So you can investigate companies because you have concerns over something they might do in the future? Does the EC have specific evidence that Apple is trying to kill off ad-supported streaming music?

Prevention is the best medicine.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to block AT&T's proposed takeover of T-Mobile because after the merger they suspected AT&T would raise prices and abuse their more powerful market position.

The EC is attempting to collect evidence. If they don't find any then they won't launch a formal antitrust investigation.

What's so bad about that?

 

[LordVic]

So you can investigate companies because you have concerns over something they might do in the future? Does the EC have specific evidence that Apple is trying to kill off ad-supported streaming music?

Yes

Most regulatory bodies in most the world have power of investigation into business practices without evidence of wrong doing.

Just like the IRS technically has the ability to audit anyone they choose for whatever reasons they want, whether or not they have evidence or not. Compliance is not an option.

Unlike police investigation, Audits are not subject to the same "reasonable cause" distinctions

 

[H2SO4]

So the busybodies bureaucrats at the EC are concerned Apple might do something in the future so they're going to investigate. Good to see The bureaucrats have their priorities straight.

Is prevention not better than cure?

 

[MH01]

From what I gather, services like spotify are problematic in that despite their large subscriber base, they still aren't earning enough to pay the artistes decent rates.

It seems that such a model was flawed and unsustainable to begin with. Maybe it does deserve to die in favour of another service that might represent a better win-win scenario for all parties involved.

When something is free, Im not sure its a win for the consumer.

----------

So the busybodies bureaucrats at the EC are concerned Apple might do something in the future so they're going to investigate. Good to see The bureaucrats have their priorities straight.

Given the Article does not give details of what they are investigating, how do you come to a conclusion their priorities are wrong? Its a "rumour" And a vague on at that.

----------

Have you ever recevied ad revenue before? Because it's crap. The primary purpose of including ads is to be irritating so that users will stop being cheapskates and pay for your product.

Spotify makes roughly $3/month from users that listen to ads vs. $10/month from users that pay.

It wasn't a sustainable business model, and everyone in the industry knows it (they've said so repeatedly.) I just upgraded to Spotify Premium after being ad supported since it first came stateside.

Yes, some major sites you see on the web make their money from Ads revenue and the main source. From experience I know a really big motoring site that makes most its money from ads revenue. Partnerships and ads campaigns can make you a huge amount.

You need a major brand and traffic to make money from ads revenue, its a huge business, ask google.

 

[Sethp]

So the playing field is Spotify in the lead, record labels have a stake in Spotify and they make money off it.
Then there's Tidal where have a stake in the company.
And possibly Apple

To quote Jay Z "We're not a service that sells commercials and hardware"
Guess he's poking at Apple regarding hardware and Pandora and Spotify regarding advertising.
The Tidal thing feels like a desperate move to Beat Apple before it's too late.

The only thing this 3 services against one another is going to do is create a divide and the customers will loose.

 

[bpeeps]

This is why the EU can't have nice things.

This is exactly why Apple never releases anything there first.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

European Commission is "concerned" that Apple will use its size and influence to persuade the music groups to abandon free, ad-supported services such as Spotify.

And?

Why is that necessarily a bad thing? The goal of a company is to make money. If Apple presents the music groups a better value proposition, then why shouldn't they take it?

 

[inkswamp]

If they integrate streaming right into iOS (which makes sense) then this would lead to an antitrust investigation I guess.

At this time it is only an App (Beats) which needs to be installed by the customer and it is not available in the EU.

Maybe this will be another record penalty for the EU. It serves them right. Apple is a tax cheater. I hate them for that.

Why would it trigger an antitrust investigation? Does Apple have a monopoly in streaming and are they using that to thwart competition unfairly? Those are the kind of behaviors generally viewed as an antitrust violation, if I'm not mistaken.

Besides, it seems unlikely Apple would integrate streaming into iOS. They have a long history of providing their own services via apps, some of which are optional (Podcasts, for example.)

----------

And?

Why is that necessarily a bad thing? The goal of a company is to make money. If Apple presents the music groups a better value proposition, then why shouldn't they take it?

Exactly, and considering all the articles that have been published lately exposing how much of a rip-off services like Spotify are for artists, I'm not sure why people are so quick to defend those models. If Apple can create something better that also ensures that artists get a paycheck, then so be it. When did Spotify become everyone's sacred cow?

 

[itr81]

Prevention is the best medicine.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to block AT&T's proposed takeover of T-Mobile because after the merger they suspected AT&T would raise prices and abuse their more powerful market position.

The EC is attempting to collect evidence. If they don't find any then they won't launch a formal antitrust investigation.

What's so bad about that?

The U.S. Dept of Justice only blocked AT&T acquisition of t-mobile because of greed not anti trust. Before the proposed merger AT&T was planning buying additional spectrum from the U.S. gov. Well AT&T saw t-mobile was trying to sell out. So they dropped the U.S. Gov. deal and went after t-mobile. U.S. DOJ then blocks the acquisition under antitrust guidelines. Then they re-offer spectrum to AT&T and basically say they won't stop smaller acquisitions if they buy. AT&T buys the spectrum and then buys out about 7-8 smaller regional providers. The DOJ didnt prevent anything except delay T-mobile from trying to sell themselves out again and again. I'm talking from the prespective of someone inside the telecom industry.

 

[kettle]

Most Brussels politicians are too inept to be corrupt.

I find it interesting how your logic allows you to confidently differentiate ineptitude and corruption. They are paid very well to do their jobs.

 

[cocky jeremy]

We can't have companies trying to get people to want to use their service, that'd be wrong.

 

[nebo1ss]

These are the same people that approved the purchase of Beats, correct? What did they think Apple was going to do? Of course Apple is going to release a streaming service. Why is that a concern now and not when they approved the purchase? Seems silly to me, but I am sure there is more to it than I am aware of, or at least I hope so.

I do wonder sometimes if people post without reading the article. It states quite clearly that the concern is that Apple might put pressure on the record labels to drop support for the free add supported music services.

 

[ActionableMango]

In the US, Facebook can do literally anything with your data. Many privacy-invading features of Facebook are actually disabled in EU countries. Every single website accessed from the EU is required to show a disclaimer that they are putting a cookie on your machine. etc etc.

Clearly you haven't been keeping up with recent news.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...k-tracks-all-visitors-breaching-eu-law-report

 

[Peel]

So, essentially the European Commission is concerned about what a non existent product, that Apple may, or may not release (and therefore have no idea how it will work, or function) will, or won't do other companies.

This is the perverse side of the rumor mill, when governments start taking proactive measures based solely on rumors and speculation.

 

[barkomatic]

So you can investigate companies because you have concerns over something they might do in the future? Does the EC have specific evidence that Apple is trying to kill off ad-supported streaming music?

This isn't a criminal investigation so "evidence" isn't really needed only a suspicion.