European Regulators Awaiting Response From Apple After Spotify Called the App Store a Monopoly

[69Mustang]

I can't buy Nintendo games on the Playstation Store! Monopoly?

You actually wrote that. You can buy Nintendo games on Amazon, at Gamestop, at Best Buy, at Walmart, Target, Fry's, Microcenter... You aren't forced to buy Nintendo games from Nintendo. So no, no monopoly.

 

[mackinmike]

oh wow

 

[GregJohn]

well um... this is already off to a great start... wow

 

[macfacts]

This comment boils down to complaining corporate greed and “I don’t want to pay commission”.

Same dried out complaining by someone asking for intelligent discussion.

The reality is, people think because Apple has so much money it doesn’t need to charge commission on app sales and doing so is “evil”. That’s a matter of opinion rather than fact.

If you use someone’s resources to make money they have the right (being used out of legal context) to ask for a cut. That’s standard business practice.

Not allowing app sales through another app store...well, do you really want that?
Think very carefully before you answer.
That gets rather messy fast.

You're making the assumption that alt iOS app stores mean skipping Apple's app aproval process or not paying apple licensing fees. Bad assumption.

There are multiple PS4 game stores yet no PS4 dev skips Sony's approval process or fees. I don't see malware running rampant on PS4.
[doublepost=1559582635][/doublepost]

Are you american? I hear this argument „but you can go somewhere else. No one forces you to do XY“ a lot from Americans. That usually doesn’t fly with the EU. Maybe it’s a cultural thing somehow haha

Someone should tell apple if they don't like Eu laws or investigations, they can choose a different place to do business. No on forces apple to sell in Europe.
[doublepost=1559583228][/doublepost]

"This results in Spotify charging existing subscribers $12.99 per month for its Premium plan via the App Store just to collect nearly the $9.99 per month it charges normally". I'm pretty sure I can sign up and pay Spotify directly and only download the app from the App Store, so this is wrong, existing customers do not pay. Is Spotify somehow alleging that their customers only know about Spotify from the App Store? Not from Smart TVs, web browsers, Rokus, ...........

"Apple charging a 30 percent "tax"". I wonder how much the farmer gets for a dozen eggs when I buy them at the grocery store they are say $5. Is the difference a grocery store "tax"? According to Spotify it is.

Let's get real, Google charges the same 30% "tax" on first year purchases and 15% "tax" on on-going charges as Apple does. (and gets nothing on the free apps, including Spotify) What should it be? That is a good, but different question.

They may win, but Spotify's position is a little whiney.

• Download App for free on App Store
• subscribe to Spotify via web browser on PC, Mac, or Linux, or Roku, or smart tv, or......
• Google Play or App Store get nothing,
• dah!

Spotify isn't complaining about the 30% so saying google has the same 30% is not relevant. Google doesn't have the same anticompetitive rules as apple. That is the issue.
[doublepost=1559583453][/doublepost]

kind of inaccurate though. As a developer:

• Set your own price.
• Manage subscriptions (charge and collect money, check validity, handle cancellations, manage cash) on your own outside App Store
• Who wants external programs on iPhone (get an Android if you do)? The associated malware, security breaches, etc on android are not something I want. It is hard enough to keep developers from doing sleazy things. But you can pull them if they get caught.

So when Trump adds a tariff to apple products, it is apple raising the price for customers?

 

[Timemaster]

Spotify is a monopoly.

Explain that one.....

 

[GeoStructural]

Why are you even on this forum. You just described android as your dream OS. go on. run

You are the reason why Apple gets by without really pushing the envelope...

 

[miniyou64]

Whether you love or hate spotify, I'm glad to see someone challenging Apple's practices and at least bringing them to light so they can be looked into. Remaining complacent only allows companies to slowly but surely wrench more and more power from others. It's not even that Apple is automatically "evil" for this--every company has a desire to maximize profits--but we NEED other companies (and the public at large) to continue to challenge the practices of large companies; this is how we as a society decide what we're willing to tolerate.

Apple unfortunately has made some weak arguments in the past:

• claiming the App Store is exactly the same as a brick-and-mortar shopping mall (mall management collects rent, which could equate to Apple's $99/year program fee, but it is rare that a mall would collect a percentage of all sales, and especially not 30%)
• claiming that they "welcome competition" (no other company can offer similar services for the same price due to the Apple 30% tax and their strict language requirements in apps, and Apple offers no sideloading method)
• claiming that the App Store model is necessary for security (every company runs to this excuse when they're challenged to make their platforms more open; fact is, plenty of bad apps have made it through Apple's approval process)
• claiming that the 30% is necessary to cover hosting and payment processing costs (this one is debatable, but it's harder to accept that for large apps with millions of downloads; it's extremely hard to argue that Apple needs $1M to host a small app that is downloaded for 99 cents by 3M people, even if you consider payment processing fees and salary of reviewers)

I'm interested to see what Apple does respond. Chances are it's simply going to be some PR jumble claiming they're doing nothing wrong and then bragging about how awesome Apple is. I kind of wish companies at large would stop filling legal responses with what amounts to advertising; we need intelligent and intense discourse on these matters, free of unresolvable conflict of interest or "fanboy" behavior on either side, in order to make any real progress.

Youre only allow to decide what you tolerate in so much as you can choose where to spend your own money. Forcing companies to comply with mob rule by government fiat and under the threat of force is cheap and hardly civilized.

 

[GeoStructural]

I see...you bought a product knowing the restrictions and now want Apple to change the rules to suit your wants and needs. Switch to Android phone if you don't like the state of the iPhone.

No, I bought the device I wanted. And yes, I want it to do what I and MANY others like, is that a bad thing?

You are certain I don't like the state of the iPhone, and I express it and can only hope they make it better. I won't switch to Android just yet, maybe in 2020 if Apple still fails to deliver.

 

[Motawa]

new siri features: its pre installed LMAO

 

[jaxemer83]

The EU has far larger issues than the App Store. They will wait, and wait, and wait.

You do know they fined Google $5 billion for bundling the Google Play store with Android, right?

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

No mouse support for iPad = YUGE FAIL.

Hopefully the support is there hidden in accessibility or whatever.

 

[jaxemer83]

Tell that to Google. They will be surprised that the Google PlayStore doesn't exist. "iOS apps" is not a market. "Smartphone apps" is a market.

Android apps are not substitutes for iOS apps. Two different markets (one of which Apple has a distribution monopoly in).
[doublepost=1559587697][/doublepost]

You're missing the most important part (like so many people do when trying to incorrectly associate Google and Microsoft and their EU antitrust issues).

Apple doesn't license iOS to third parties. For all intents and purposes, devices running iOS are embedded systems sold as a single functioning unit. Just like your dishwasher, toaster or any other device with a processor and software.

Both Microsoft (Windows) and Google (Android) make an operating system that numerous OEMs are allowed to use. When they tried to force those OEMs into certain practices is when they got into trouble (MS with bundling IE and not allowing another browser and Google with bundling Google Play Services instead of letting OEMs bundle their own software). They were intentionally blocking third party software from OEM devices running their OS.

How is that distinction relevant? Why does Apple owning the hardware and software make its bundling of the App Store any more innocuous than Google requiring OEMs to bundle the Play Store? If anything, it is worse, because OEMs (or consumers) could still install their alternative app store in addition to the Play Store.
[doublepost=1559588294][/doublepost]

It will be interesting to read Apple's response to see if the address why they think they should make a distinction between the purchase of digital items and all other goods or services. The "benefits of a free app without being free" doesn't hold water by itself. Apple allows Uber, Airbnb, VRBO, etc. to do exactly what Spotify wants to do, link to their own payment services from within the app instead of being forced to use an external website.

Amazon probably provides the best example of Apple's arbitrary distinction. Customers can purchase any physical goods, including CDs, DVDs, and books, from within the app and use Amazon's payment system to complete the transaction. However, the identical content in digital format through .mp3 albums, video streaming, or eBooks is subject to only being paid for through the Amazon.com website.

Exactly. I agree that Amazon may be the best example of the problem with Apple's policy. Ever try buying an Audible or Kindle book through an iOS app? Of course you haven't, because it ISN'T POSSIBLE. You can't even see what's available in Amazon's library through the app. That is a huge inconvenience and disadvantage to consumers and gives Apple's iOS apps a huge advantage (despite their overall worse quality).

 

[FaustsHausUK]

Ignoring the fact I don't consider Apple a monopoly given the existence of Android and its significantly greater market share, and Fire OS and its... market share, Spotify were only able to build their application and audience thanks to the work of platform operators like Apple, Microsoft, Google and Amazon. See how many customers they would have if those platform holders didn't allow rival services at all.

Until Daniel Ek decides to pay musicians and songwriters fairly, he can get bent as far as I'm concerned. He's an odious little troll.

 

[kurosov]

Wait, you parse my quote and stop just short of this:

You do that you so can make an argument that an app store monopoly is an absurd claim? Almost as absurd and disingenuous as trying to frame part of my quote as if I was implying that, when I clearly wasn't. I even spelled it out. Seriously, it was my very next line. Don't you think it would have made a bit more sense to reply to one of the other quotes that you claim were actually making that argument?

There was no need to extend the quote because it in no way changed anything. Bringing up the smartphone industry is absolutely relevant.

 

[69Mustang]

There was no need to extend the quote because it in no way changed anything. Bringing up the smartphone industry is absolutely relevant.

Which is exactly what my quote said. But you tried to misrepresent it as someone else.

 

[kurosov]

Which is exactly what my quote said. But you tried to misrepresent it as someone else.

Ok...

I'm not arguing the validity of the claim, just explaining why bringing up the overall smartphone industry is irrelevant.

Saying something is irrelevant is not the same thing as saying it is relevant.

 

[Glideslope]

You do know they fined Google $5 billion for bundling the Google Play store with Android, right?

Pocket Change.
[doublepost=1559591170][/doublepost]

The EU is capable of doing multiple things at once. If Apple keep the EU waiting too long, steps can be taken against Apple.

Absolutely. Their largest multitasking remains keeping all 28 Nation States functionality as one collective. It by far surpasses fines against Google, Apple etc....

 

[69Mustang]

Ok...



Saying something is irrelevant is not the same thing as saying it is relevant.

You're right. I'm not wearing my glasses. Apologies for that error. We completely disagree though. Apple share of the smartphone industry is not relevant. Not as it relates to the complaints anyway. The EU regulators aren't claiming Apple has a smartphone monopoly. They are claiming an iOS monopoly.

 

[weup togo]

Nonsense. All they need to do is point out how Netflix handles the situation. Instead of whinging, Netflix figured out how to conform to the AppStore rules while at the same time maximising its profits. All that Spotify needs to do is copy what Netflix is doing, instead of whining.

This is not how competitive harm is evaluated legally. App Store TOS and their talmudic interpretations are the very definition of restraint of trade.

 

[sentiblue]

Spotify makes money only because Apple makes its platform available to developers like itself. Similar to how Uber makes their platforms available to millions of drivers allowing them to make their own profits.

It's ironic that Spotify calls Apple a monopoly when it doesn't even have a competitive platform against App Store. It's like the Uber drivers wanting 100% of their fare and Uber should offer the platform for free.

Regardless, I think they will loose this battle and among with it loosing millions of legal fees. Stupid management know they are spending meaningless money to fight the very hand that feed them since day 1.

 

[psingh01]

Can't they just provide a free app with a login? Handle all the account management/payments on their own website. That is allowed, right?

 

[koruki]

So the anti-apple brigade is quick to say iOS is going down, it's losing market share, android is number one then next minute its a monopoly. You know what a abusive monopoly is, its when you say you are open and free and trick all the manufactures to come to the party.. then suddenly you lock them out cause some guy in a white house doesn't like them.

 

[jaxemer83]

So the anti-apple brigade is quick to say iOS is going down, it's losing market share, android is number one then next minute its a monopoly. You know what a abusive monopoly is, its when you say you are open and free and trick all the manufactures to come to the party.. then suddenly you lock them out cause some guy in a white house doesn't like them.

Literally no one has said that.

 

[MacMadHatter]

Apple: “we welcome competition”...but you have no other choice on how to distribute your app.
Apple: “we welcome competition”...if you pay our 30% cut so that we can still profit off of that competition
Apple: “we welcome competition”...but we don’t allow other app stores or browser downloads to compete with us

I think this is where the App store failed. Someone adds app.. Charges 99c for the app. Then some jackass clones it and tosses it up there for free. Original app maker gone. That was never a fair market and this was before in app ad's were a thing where the other guy could just go to ad supported paid no ad's model and compete on features against the jackass.

However for the "Fee" how many bad apps compared to other app stores are there? The Android app store is a mess compared to Apple.

The App store is more aptly a walled garden than a monopoly. Also they're complaining that Apple takes a cut of in app subscriptions, just do like everyone else and force sign up via web page. I believe there are even hooks to launch the web page.

 

[Wiesenlooser]

Profit has nothing to do with being a monopoly. Apple sells a product that people want to buy and who are willing to pay a premium for. If you want to see a monopoly take a look at the Wikipedia entry for Standard Oil. Part of what they did was charge outrageous prices to companies in industries where there was no competition for their products and where there was they kept the prices so low that it prevented competition.

You are entirely missing the point. It is absolutely legal to have a monopoly (as in taking up the majority of the market). What is illegal is to misuse that market power for decreasing competition in other sectors. For instance, if you are a gatekeeper to another market. This is - arguably - the case for the App Store.