Microsoft Says Apple's 30% Fee Makes Xbox Cloud Gaming iOS App 'Impossible'

[I7guy]

It does matter. Your argument was that people who don't like the "walled garden" should buy an Android. It's not that simple especially if reasons they purchased an iPhone include things like integration with other Apple devices, Apple exclusive apps or features, etc.

It is that simple. People who purchased an iPhone specifically because of its vertical integration are now screwed.

iPhone users do NOT have a choice when it comes to app stores (except maybe in the EU at this point) and many have an issue with that.

Many do not as well.

Many also have an issue that there is NO competition in the important iOS app access market (except maybe in the EU at this point). The DMA is trying to open the door for competition and choice.

Many do not as well. The dma is an anti-American tech bill masquerading as a consumer oriented set of regulations. Couldn’t be further from the truth when in fact imo this will be a worse consumer experience.

 

[TLuc]

Not natively, unless I am mistaken.

Not important, Spotify doesn't block the ability to transfer playlists.

While I know they've cut back on it, they do have some exclusive podcasts, do they not?

So? they are hardly successful on Spotify's own platform. Nobody said it wants to license Spotify's podcast, suggesting something like this is illogical, like I've said did anybody force Apple to license Apple TV shows?

And no offence I expected logical reasons for regulating Spotify and all I've got are jokes, ironies and illogical suggestions.
Even people that feel the absolute need to defend apple and hate on Spotify can't provide any technical reasons as to why Spotify should pe regulated and what this regulation should address. Also, you obviously don't understand the scope of the DMA, what it concentrates on, if you are suggesting it should regulate a small piece of the digital market and ignore the digital market in general, or that the entirety of the digital market is the same as a small piece of it.

I agree it doesn't make sense, but I don't think it makes any sense on iOS either, so my opinions are consistent.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you are correct. Taking in consideration you feel the need to make ironic suggestions instead of providing serious arguments there are very small chances your sentiment regarding iOS is accurate.

Why is it illogical?

I explained it very clearly. You can't possibly insist on acting like a preinstalled browser, a core ecosystem app, is the same as a 3rd party music streaming app you have to download and install yourself, also an app that's limited in the functionality it provides. You can even use a browser to listen to music. Browsers have been regulated on Windows for years, all of the sudden Safari is untouchable. Why exactly?

It's not an "essential core service" only because it appears the DMA intentionally wrote the legislation to exclude them.

No, it's objectively not an essential core service, if it was Apple Music and Youtube Music would be the undisputed leaders of the music streaming market as their platform backing would completely overwhelm any competition.
And you have no proof whatsoever the DMA was intentionally written to exclude Spotify. If you would understand the law, you would not make such claims in the first place.

Are you arguing that Spotify isn't one of the biggest apps in existence? That it doesn't have a huge ad platform? That Spotify doesn't have significant market power? It has 56% of the music streaming market - which means musicians are forced to deal with them.

In comparison to YouTube, Google Maps, Google Search, WhatsApp, Facebook etc. they could be considered small.
Ad revenue is secondary for Spotify and comes only for their free version, which is built to make users want to subscribe, so no Spotify is not a huge ad platform, absolutely nowhere near YouTube, Facebook, TikTok for example.
And musicians are forced to deal with all music streaming platforms, for most of them the ability to promote their music on these platforms allows them to be more successful.

Revenue, where the EU made up numbers that conveniently avoided hitting Spotify (or any other European company). Dominance, where EU case law says that markets participants with less than 40% market share are generally considered to not be dominant. But somehow iOS has 27% and is a gatekeeper and Spotify has 56% and is not.

Again, accusation without backing.
And, Spotify and iOS are not the same thing. Stop acting like they are.
DMA is meant to have a broader scope, it concentrates more on the digital market in general, not on small, concentrated pieces of it, like music streaming.

The fact that musicians and record labels are forced to deal with Spotify in order to successfully serve the market. You literally claimed that developers are forced to deal with iOS if they want to reach 100% of their market. How is Spotify, again with 56% of the EU streaming market, somehow less important for musicians than iOS is for developers?

I already explained, in order to reach the entire mobile market, you need presence on iOS and Android.
Again, you don't understand the nuances between a single 3rd party app and an entire platform and ecosystem.

Why were the revenue numbers set where they were?

Do a little research and you will find out if you want to, I don't think you want to.

Questions and Answers: Digital Markets Act: Ensuring fair and open digital markets*

What is the Digital Markets Act?\nThe Digital Markets Act introduces rules for platforms that act as “gatekeepers” in the digital sector. These are platforms that have a significant impact on the inter

ec.europa.eu

I have done a lot of research, I don't think the technical reasons are obvious, so I do deny it. There is literally no good reason to not name Spotify a gatekeeper. From the DMA:

It doesn't seem like you have researched.
Also, nice try, the text you provided is missing a key component—the specific quantitative criteria that define what constitutes a "significant impact on the internal market" and other aspects of gatekeeper status that are explained in detail. Like I've said the only criteria met by Spotify is the number of monthly users.

Spotify has a significant impact on the internal market,

It's actually doesn't.

it provides an important gateway for business users (musicians and record labels) to reach end users and enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its market.

Business users in general not just a specific small group of such users. And it doesn't connect business with their costumers, artists are connected with their fan base and it's an additional revenue stream for record labels. Spotify it's actually their costumer, not the people that listen to the music, you can't buy music on Spotify, it's not a marketplace.

The only reason it wasn't named a gatekeeper was protectionism.

No, its because of the technical reason below:

The DMA defines gatekeepers as companies that meet certain thresholds in terms of revenue, market capitalization, and user base. While Spotify is a dominant player in music streaming, its overall influence and size across digital markets (compared to broader platforms like Google or Apple) does not meet the DMA's required criteria for classification.

Spotify's reach is primarily within the music streaming industry, which is more specialized than the broader ecosystems targeted by the DMA (e.g., app stores, advertising, social media).

The DMA is focused on platforms that control ecosystems that extend beyond a single product or service. For instance, Apple and Google control entire ecosystems that include app stores, devices, operating systems, advertising, and more.

Spotify, on the other hand, mainly operates as a content provider and streaming service, without controlling a broader platform or marketplace in the same way that tech giants do. Spotify doesn’t create or own the primary device or operating system through which people access music, nor does it operate an app marketplace. It largely exists within ecosystems controlled by other companies (like smartphones, app stores, or smart speakers).

Spotify's business model is largely subscription-based and relies on its relationships with artists, labels, and distributors. In contrast, companies like Apple and Google generate revenue across multiple industries, including advertising, app sales, cloud services, and hardware.

Spotify’s dominance in music streaming does not translate to dominance across multiple digital markets, which is what the DMA primarily focuses on when defining gatekeepers.

Spotify does not have the same level of vertical integration as other gatekeepers targeted by the DMA. For instance, companies like Google, Apple, and Amazon control not only the platforms on which their services run but also the distribution channels (app stores), advertising networks, and even the hardware. Spotify, on the other hand, is still dependent on platforms controlled by others (such as Apple's App Store or Google Play) for distribution and reach.

Spotify does not exert control over the broader digital economy in the way a tech giant like Amazon or Apple does, making its influence more sector-specific than global.

While let's say Spotify is a dominant player in the music streaming industry it does not meet the broader, cross-market criteria set by the DMA for defining a gatekeeper. The DMA focuses on large, multi-service platforms with control over digital ecosystems, whereas Spotify’s influence is primarily limited to music streaming. Furthermore, Spotify itself depends on platforms like Apple and Google to reach its users, making it more of a participant within gatekeeper-controlled ecosystems than a gatekeeper in the DMA's sense.

A participant within gatekeeper-controlled ecosystems - I really like this one, it's really accurate.

DMA was designed to attack US big businesses, wrapped with a shroud of consumer protectionism to make citizens think its in their best interests, when it's actually making its citizens' privacy, security, user experience, and quality of products worse.

Unsupported speculation.

But nerds can install porn apps and play pirated games on iOS now, so I guess it was worth it!

I doubt they can. You probably think apk's in general are pirated apps.

 

[BaldiMac]

Not important, Spotify doesn't block the ability to transfer playlists.

So? they are hardly successful on Spotify's own platform. Nobody said it wants to license Spotify's podcast, suggesting something like this is illogical, like I've said did anybody force Apple to license Apple TV shows?

And no offence I asked expected logical reasons for regulating Spotify and all I've got are jokes, ironies and illogical suggestions.
Even people that feel the absolute need to defend apple and hate on Spotify can't provide any technical reasons as to why Spotify should pe regulated and what this regulation should address. Also, you obviously don't understand the scope of the DMA, what it concentrates on if you are suggesting it should regulate a small piece of the digital market and ignore the digital market in general, or that the entirety of the digital market is the same as a small piece of it.


Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you are correct. Taking in consideration you feel the need to make ironic suggestions instead of providing serious arguments there are very small chances your sentiment regarding iOS is accurate.


I explained it very clearly. You can't possibly insist on acting like a preinstalled browser, a core ecosystem app, is the same as a 3rd party music streaming app you have to download and install yourself, also an app that's limited in the functionality it provides. You can even use a browser to listen to music. Browsers have been regulated on Windows for years, all of the sudden Safari is untouchable. Why exactly?



No, it's objectively not an essential core service, if it was Apple Music and Youtube Music would be the undisputed leaders of the music streaming market as their platform backing would simply overwhelm any competition.
And you have no proof whatsoever the DMA was intentionally written to exclude Spotify. If you would understand the law, you would not make such claims in the first place.


In comparison to YouTube, Google Maps, Google Search, WhatsApp, Facebook etc. they could be considered small.
Ad revenue is secondary for Spotify and comes only for their free version, which is built to make users want to subscribe, so no Spotify is not a huge ad platform, absolutely nowhere near YouTube, Facebook, TikTok for example.
And musicians are forced to deal with all music streaming platforms, for most of them the ability to promote their music on these platforms allows them to be more successful.


Again, accusation without backing.
And, Spotify and iOS are not the same thing. Stop acting like they are.
DMA is meant to have a broader scope, it concentrates more on the digital market in general, not on small, concentrated pieces of it, like music streaming.


I already explained, in order to reach the entire mobile market, you need presence on iOS and Android.
Again, you don't understand the nuances between a single 3rd party app and an entire platform and ecosystem.


Do a little research and you will find out if you want to, I don't think you want to.

Questions and Answers: Digital Markets Act: Ensuring fair and open digital markets*

What is the Digital Markets Act?\nThe Digital Markets Act introduces rules for platforms that act as “gatekeepers” in the digital sector. These are platforms that have a significant impact on the inter

ec.europa.eu

It doesn't seem like you have researched.
Also, nice try, the text you provided is missing a key component—the specific quantitative criteria that define what constitutes a "significant impact on the internal market" and other aspects of gatekeeper status that are explained in detail. Like I've said the only criteria met by Spotify is the number of monthly users.


It's actually doesn't.


Business users in general not just a specific small group of such users.


No, its because of the technical reason below:

The DMA defines gatekeepers as companies that meet certain thresholds in terms of revenue, market capitalization, and user base. While Spotify is a dominant player in music streaming, its overall influence and size across digital markets (compared to broader platforms like Google or Apple) does not meet the DMA's required criteria for classification.

Spotify's reach is primarily within the music streaming industry, which is more specialized than the broader ecosystems targeted by the DMA (e.g., app stores, advertising, social media).

The DMA is focused on platforms that control ecosystems that extend beyond a single product or service. For instance, Apple and Google control entire ecosystems that include app stores, devices, operating systems, advertising, and more.

Spotify, on the other hand, mainly operates as a content provider and streaming service, without controlling a broader platform or marketplace in the same way that tech giants do. Spotify doesn’t create or own the primary device or operating system through which people access music, nor does it operate an app marketplace. It largely exists within ecosystems controlled by other companies (like smartphones, app stores, or smart speakers).

Spotify's business model is largely subscription-based and relies on its relationships with artists, labels, and distributors. In contrast, companies like Apple and Google generate revenue across multiple industries, including advertising, app sales, cloud services, and hardware.

Spotify’s dominance in music streaming does not translate to dominance across multiple digital markets, which is what the DMA primarily focuses on when defining gatekeepers.

Spotify does not have the same level of vertical integration as other gatekeepers targeted by the DMA. For instance, companies like Google, Apple, and Amazon control not only the platforms on which their services run but also the distribution channels (app stores), advertising networks, and even the hardware. Spotify, on the other hand, is still dependent on platforms controlled by others (such as Apple's App Store or Google Play) for distribution and reach.

Spotify does not exert control over the broader digital economy in the way a tech giant like Amazon or Apple does, making its influence more sector-specific than global.

While let's say Spotify is a dominant player in the music streaming industry it does not meet the broader, cross-market criteria set by the DMA for defining a gatekeeper. The DMA focuses on large, multi-service platforms with control over digital ecosystems, whereas Spotify’s influence is primarily limited to music streaming. Furthermore, Spotify itself depends on platforms like Apple and Google to reach its users, making it more of a participant within gatekeeper-controlled ecosystems than a gatekeeper in the DMA's sense.

A participant within gatekeeper-controlled ecosystems - I really like this one, it's really accurate.

Unsupported speculation.


I doubt they can. You probably think apk's in general are pirated apps.

You keep saying that Spotify and the App Store are vastly different without considering the ways that they are very much the same. They are both platform for the sale of digital goods. The both meet the DMA's definition of online intermediation services. Despite your claims, they both meet the metrics for gatekeepers in terms of size, users and business users.

Apple charges 15/30% for digital content. Spotify charges around 25% for digital content. Apple has around 30% of the market in the EU. Spotify has 56% of its market.

 

[surferfb]

You keep saying that Spotify and the App Store are vastly different without considering the ways that they are very much the same. They are both platform for the sale of digital goods. The both meet the DMA's definition of online intermediation services. Despite your claims, they both meet the metrics for gatekeepers in terms of size, users and business users.

Apple charges 15/30% for digital content. Spotify charges around 25% for digital content. Apple has around 30% of the market in the EU. Spotify has 56% of its market.

I think we've got another situation here where someone wants to break up Apple's control of the App Store, thinks the DMA is about breaking up the App Store, and therefore assumes that is what the law is about. Wouldn't be the first time you and I have seen it on MacRumors 😂

 

[surferfb]

0 chance of that happening, like Z e r o.

Why? While I'm obviously not privy to what sorts of conversations they are having with the EU on this, I'd absolutely be advising Meta to pull Facebook (not WhatsApp) out of the EU. (Note, to be clear, I would NOT be advising Apple to pull out of the EU).

Gruber did a good job of explaining Facebook's options a few months back.

Meta’s only options for compliance with this ruling, as I see it:

• Offer a new free tier with contextual, rather than targeted, ads. To achieve an ARPU equivalent to Meta’s paid and free-with-targeted-ads tiers, this new offering would likely have to inundate users with a veritable avalanche of annoying ads. This, I would wager, would be deemed “malicious compliance” and thus also illegal.
• Offer a new free tier with contextual, rather than targeted, ads — but only show roughly the same frequency of ads as their lucrative free-with-targeted-ads tier. This is what the EDPB (and EC) are demanding, and seemingly think they can force Meta to do. Meta would almost certainly see ARPU plummet for all users who opt into this tier. Who knows if the revenue would even be sufficient to break even per such user?
• Invent some novel way to generate as much revenue per non-targeted ad as targeted ones. This is the “nerd harder” fantasy solution, a la demanding that secure end-to-end encryption provide back doors available only to “the good guys”.
• Cease offering Facebook and Instagram in the EU. (WhatsApp doesn’t monetize through targeted ads, so isn’t germane to this ruling.) This is the option the EDPB and EC believe “unthinkable” for Meta to take, because the EU is, in their minds, an indispensable market.

I don’t see how Meta can risk the second choice. Meta could afford to see ARPU plummet solely within the EU, and at first thought, you might think some revenue per EU user is surely better than no revenue at all from the EU. But if Meta caves and complies with this ruling by offering a free tier with significantly lower ARPU, that opens the door for regulators and legislative bodies around the globe to demand the same. Then, poof goes Meta as an industry colossus.

Remember Meta was ALREADY making less money on the "pay a subscription and not have targeted ads" model than they get with their tracking. (Also, as Gruber notes, this is the exact same model that is perfectly ok for Der Spiegel to use, but not for Facebook for some ridiculous reason).

I will say, the fact that the EU has me defending Meta is definitely an impressive feat though!

 

[webkit]

So, you have no data.

The "data" I have is comments on forums like this and the entrance/existence of various alternative app stores.

 

[webkit]

People who purchased an iPhone specifically because of its vertical integration are now screwed.

Not necessarily. The App Store isn't going away, and added app store/app access options and competition could push Apple to make the App Store and iOS even better.

Many do not as well.

Ok.

The dma is an anti-American tech bill masquerading as a consumer oriented set of regulations. Couldn’t be further from the truth when in fact imo this will be a worse consumer experience.

No. It's more like an anti-big (tech) company bill but that is basically how antitrust and competition law works. It just so happens that big tech companies are largely U.S. companies. The FTC, DOJ and states have gone after U.S. companies for the same reasons. Based on your reasoning, I guess the U.S. is "anti-American tech" too.

Again, the App Store isn't going away. The added app store/app access options and competition could push Apple to make the App Store and iOS an even better experience not just for consumers but developers too.

 

[TLuc]

You keep saying that Spotify and the App Store are vastly different without considering the ways that they are very much the same.

They are not similar in any relevant way to this discussion. They are more different than alike.

They are both platform for the sale of digital goods.

No, they aren't, you can't buy goods, aka music on Spotify, you can only buy a subscription to access content, and you don't own the music you listen to, if you cancel the subscription, you don't have access to the music anymore.

The both meet the DMA's definition of online intermediation services.

Well that proves Spotify isn't actually an online intermediation service:

-they allow business users to offer goods or services to consumers, with a view to facilitating the initiating of direct transactions between those business users and consumers, irrespective of where those transactions are ultimately concluded;

This is not applicable to Spotify, there's no direct business to consumer transactions withing their app, Spotify itself is the costumer actually. There are no transactions or direct business relations between artists, record labels and the people that listen to music on Spotify.

-they are provided to business users on the basis of contractual relationships between the provider of those services and business users which offer goods or services to consumers;

Spotify is not a service provided to business users, Spotify is actually the one that directly offers the service to their own end costumers. And again, Spotify is a subscribable content platform, not a transactional marketplace.

Despite your claims, they both meet the metrics for gatekeepers in terms of size, users and business users.

Nah, only Apple actually meets them

Apple charges 15/30% for digital content. Spotify charges around 25% for digital content. Apple has around 30% of the market in the EU. Spotify has 56% of its market.

Again, Spotify is not a transactional marketplace.
Also, the fact that Spotify pays 75-80% of their total revenue, to record labels, publishers, and artists doesn't really favor your case. This is the actual perspective that's relevant, Spotify pays to rights holders most of the money it generates.

 

[BaldiMac]

They are not similar in any relevant way to this discussion. They are more different than alike.

I disagree. They specific areas that I mentioned in my post are certainly relevant to this discussion, despite you trying to dismiss it out of hand.

No, they aren't, you can't buy goods, aka music on Spotify, you can only buy a subscription to access content, and you don't own the music you listen to, if you cancel the subscription, you don't have access to the music anymore.


Well that proves Spotify isn't actually an online intermediation service:

-they allow business users to offer goods or services to consumers, with a view to facilitating the initiating of direct transactions between those business users and consumers, irrespective of where those transactions are ultimately concluded;

This is not applicable to Spotify, there's no direct business to consumer transactions withing their app, Spotify itself is the costumer actually. There are no transactions or direct business relations between artists, record labels and the people that listen to music on Spotify.

-they are provided to business users on the basis of contractual relationships between the provider of those services and business users which offer goods or services to consumers;

Spotify is not a service provided to business users, Spotify is actually the one that directly offers the service to their own end consumers. And again, Spotify is a subscribable content platform, not a transactional marketplace.

Charging a subscription instead of individual transactions doesn't change anything. That's silly. Heck, Google Maps qualifies. The only reason Spotify is not a gatekeeper is because the EC decided that music streaming would not be included in the list of core platform services despite the fact that did include video streaming.

Nah, only Apple actually meets them

Nope. Spotify certainly exceeds $7.5 billion annual turnover. The have over 45 million users in the EU, and they have over 10K business users.

Also, the fact that Spotify pays 75-80% of their total revenue, to record labels, publishers, and artists doesn't really favor your case. This is the actual perspective that's relevant, Spotify pays to rights holders most of the money it generates.

So does the App Store.

 

[I7guy]

Not necessarily. The App Store isn't going away, and added app store/app access options and competition could push Apple to make the App Store and iOS even better.

The app store is being given away for almost free. Anyone can open an App Store. Bad faith actors (epic) can open an App Store. Ne’er do swells can open an App Store. Your app could be moving making the experience worse and iOS worse.

Ok.




No. It's more like an anti-big (tech) company bill but that is basically how antitrust and competition law works.

This isn’t antitrust legislation as there was no finding. The dma is anti American tech masquerading as consumer rights legislation.

It just so happens that big tech companies are largely U.S. companies. The FTC, DOJ and states have gone after U.S. companies for the same reasons.

The son has not won every case it brings to trial.

Based on your reasoning, I guess the U.S. is "anti-American tech" too.

Interpet how you see fit.

Again, the App Store isn't going away. The added app store/app access options and competition could push Apple to make the App Store and iOS an even better experience not just for consumers but developers too.

Again it changing sufficiently. Bad faith actors (epic) opening up stores. Etc. bad apps could start a push for legislation that could hopefully give apple more control.

 

[TLuc]

I disagree. They specific areas that I mentioned in my post are certainly relevant to this discussion, despite you trying to dismiss it out of hand.

You can disagree, doesn't mean you are right.

Charging a subscription instead of individual transactions doesn't change anything.

It does. The dynamic is totally different, like I've said Spotify is not a transactional marketplace like you are trying to imply.

That's silly. Heck, Google Maps qualifies.

It's not silly at all, its the simple truth.

And Google Maps literally helps users find businesses, services, and locations. I use it all the time to find businesses. Businesses manage their presence on Google Maps through Google My Business, where they upload details, respond to customer reviews, and make themselves more discoverable to users which leads to a clear and direct business-to-consumer interaction.
A lot of companies rely on Google Maps to gain visibility and attract customers.
Also Google Maps intermediates interactions like bookings, reservations, and inquiries. For example, users can book a restaurant reservation, call a business, or navigate to a physical store.
Google Maps represents an essential tool for customer acquisition, especially for brick-and-mortar locations. Many businesses rely heavily on their visibility on Google Maps to drive foot traffic, making it a critical intermediary in their marketing and customer engagement strategies
Google Maps intermediation role extends even to providing real-time information (traffic, routes, public transportation).

Google Maps is the go-to platform for finding businesses and services.
I can't make it clearer than this.

The only reason Spotify is not a gatekeeper is because the EC decided that music streaming would not be included in the list of core platform services despite the fact that did include video streaming.

EU, not EC and again unfounded speculation.

Nope. Spotify certainly exceeds $7.5 billion annual turnover.

In the EU? highly unlikely. Worldwide, yes.

The have over 45 million users in the EU, and they have over 10K business users.

Yes, the only criteria they meet is monthly users or business users.

So does the App Store.

Really now?
During the Epic Games vs. Apple lawsuit in 2021, documents revealed that Apple’s App Store had a profit margin of around 78%. The app store profit margin is estimated between 60-80% on a regular basis, that's absolutely huge. Apple would still be making a healthy profit even if they would reduce the commission from 30% to below 10%.

Spotify's highest profit margin ever was 7.7% and they only registered profits a few times.
So definitely not the same as the App Store.

 

[webkit]

The app store is being given away for almost free. Anyone can open an App Store. Bad faith actors (epic) can open an App Store. Ne’er do swells can open an App Store. Your app could be moving making the experience worse and iOS worse.

Again, the App Store isn't going away, and added app store/app access options and competition could push Apple to make the App Store and iOS even better.

This isn’t antitrust legislation as there was no finding. The dma is anti American tech masquerading as consumer rights legislation.

The son has not won every case it brings to trial.

The son?

My point here was that the FTC, DOJ and states have gone after U.S. companies so if you are accusing the EU of targeting American companies you might as well accuse the U.S. of doing the same. The reality is that it's about targeting large (tech) companies.

Again it changing sufficiently. Bad faith actors (epic) opening up stores. Etc. bad apps could start a push for legislation that could hopefully give apple more control.

Again, the App Store isn't going away. The added app store/app access options and competition could push Apple to make the App Store and iOS an even better experience not just for consumers but developers too.

 

[I7guy]

Again, the App Store isn't going away, and added app store/app access options and competition could push Apple to make the App Store and iOS even better.

The DMA took Apples business and gave it away to any and all comers. Much like Robin Hood. These "business owners" get to have nearly free app store distribution. As I said earlier the DMA is a coverup for in the guise of consumerism for anti-American tech.

The son?

Speel chek is impsible sometymes.

My point here was that the FTC, DOJ and states have gone after U.S. companies so if you are accusing the EU of targeting American companies you might as well accuse the U.S. of doing the same. The reality is that it's about targeting large (tech) companies.

The reality is the DOJ brings a lawsuit which must be won and the DOJ doesn't win every trial eg the AT&T and Time Warner merger.

Again, the App Store isn't going away.

Correct, it's being given away.

The added app store/app access options and competition could push Apple to make the App Store and iOS an even better experience not just for consumers but developers too.

Yes, on Apple's back. The added app store could add malware, phishware, illegal content, credit card fraud, bad user experience, and dwindling revenue for smaller developers.

 

[webkit]

The DMA took Apples business and gave it away to any and all comers. Much like Robin Hood. These "business owners" get to have nearly free app store distribution. As I said earlier the DMA is a coverup for in the guise of consumerism for anti-American tech.
Speel chek is impsible sometymes.
The reality is the DOJ brings a lawsuit which must be won and the DOJ doesn't win every trial eg the AT&T and Time Warner merger.
Correct, it's being given away.
Yes, on Apple's back. The added app store could add malware, phishware, illegal content, credit card fraud, bad user experience, and dwindling revenue for smaller developers.

Your nonsense is getting old (again). I will simply refer you to my past comments.

 

[BaldiMac]

You can disagree, doesn't mean you are right.

Sure. That's the nature of opinions. The difference is that I explained my opinion. You just dismissed it out of hand.

It does. The dynamic is totally different, like I've said Spotify is not a transactional marketplace like you are trying to imply.

Spotify collects money in exchange for digital content. Seems transactional to me.

It's not silly at all, its the simple truth.

And Google Maps literally helps users find businesses, services, and locations. I use it all the time to find businesses. Businesses manage their presence on Google Maps through Google My Business, where they upload details, respond to customer reviews, and make themselves more discoverable to users which leads to a clear and direct business-to-consumer interaction.
A lot of companies rely on Google Maps to gain visibility and attract customers.
Also Google Maps intermediates interactions like bookings, reservations, and inquiries. For example, users can book a restaurant reservation, call a business, or navigate to a physical store.
Google Maps represents an essential tool for customer acquisition, especially for brick-and-mortar locations. Many businesses rely heavily on their visibility on Google Maps to drive foot traffic, making it a critical intermediary in their marketing and customer engagement strategies
Google Maps intermediation role extends even to providing real-time information (traffic, routes, public transportation).

Google Maps is the go-to platform for finding businesses and services.
I can't make it clearer than this.

And Spotify is the go-to platform for finding streaming music and other audio from a wide variety of business. You are making a distinction without a difference.

EU, not EC and again unfounded speculation.

Unfounded? Music streaming was not selected as a CPS, whle video streaming was. So that's certainly a foundation.

In the EU? highly unlikely. Worldwide, yes.

You are absolutely right. I missed the part about the revenue metric being limited to the EU. Interestingly, the led me to another similarity between the App Store and Spotify. EU revenue.

App Store: 7% (EU Share) of $85 billion (Estimated 2023 App Store Revenue) = $5.95 billion in EU revenue
Spotify: 38% (Europe Share of Premium Subscribers) of $14 billion (2023 Revenue) = $5.32 billion in European revenue

Yes, I know that I'm comparing the EU To Europe. I'd guess that Spotify's EU revenue is closer to $4 billion. But the point is that they are in the same ballpark.

As far as the market cap metric, what possible reason is this included in the DMA? It has nothing at all to do with impact on the EU market.

Yes, the only criteria they meet is monthly users or business users.

Only? They met two of the three qualitative metrics you linked to. And are within 10% of the third by market cap.

Really now?
During the Epic Games vs. Apple lawsuit in 2021, documents revealed that Apple’s App Store had a profit margin of around 78%. The app store profit margin is estimated between 60-80% on a regular basis, that's absolutely huge. Apple would still be making a healthy profit even if they would reduce the commission from 30% to below 10%.

Spotify's highest profit margin ever was 7.7% and they only registered profits a few times.
So definitely not the same as the App Store.

Really! You are comparing two different things. For Apple, you are only including Apple's cut (30/15%) as revenue. For Spotify, you are including the full amount (100%) as revenue.

I think basic math shows that with 85/70% is "most of the money".

 

[surferfb]

As far as the market cap metric, what possible reason is this included in the DMA? It has nothing at all to do with impact on the EU market.

I can only think of one. But since I keep getting told I'm making things up when pointing out that it looks like the EU wrote the DMA to avoid hitting major EU tech companies like Spotify, I guess it's not that.

 

[TLuc]

Sure. That's the nature of opinions. The difference is that I explained my opinion. You just dismissed it out of hand.

The explanation made it more clear that is wrong, so thank you.

Spotify collects money in exchange for digital content. Seems transactional to me.

Where does it say that the existence of any kind of transaction, no matter its nature or characteristics is the only thing needed to be a relevant intermediary in accordance to DMA's requirements?

And Spotify is the go-to platform for finding streaming music and other audio from a wide variety of business. You are making a distinction without a difference.

You find music in order to listen to it not to buy songs, albums or have any transactional relationships with the holders the comercial rights for said music.
A crucial distinction you obviously ignore.

Also the music catalog is almost the same between most music streaming services. It doesn't make sense for Spotify to be the go-to service for finding music(like you imply) , you can find music just as well on YouTube or Google search. Google Maps is in this situation because is the maps app with the most complete information, by far.

Unfounded? Music streaming was not selected as a CPS, whle video streaming was. So that's certainly a foundation.

Yes, unfounded, suppositions that have no weight. And its more like YouTube specifically was targeted, as YouTube is quite a special case from multiple points of view. YouTube is more than just a simple video sharing platform, it's a platform that shares a lot of information and can shape public opinions. This is why no other video sharing service will qualify, nothing comes close to YouTube.

You are absolutely right. I missed the part about the revenue metric being limited to the EU. Interestingly, the led me to another similarity between the App Store and Spotify. EU revenue.

App Store: 7% (EU Share) of $85 billion (Estimated 2023 App Store Revenue) = $5.95 billion in EU revenue
Spotify: 38% (Europe Share of Premium Subscribers) of $14 billion (2023 Revenue) = $5.32 billion in European revenue

Well the Play Store makes even less than that in the EU for example and its included because you ignore a very important detail, the company market capitalization or at least 75 billion. There's no doubt both Google and Apple meet this criteria. Apple makes way way more money than Spotify in the EU, which makes sense, Spotify is just a music streaming app Apple controls an entire platform.

As far as the market cap metric, what possible reason is this included in the DMA? It has nothing at all to do with impact on the EU market.

I'm sure its explained, research it and you will find out.

Only? They met two of the three qualitative metrics you linked to. And are within 10% of the third by market cap.

No, the only meet the monthly nr of users criteria.
Spotify's global market cap is 65 billion. Again you confuse EU with the world.

Really! You are comparing two different things. For Apple, you are only including Apple's cut (30/15%) as revenue. For Spotify, you are including the full amount (100%) as revenue.
I think basic math shows that with 85/70% is "most of the money".

Oh, now I'm comparing 2 different things? Like the App Store and Spotify? No, not at all, I'm comparing the profit margins, they are exactly the same thing. And I included the same for both.

 

[surferfb]

I'm sure its explained, research it and you will find out.

Can you please give me a reason outside of "making sure EU companies aren't impacted by the DMA"? Because that's the only reason that makes sense to me. Happy to have another explanation though.

 

[BaldiMac]

Oh, now I'm comparing 2 different things? Like the App Store and Spotify? No, not at all, I'm comparing the profit margins, they are exactly the same thing. And I included the same for both.

If you can't acknowledge that 85/70% of the transaction is "most of the money", then we've got nothing to discuss.

 

[TLuc]

If you can't acknowledge that 85/70% of the transaction is "most of the money", then we've got nothing to discuss.

If funny that I have to acknowledge something you are misinterpreting.
Apple/the App Store doesn't "pay developers" a 85/70% share of what they themselves make, the developers, businesses are the ones earning that money and paying Apple, the same way Spotify earns/generates all it's money by itself. It's something elementary.
The businesses, app owners, developers etc. have a direct, transactional relationship with their customers, Apple is just an intermediary that collects a commission from the ones doing all the actual commercial work and actually directly attract the money. Spotify's situation is quite different because they pay a very big percentage out of the money they directly generate or earns completely by themselves, it feels weird that I have to explain this.

 

[TLuc]

Can you please give me a reason outside of "making sure EU companies aren't impacted by the DMA"? Because that's the only reason that makes sense to me. Happy to have another explanation though.

First, we have to determine what EU companies are you taking about.
Let's exclude Spotify because it's obvious you are very bothered by the fact the Spotify objectively pointed out Apple's anti-competitive behavior (for which they were fined, and Apple's response was: Hey we did that, but Spotify managed anyway so we shouldn't be punished).

Let's look at other EU companies if you made this generalization.
Also, it would be fascination to hear what "impacted by the DMA" would specifically mean for these EU companies? because it's not clear at all especially since you are suggesting it would a negative impact. And it would be great if I could hear serious arguments not jokes or ironies.

 

[surferfb]

So no answer as to why market cap is a factor in deciding whether or not the DMA applies to a company. Here's why: if they set the "EU turnover" amount low enough that it hit things like the App Store they'd hit Spotify too, and they didn't want to hit Spotify, so they added market cap to make sure they got the American companies.

I can't give you another EU consumer tech company that the DMA would apply to. I would assume SAP meets the thresholds in the enterprise space, but cloud services weren't included as a "core platform service." Hmmm - wonder why?

The reason Europe doesn't have big consumer tech companies, by the way, is in large part because the continent's backwards regulations kill innovation. And that's not just me saying that - it's the former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi. From Bloomberg:

His report explicitly says that competition enforcement can be “harmful to innovation” and accuses the commission’s competition unit of being backward-looking.

For the record, I am not bothered at all that Spotify raised the anti-steering issue with the EU - I've long been against Apple's anti-steering policies. What bothers me is hypocrites in the EU like Versager claiming that this regulation is only about competition and protecting consumers, when it's clear that they intentionally avoided having the regulation apply to the only European consumer tech company of note - because they know how onerous and ridiculous the regulations are.

Which again, is entirely in the EU's purview to do. But they should just own up and admit what it's actually about instead of hiding behind "protecting consumers" and "encouraging completion" when they are actually make EU consumers' products, services, safety, security, and user experience worse and don't want to encourage competition in the areas where EU is actually competing.

 

[TLuc]

You said: "making sure EU companies aren't impacted by the DMA". I was curious to hear who these companies are, but it looks like I'm not in luck.

What bothers me is hypocrites in the EU like Versager claiming that this regulation is only about competition and protecting consumers, when it's clear that they intentionally avoided having the regulation apply to the only European consumer tech company of note - because they know how onerous and ridiculous the regulations are.

Fascinating, so you were actually taking only about Spotify but generalizing with "making sure EU companies".
You think the 27 different countries agreed in majority "to create a law to protect Spotify"? How they protect it, you don't know? You can't even come with any serios examples or regulations that would be necessary to be applied to Spotify and for what purpose, has Spotify showed any generally uncompetitive behavior? You are mixing things for the sake of finding excuses for Apple, even if they don't make sense.
Also, Versager is no longer commissioner, and she couldn't do much without the Commision's and EU parliament's support anyway, so you will see that things won't change after her.

The real issue DMA is trying to address is: competition needs to be fair, and no company should get a pass on that. You disagree with this? You think Apple should just get a pass and be allowed to behave however they want in the EU or anywhere else for that matter?

Now regarding Spotify, pretty soon EU will have a law to "to bring more fairness and transparency to music-streaming across the bloc". So, your "protecting Spotify" assessment is clearly incorrect.
"Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) today voted to adopt a new resolution by 532 to 61". I would say that's a huge majority, does it really look to you that Spotify is being "protected" and getting special treatment?

EU calls for laws to force greater algorithmic transparency from music-streaming platforms | TechCrunch

Europe is calling for new rules to bring transparency to music-streaming, with proposals for Spotify et al to open their algorithms.

techcrunch.com

FYI it was announced just 2 days ago that the fair and innocent Apple that doesn't need to be regulated, definitively lost the €13 billion case. Looks like their tax avoidance didn't work, the EU is not the US.

 

[surferfb]

FYI it was announced just 2 days ago that the fair and innocent Apple that doesn't need to be regulated, definitively lost the €13 billion case. Looks like their tax avoidance didn't work, the EU is not the US.

I invite you to join the thread where we're discussing that. Spoiler alert: Apple did nothing wrong there. The suit was against Ireland, all that's happening is taxes Apple already paid to the US will be given to Ireland instead (who still doesn't think they are entitled to taxes, by the way - because they're not in any sort of reasonable idea of how taxation works, but Vestager is going to Vestager and the EU cronies are going to be EU cronies).

 

[TLuc]

Like I said the "innocent" and "fair" Apple.
And the outcome is against Apple because Apple challenged the Commission.
Taking in consideration so many Europeans work at Apple I would say its impossible they wouldn't have known that their deal with Ireland, the preferential treatment, tax cuts are not legal and accepted in the EU, but their American bosses most likely didn't care. And FYI companies in the EU can get state aid in very specific cases but it has to be approved by the Commission. For example, I know a company that just built a factory that is the first in the world of it's kind with zero CO2 emission. State aid was approved by the Commission because of this.
And what Ireland thinks is irrelevant, they can't go against the rules of the EU.