Or it's called charging for access to your platform. Again, Apple currently pays billions and Spotify currently pays $99/year.
Okay. But you didn't answer my question.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spotify CEO on Apple and Google: 'If You Want to Be the Referee, You Can't Also Be the Player'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here we go Spotify had no issues paying the Apple fee.Huh. So you don't actually have any valid arguments to put forward?
Then Apple launched Apple Music & then Apple started to change the goal posts on them making it harder to get app updates & then wanting to see them in advance bearing in mind Apple are making their own competing app
So you can take what they are alleging Apple of potentially doing.
Then deliberately launch Apple Music at 10.99 to under cut Spotify in regards to including Apple’s fee.
I suspect that is why the European Union commission is very likely to allow Spotify to put a link in their app for alternative payment’s.
I find this amazing that people defend the richest company in the world no matter what.
What I’m getting at is why does it actually matter if the richest company in the world is forced to let companies put a link to alternative payment methods.
All you have to do is not download the app.
You no what your right
That’s why the European Union commission is effectively saying Apple you have done nothing wrong but
What we are going to do is very likely let companies put a link in their apps for alternative payment method
Ok your right
It’s harming your user experience to allow an app to put a link to alternative payment methods even if you don’t download that app
It’s still destroying your experience because it exists on the platform & giving people that choice is a bad thing.
Oh & there is a 3rd party company that is allowed to stand outside the Apple Store & advertise they can fix your iPhone cheaper.
But yeah your totally right.
You know what your right
We should let companies do whatever they like & employ whatever business tactics they see fit to do.
I can only speak for myself, but it matters to me as because I like not having to deal with all the pricing crap that companies do like discount codes, variable pricing, and selling my information.
And when they do, Apple will still require them to pay the same App Store fees minus the 3% payment processing fee like they do for Danish dating apps.
Despite your claims, the alternative payment method lawsuits are not about the 30%/15% fee, they're simply about opening competition to other payment processors.
Internet Explorer is an example. Early versions were "garbage" compared to what Netscape was offering and IE would not have been able to gain market as it did if Microsoft wasn't dominant in Windows, didn't engage in anticompetitive behavior to knock down Netscape, etc. A variety of Microsoft products (Media Player, Word, etc.) were subpar at least initially and would not have been able to overtake better products if not for Microsoft's dominance in Windows and/or anticompetitive behavior.
Dominance and anticompetitive behavior can stifle competition and innovation, discourage new entries, etc. and this is a reason why antitrust laws exist.
make something better than apple lol, so a company is basically forced to create a new dominant cell phone market, or pay 30% while trying to compete with apple who doesnt need to pay 30%. this seems favorable for enabling competition
And I explained why I answered as I did because you clearly hadn't articulated your original question properly as I also explained in my followup.
Having said that, what is the specific "more regulation" that you are referring to? It seems at least some of the so-called "more regulation" is really more about enforcing or clarifying existing regulations as they can relate to current day technologies, products/services, etc.
Not necessarily as anticompetitive behavior like predatory pricing, exclusionary practices, etc. can come into play unfairly or illegally influencing those decisions. Many chose IE over Navigator early on not because IE itself was a better product but because it was cheaper (in this case, free) and/or more easily accessible.
Many chose AT&T over T-Mobile and Verizon in 2007-11 not because AT&T itself was a better product but because it was exclusively where iPhone was available.
The other part is that Netscape Navigator had to be purchased whereas IE was "bundled" with Windows. The anti-competitive behavior was Microsoft being able to include IE for free. Regardless, how good NN was, it is hard to win against an acceptable product that is free.
Are you purposely talking in circles here? Here is my initial clarification:
Not at all. I asked which SPECIFIC "more regulations" are you referring to or are you saying everything the Spotify CEO is talking about regarding regulations = more regulations. As I clearly stated, I don't think everything being discussed is truly MORE regulations and at least some of it is instead really more about enforcing or clarifying existing regulations as they can relate to current day technologies, products/services, etc.
Yes, that was all part of the "anticompetitive behavior" I was referring to.
It wasn't about IE being bundled with Windows for free. You'll notice that it continued to be bundled for free. Once again, the Microsoft case was primarily about Microsoft making it technically difficult to not use IE and leveraging their Windows monopoly to incentivize OEMs to not install third-party browsers. They also provided rebates to other software developers to discourage the adoption and promotion of third-party browsers.
Monopolization Defined
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.
I kinda assumed you had read at least the first sentence of the OP. The thread is about Spotify supporting the DMCC in the UK.
There's nothing illegal about offering a better price than a rival. Same for exclusive offers.
If you want in someone else's store, you play by their rules. Otherwise, go build your own store to sell from.
It’s not silly if you cause your competitors to pay more of their revenue than you.
Their market share or the fact Apple Pay’s x amount of billions is complete besides the point. Apple Music isn’t paying a rent.
The fact is it cost Apple exactly the same amount of resources to allow Amazon to sell physical books or an iPhone, as it would cost the to allow Amazon selling the digital version.
The exact same cost of allowing Spotify, Netflix, Amazon music to sell their services with a zero revenue cut.
The same cost as allowing steam to sell their games in the app. Apple have zero costs allowing this sales.
So why is apple entitled to a cut of subscriptions and purchases in some apps but not in others when the exact same resources are used by Apple?
What’s preventing them? The fact apple takes part of their revenue. The percentage could be 15% or 95% the effect is the same. Apple would keep 100% of the revenue to support their business while competing music services would lose 15-30% of the revenue.
This is all the same old myopic nonsense littered with irrelevant pictures that make it hard to follow. You're just ignoring my arguments and repeating yourself.
I kinda assumed you had read at least the first sentence of the OP. The thread is about Spotify supporting the DMCC in the UK.
I did read the first sentence but as I already stated, I don’t necessarily see all of it as truly being MORE regulations but to at least some degree is about clarifying, applying, etc. existing regulations as they may relate to current day technologies, products/services, etc. Hence why I asked if there was anything SPECIFIC you were referring to or were you saying everything should be considered "more" regulations.
It absolutely can be illegal to offer a better price than a rival when it's predatory pricing or dumping.
Not necessarily, despite lawsuits that occurred at the time. That was a separate example regarding people choosing a product/service even though they may have felt the product/service itself was not better.
If you're going to pretend that a new bill to regulate competition in digital markets isn't new regulation, we've veered away from rational discussion.