Apple Challenges $2 Billion EU Antitrust Fine Over Spotify Complaint

[AppliedMicro]

EU doesn't have many tech companies, they are loosing revenue from taxes, so they figured out a way to make money by imposing huge fines on tech companies.

There's a simple way to avoid such fines:
Play fairly, don't play anticompetitively and comply with the law.

Apple were intelligent enough and had highly-enough paid lawyers to anticipate that their conduct was and is anticompetitive. Especially given controlling a computing platform having as many end users and developers as they do.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

Damn right they should challenge that BS fine.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

amazon denies anker from promoting products that are cheaper on ankers website.

1. Not only this is not true, it's also irrelevant.

2. Are you saying that an iPhone or the iPad is a device akin to Amazon.com? These things aren't even in the same category.

Anyway this ship has sailed.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Spotify's side of the argument: Spotify have made it very clear they don't believe they should pay Apple anything at all.

Apple's side of the argument: Apple don't want to get into a negotiation with every single company that wants to sell through the App Store, so they created policies for how things work.

What's the compromise here? That Apple starts negotiating with each company separately?

Simple: Allow linking to outside purchase options and let the market determine a fair commission for Apple's service that can compete with third-party developers using a different system or rolling their own.

In other words: Offer a commission rate that Spotify maybe wants to consider paying vs. other services. Or as we otherwise call it: competition.

That only means bigger companies have to pay less because they will have more leverage in the negotiations, so is it really a win for consumers or for competition?

Absolutely.

The biggest companies have the most popular apps/streaming services that are used by the most users. The more users, the bigger the benefit for consumers as a whole.

 

[johnnytravels]

Your argument here is "Apple has to charge this. So better they pay than me".

Maybe it's time to question if what every dev is paying Apple is fair at all, what expenses Apple actually has, and if there maybe should be legislation ensuring that Apple gets to charge devs is predominantly based on actual expenses and not just arbitrarily set by Apple?

Correct. Apple gets all the apps that turn their stuff from a boring useless slab of tin into a device that is actually so useful that people upgrade every one to three years…
That’s what apps should be to Apple…

 

[Abazigal]

Why does it actually matter
How does this affect you in anyway?
It’s just boring big companies arguing about money
Who cares

It depends. Are you more interested in making statements that are right, or more interesting in making statements that are rooted in ideology?

You are right that in the greater scheme of things, none of this here matters (insofar that Apple very likely trawls tech forums for insight, much less makes their business decisions based off the vocal majority here). However, aren’t we all here precisely to debate over what we believe to be right and / or wrong?

And contrary to popular consensus here, I don’t think that everything Apple does is wrong. I can see why they might be unpopular, but there is a fine line between Apple doing something I don’t like, and them deserving to get fined or sanctioned because of it.

If there is no point in debating anything because it involves multi-billion companies and does not directly affect me, then why are you even here?

 

[vantelimus]

Correct. Apple gets all the apps that turn their stuff from a boring useless slab of tin into a device that is actually so useful that people upgrade every one to three years…
That’s what apps should be to Apple…

You are waaaay overstating the value of third-party apps. The only apps that I use regularly which aren’t from Apple merely duplicate services available from the same companies on the web. It’s nice that those companies provide their services in an app, but I don’t need them available that way. Companies who don’t like Apple’s licensing can provide services through the web and charge anyway they want. I don’t know why you think they should get free license to Apple hardware and software frameworks.

The apps which make the iPhone valuable for me are all from Apple. And this is especially so because of the way the device works in the Apple ecosystem. Continuity is the killer app for the ecosystem. The handoff between phone, tablet, laptop, Vision Pro, and desktop is seamless and makes using the system a near effortless joy. And using the same Apple apps on all devices means I don’t have to learn different apps just because the screen size or input/output characteristics of the device change. I can even have devices cooperate as extensions of each other. I upgrade and pay for those things, not some music streaming app I can listen to on the web.

 

[truthsteve]

1. Not only this is not true, it's also irrelevant.

2. Are you saying that an iPhone or the iPad is a device akin to Amazon.com? These things aren't even in the same category.

Anyway this ship has sailed.

1. literally in the policies
2. demonstrating antisteering

it's pretty simple

 

[truthsteve]

Are saying the when you pick up your phone or open an app is akin to entering a supermarket? Such false analogy would not play in a reasonable court. An iPhone or iPad is not even close to a supermarket, everyone knows that.

More accurately Steve Jobs would probably say: "They are bicycles for the mind".

Cheers.

you're not understanding what an analogy is lol

I'm moving on.

 

[Ethosik]

Apple is such a child. Apple should just build their own decent music app. Oh wait,..nope nothing to see.

Uh you do realize Apple had iTunes before Spotify was even a company right? Apple Music is the natural progression of iTunes.

 

[wanha]

I can't remember the last time a taqueria controlled the entire food/grocery market in town (with its biggest competitor).

This is a ridiculous analogy.

Not only is there Android to choose from (which means Apple does not, in fact, control the entire market in town as you suggested), but also Android's marketshare is close to 70% in the EU

 

[wanha]

EU doesn't have many tech companies, they are loosing revenue from taxes, so they figured out a way to make money by imposing huge fines on tech companies.

Much as I abhor the EU's tech policies (which I consider to be well-meaning but utterly ham-fisted), I don't believe that's the ultimate reason, but more of a positive externality.

 

[wanha]

Then you or someone should take Microsoft (or any other company) to court as companies have done with Apple, present the case and evidence, and let the courts decide if Microsoft (or anyone else) is breaking any anti-steer laws.

But I have a feeling that if Microsoft is found to be in violation of anti-steer laws, you and others still won't be satisified and will continue to moan about how the ruling and fine against Apple is unfair.

Your issue isn't that anti-steer laws might be or are being violated, it's that Apple was found guilty and that hurts you in some bizarre way, and so you and others will defend Apple no matter what by using a bunch of red herring or straw man arguments.

I can honestly say that I'm in this argument for the principle rather than the participant, although it was the participant (Apple) that originally got me (and probably every one else) here.

So... I just don't see the big deal with the anti-steering issue.

Is steering widely allowed in other industries or I've just missed it all?

 

[wanha]

In other words: Offer a commission rate that Spotify maybe wants to consider paying vs. other services. Or as we otherwise call it: competition.

Wait what now?

The customer gets to decide the price for themselves?

What happened to the supply and demand. The merchant sets the price and everyone decides if they're willing to pay it.

Isn't that how free markets function?

Note: it's not like Apple has increased their cut. It's been 30% all along. If anything, they've reduced it for smaller developers.

Note 2: When the App Store launched, a 30% cut was widely considered an insanely good deal by developers compared to what had existed previously.

 

[johnnytravels]

You are waaaay overstating the value of third-party apps. The only apps that I use regularly which aren’t from Apple merely duplicate services available from the same companies on the web.

You are way overstating your own personal experience.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

But you didn't explain why a musician shouldn't be allowed to advertise an alternate music platform within the Spotify platform. So you have one set of laws for Apple, and one set of laws for Spotify and 99.99999% of other businesses.

He did. Spotify isn’t a store.
Apple AppStore is a store.

The argument is Apple sells the app Spotify, and Spotify should be allowed to advertise their subscription in their app that a user purchased.

Music in Spotify is never sold to a user.

it’s as preposterous to try and argue that a song that is played in a radio station should be allowed to advertise their alternative radio station.

And that it’s equivalent to a song being provided on CD that a consumer purchased shouldn’t be allowed to have a link to promotional material and deals.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I can honestly say that I'm in this argument for the principle rather than the participant, although it was the participant (Apple) that originally got me (and probably every one else) here.

So... I just don't see the big deal with the anti-steering issue.

Is steering widely allowed in other industries or I've just missed it all?

Yes steering is allowed in most industries. Such as having deals inside magazines, or on food packaging.

Apple is just trying to treat online content differently when it’s not justified in any way.

 

[wanha]

Yes steering is allowed in most industries. Such as having deals inside magazines, or on food packaging.

Apple is just trying to treat online content differently when it’s not justified in any way.

Is Apple's way unjustified or illegal, or is it just a different way of doing things?

In other words, what is the ethical or legal dilemma here?

AFAIK video game consoles have operated like this since well before the App Store, but no one had - or seemingly has - a problem with it

 

[Timo_Existencia]

He did. Spotify isn’t a store.
Apple AppStore is a store.

I have no idea why you think this is a distinction in anyway or why it matters. But I also simply don't agree with it; Spotify is a music store that sells subscriptions to music.

The argument is Apple sells the app Spotify, and Spotify should be allowed to advertise their subscription in their app that a user purchased.

If you want to be pedantic with your definitions, Apple does not "sell" the Spotify App; they host it and you can download it for free. Nobody has ever paid for the Spotify app on the Apple App store.

Music in Spotify is never sold to a user.

This, in my opinion, is a silly distinction, and I doubt that it would stand up in a court of law within a rational legal system. Do magazines not "sell" magazines because they sell subscriptions? In what way is a subscription not a sale? I just find this whole line of attempted reasoning to be silly.

it’s as preposterous to try and argue that a song that is played in a radio station should be allowed to advertise their alternative radio station.

Again, selling a subscription to music is still a sale.

 

[vantelimus]

He did. Spotify isn’t a store.
Apple AppStore is a store.

The argument is Apple sells the app Spotify, and Spotify should be allowed to advertise their subscription in their app that a user purchased.

The app uses technology and services licensed from Apple. Those licenses restrict the use of the software and service. If Spotify doesn’t like the terms of the licenses, it can choose to use free, industry-standard technologies and provide their service through a website to avoid the restrictions in the Apple license. You should already know that they do this and it is available without restriction on the iPhone. They choose, though, to also provide an app. They do so because the value provided by Apple’s technologies and services enhance their product and improve their reach, thus making them more money.

They (and apparently you) believe that they should reap the value of Apple’s technology and services without restriction and for zero cost. That is absurd. Why should Apple subsidize Spotify? Let the EU give Spotify money if the EU thinks it should be subsidized.

Music in Spotify is never sold to a user.

Then why are people paying for it through a subscription, personal information, and attention? Are you unclear on the reason why companies like Spotify exist? Spotify exists solely to make as much money as they can.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Apple is just trying to treat online content differently when it’s not justified in any way.

The digital world and the physical world are very different markets with unique properties. If you're in a physical store reading content on the package that tells you about where you can find a product, you'd have to physically travel to another store to buy that physical product.

In the digital world, where everything is a simple click away, it's not in anyway comparable to the physical retail world.

But this is all beside the point; Apple has a business model. Nobody is forced to use Apple or their App store. Don't like the way they operate? Don't use them. Spotify can simply not use Apple.

Everything else is nonsensical arguments trying to justify an unjustifiable position.

 

[wanha]

The digital world and the physical world are very different markets with unique properties. If you're in a physical store reading content on the package that tells you about where you can find a product, you'd have to physically travel to another store to buy that physical product.

In the digital world, where everything is a simple click away, it's not in anyway comparable to the physical retail world.

But this is all beside the point; Apple has a business model. Nobody is forced to use Apple or their App store. Don't like the way they operate? Don't use them. Spotify can simply not use Apple.

Everything else is nonsensical arguments trying to justify an unjustifiable position.

To add to your point, Spotify could rather easily circumvent the App Store by creating a web-based music player that you use over the browser. No more 30% to Apple, 100% of the money would go to Spotify.

And yet, for whatever reason, this doesn't seem to interest Spotify.

It's almost if there is something inherently valuable in being able to use Apple's technologies to distribute their service...

 

[Timo_Existencia]

It's almost if there is something inherently valuable in being able to use Apple's technologies to distribute their service...

Exactly. THIS is the point. Apple is a providing a valuable service that these companies and individuals want to use, but are somehow locked into the idea that Apple and its services should be treated as a public utility or given away for free. The whole foundation of their arguments are silly and without merit. Apple is a business. Apple is not a monopoly. People and companies have a lot of options other than Apple. But they WANT APPLE because of the value Apple brings to them.

Value costs money.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

you're not understanding what an analogy is lol

I'm moving on.

So you try to come up with False Analogy, a fallacy and you dismiss my observation by concluding that I don’t know what is an analogy?

Wow

I even tried to explain why it’s a false analogy. I guess you have not understood it.

Last chance: The business context of the iPhone or iPad is nowhere analogous to one of a Supermarket. Therefore any kind of analogy is fallacy in its terms. It’s like comparing Apples with Oranges ... actually is even further apart.

Cheers.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

@truthsteve,

You failed to mentioned that there are anti trust cases open regarding the Amazon behaviour you have mentioned.

Anyway it’s irrelevant to the context.