And doesn’t that go against the whole “side load - dozens of stores” concept a lot of people here want?
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.
Apple Faces Further Charges in EU Antitrust Case Triggered by Spotify
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One wonders, if that was something important to those folks, why they didn't chose the platform which provides that capability?
Last edited:
Oh they do. As long as Apple / Google want to part of the european market they have to play by the rules of those markets. And before you start arguing, South Korea, the Netherlands, lots of other co untries even the US prepare similar rules to the european DMA.
You are simply not allowed to drive on the wrong side of the street - simple as that. And Apple is not allowed to do so, too.
Last edited:
i always feel like this conversation is frustrating because it's focused on whether apple can charge 30% in its app store, versus can apple lock down their device to a singular app store.
I, for one, think apple should allow for other app stores which is how most operating system works. But then, why force apple to do this when sony, nintendo, microsoft game consoles don't have to?
I, for one, think apple should allow for other app stores which is how most operating system works. But then, why force apple to do this when sony, nintendo, microsoft game consoles don't have to?
Each instance is unique and should be based on the merits of the issue. The "But he/she/X does it too!!!" is old and doesn't apply. That said, the result of the current issues with Apple and Google in the EU could affect other venues. We just have to await the outcome.
If this gets too much Apple will leave the EU and take their toys with them. Then how would everyone feel? Apple again has done nothing wrong. Spotify is just trying to rebrand its image as a hero of the people instead of the corrupt corporation they are.
Sorry, businesses need to be run with equality in mind. Apple wasn't always a monopoly. You shouldn't have a system where it's ok to run a business for certain circumstances, but then force businesses to change their business once you get to a large enough size. That doesn't work for users, and it doesn't work for businesses either.
I'm puzzled by this comment. This is exactly how monopoly legislation operates. Once you hit a critical mass, you operate with more restrictions because your share of the market makes it harder for smaller entities to compete fairly. Allowing behemoths free rein will result in less choice for the consumer and a corrupted market.
This is about Tencent the Chinese State owned company that owns 40% of Epic and a significant portion of Spotify. The Chinese want to weaken Apple so they can more easily compete. They are big in phones, games, and music.
This is a leverage play using gullible or compromised politicians.
Are you saying law makers should demand the same to the kinds of Apple has they do to ISP? Humm ... maybe you are right.
So they don't have to compete with Apple's 30% cut (sorry, 15%) and they are still complaining? What's next, Netflix complaining that they have to compete with TV+?
From a commerce point of view that makes little to no sense. The App Store and store paypoint are far too small in the overall bucket of Apple financials. Dropping the EU would kill their stock.
Note: I am an Apple stockholder.
According to whom? Or should I say who's definition?
Apple is not a monopoly in the strict US sense and this issue in the EU does require monopoly to be a status. Others here like @Sophisticatednut explain this far better than I can.
This is a very weird case for Spotify to be bringing. Not only are they not paying Apple the 30% that they are complaining about, but they also currently have double the market share of Apple in the subscription music market.
Unfortunately that has more to do with Taxes than anything. I drive by a town that charges $5.29 for regular. While not even 2 miles away its $4.29. And, while further away I can get it for $3.99.
Taxes some some sprinkling of gouge.
I agree that it sucks to have only 1 option. And in many parts of the US, even that is an upgrade. They are still on dial-up or DSL if they are lucky.
Jared Mauch didn’t have good broadband—so he built his own fiber ISP
"I had to start a telephone company to get [high-speed] Internet access."
Not saying this is a popular path for many. But, that guy got feed up enough with it, that he did start his own broadband ISP.
My greater point here is that, while it's in many cases unfair to have only 1 ISP to pick. It's maybe due to others not being able to profit from doing so in that area. No profit, those shareholders will balk at the idea.
It is. Smaller devs don't have to deal with all that stuff. While larger Devs "could" deal with it as they may already have systems in place to manage it. Apple providing it universally helps the consumer. As I don't have to deal or worry about what I buy on the store. I don't have to care what the cut is to Apple or what the dev made. Or taxes, etc. I don't care about how the sausage is made behind the curtain. I'm sure it's a $#!T show behind it. But, the consumer is shielded from that.
Larger companies always want to make more. Balking at Apple for its 30/15% cut is a cheap, fast, and easy way to make more profit for themselves. But, those companies already have means to sell outside the AppStore. So, really they shouldn't be complaining at all. And they are also finding out that it's not so cheap, fast and easy to go through all these legal hops.
Did the rules recently change? Why NOW of all things and not in 2008 when the iPhone first launched?
Spotify 30% market share, 2x as big as Apple's in Music streaming
Apple iPhone 23% in EU. Behind Samsung at 29% and near Xaomi at 20%.
Yeas, there is a difference.
That would really hurt free apps with subscriptions as any updates would also be charged. In addition, hey could charge to host as well.
If I was a developer I'd be really worried about what the collateral damage will be to all developers from these actions. It may not be addressed to you, but get delivered to "Occupant."
A very good summary. Spotify wants access to Apple's user base for free, and have Apple cover the costs and facilitate it. If they really wanted too, they could simply make a web app and bypass Apple completely.
This isn't about lowering costs to consumers or fairness, it is a money grab.
Spotify would probably say that its position is that they should be free to implement whatever in-app payment system they want.
Apple hosting apps "for free" is their conscious policy decision, probably partly necessitated by the fact that the App Store is the only way to get software on your iPhone if you're a consumer.
The App Store certainly provides a service to companies wanting to sell software, but it's not like providing apps isn't a mutually beneficial arrangement so Apple equally needs to be careful not to damage the platform. There's a reason Apple continues to give special treatment to the big hitters like Amazon. The iPhone is only as useful as the apps it runs. That's why the iPhone and Android succeeded and Windows Phone failed.
So, how does this go?
EU fines Apple because Spotify is the largest most profitable Music service with the most amount of users something-cry-me-many-rivers-something or whatever. Part of those fines go to Spotify? EU keeps them? Does the Netherlands and Co join with their fines too and then what?
I never hear what the end goal will be, I’m starting to think that they need the money for their yachts and drug ridden parties with their crooked friends. Making it all too motivating to continue throwing regulations left and right.
EU fines Apple because Spotify is the largest most profitable Music service with the most amount of users something-cry-me-many-rivers-something or whatever. Part of those fines go to Spotify? EU keeps them? Does the Netherlands and Co join with their fines too and then what?
I never hear what the end goal will be, I’m starting to think that they need the money for their yachts and drug ridden parties with their crooked friends. Making it all too motivating to continue throwing regulations left and right.