Apple Faces Further Charges in EU Antitrust Case Triggered by Spotify

[wbeasley]

Perhaps Spotify (which I use) could put some effort into upgrading sound quality like other streaming systems have had for a while. Apple do. Others too.

Perhaps compete on product rather than delivery method whinging?
I like the Spotify interface but there will come a point someone else will offer and make switching easy...

 

[FrozenDarkness]

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 isn't a restriction. it's telling businesses that their business model needs to change.

 

[vipergts2207]

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.

Go back and reread the analogy I was responding to and you’ll see why what you said is unrelated. And I’m assuming those numbers are for smartphones. Also unrelated.

 

[amartinez1660]

I don’t get the argument here. Spotify’s position is that Apple must host their app on the App Store for free? That is the ask right? Let us put an app on your store and you host it but we get to keep 100 percent of the profit and you get $0.00 for hosting the app. Or is it incumbent upon Apple to lower their margins so Spotify can raise theirs. There is no reality where Apple hosts the apps on the App Store for free. My feeling is that too many of these little suits will force apple to start charging a monthly hosting fee for the App Store developers which will only stifle if not eliminate small developers who only want to develop an app.

Well said, it’s worrisome all the bashers and people that get behind “I want my things for $0.00, ok, thanks bye” train… my only conclusion is that this forum has a heavy amount of trollers.

I’m not saying Apple is a saint, it is a corporation with an actual legal duty to at least try to generate profits, products, services, etc… and their devices tend to be on the higher priced tiers (although when trying to find a 1:1 replacement and build quality of another brand you might find that maybe it wasn’t so overpriced after all).

But from that to insist that they got a monopoly on the music industry now? That they should host for free? And host Spotify of all things, even knowing that they are one of the least paying to artists?
Ok fine, to all of you, go ahead… set the example, tomorrow when you go to work tell your boss that you don’t want to be paid for this month.

 

[Mescagnus]

Spotify should just leave the App Store. People would switch to Android. That'd teach Apple!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I wonder if people from EC ever done shopping in a supermarket like Tesco. Tesco is both a shopping platform and product maker, they make cheaper products to compete against other brands that are on their shelves. Also they take a cut from every products they sell. EC failed in court against Apple regarding tax case, they proved nothing but their political agenda against US company.

They lost against Ireland regarding tax code. Not apple. It has still nothing to do with US agenda, europe is just not a Laissez-faire economic area.

I don’t think TESCO still operates in EU except in some poor part such such as Slovakia and Hungary. Seem to have been kicked out of france and Poland.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Well said, it’s worrisome all the bashers and people that get behind “I want my things for $0.00, ok, thanks bye” train… my only conclusion is that this forum has a heavy amount of trollers.

I’m not saying Apple is a saint, it is a corporation with an actual legal duty to at least try to generate profits, products, services, etc… and their devices tend to be on the higher priced tiers (although when trying to find a 1:1 replacement and build quality of another brand you might find that maybe it wasn’t so overpriced after all).

But from that to insist that they got a monopoly on the music industry now? That they should host for free? And host Spotify of all things, even knowing that they are one of the least paying to artists?
Ok fine, to all of you, go ahead… set the example, tomorrow when you go to work tell your boss that you don’t want to be paid for this month.

How about apple not taking a cut of competitive solutions?

How will Spotify pay artist more money when apple takes 30%?
Spotify have 9.99$ 7$ left after sale and Apple Music have 9.99 after sale.

Apple doesn’t have a monopoly, but a dominating position, this is different

 

[TiggrToo]

EU except in some poor part such such as Slovakia

I‘d hardly call #62 in global GDP, or #18 on the ECI as ‘poor’.

That was a pretty insulting statement to make. Didn’t even check Hungry, but id wager, neither did you.

 

[BaldiMac]

How about apple not taking a cut of competitive solutions?

How will Spotify pay artist more money when apple takes 30%?
Spotify have 9.99$ 7$ left after sale

Apple doesn’t take 30% from Spotify. Spotify doesn’t offer IAP.

and Apple Music have 9.99 after sale.

Sure. If you ignore the billions they spent creating and improving the platform. Apple deserves to benefit from their investment.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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+?

Apple Music launched ln June 2015. Spotify removed the ability to subscribe inside the app a few months later in 2016. Spotify provided a complaint almost immediately and wasn’t first allowed to have the app without an IAP mechanism

 

[AndiG]

Did the rules recently change? Why NOW of all things and not in 2008 when the iPhone first launched?

In 2008 there was no Apple Music vs Spotify. There wasn‘t even IAP. It changed a lot _ in 2008 smartphones were a toy for geeks, today smartphones are the gateways to nearly all digital services.

Nowadays Apple/Gppgle try to control the digital markets by controlling the access to it. To grant free access and competition Apple could be split up into e.g. Apple HW, Apple Music, Apple TV, … So Apple Music would have to pay 30% as well as Spotify has to pay 30%.
Or you tell Apppe that it is not allowed to control access to digital services.

Choose one …

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple doesn’t take 30% from Spotify. Spotify doesn’t offer IAP.

Sure, now they don’t because it’s not possible to offer the apps for a competitive price. And would be weird having a 9.99$ online and 14.29$ in the app

Sure. If you ignore the billions they spent creating and improving the platform. Apple deserves to benefit from their investment.

Same thing is true for Spotify. The question is who have more left to pay the expenses.

Spotify=70%-85% is kept after sale to pay all expenses.
Apple Music=99.98% is kept. O.02-0.12% is the card fees payed in EEA

 

[weckart]

this isn't a restriction. it's telling businesses that their business model needs to change.

Well, that's splitting hairs when your business model is based on restricting competition.

 

[bgillander]

Wait, didn’t Spotify pay Joe Rogan big bucks for exclusive rights to his podcast that used to be a free download? Shouldn’t they be providing it to all podcast competitors for free? Isn’t that in keeping with the friendly, sharing business world they are requesting?

 

[jlc1978]

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.

True, and no doubt intended to encourage development and grow demand for the iPhone. A s a business decison, Apple can change it when they want.

Go back and reread the analogy I was responding to and you’ll see why what you said is unrelated. And I’m assuming those numbers are for smartphones. Also unrelated.

Actually, it is. You responded to a market share question, ad I provided information relevant to comparing Spotify's position to Apple. Spotify, as I pointed out, has 2x the market share of Apple Music. Th smartphone numbers show, even if a manufacturer converted 100% of their phone owners to their own streaming service they could not achieve Spotify's numbers.

They are the dominate player and can use that to push Car Thing. If you believe companies should not be allowed to do that then the EU should force Spotify to open up Car Thing in the name of creating an equitable market.

 

[5232152]

Perhaps Spotify (which I use) could put some effort into upgrading sound quality like other streaming systems have had for a while. Apple do. Others too.

Perhaps compete on product rather than delivery method whinging?
I like the Spotify interface but there will come a point someone else will offer and make switching easy...

Go to settings and set to high to get 320kbps. Easy

 

[darngooddesign]

Sure, now they don’t because it’s not possible to offer the apps for a competitive price. And would be weird having a 9.99$ online and 14.29$ in the app

It's not that weird. The cash price for gasoline is lower because there are no CC processing fees. There used to be no sales tax for online purchases.

Spotify provided free music, music they didn't have the licensed right to privide, when the alternative was buying music. They don't get to complain about unfair pricing advantages now.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Actually, it is. You responded to a market share question, ad I provided information relevant to comparing Spotify's position to Apple. Spotify, as I pointed out, has 2x the market share of Apple Music. Th smartphone numbers show, even if a manufacturer converted 100% of their phone owners to their own streaming service they could not achieve Spotify's numbers.

EU doesn’t care about market share, and apple wasn’t attacked for their market share

They are the dominate player and can use that to push Car Thing. If you believe companies should not be allowed to do that then the EU should force Spotify to open up Car Thing in the name of creating an equitable market.

Also unlikely as Spotify car thing doesn’t sell other applications. There is no 3d party B2C transactions. If you want to use similar thins you should use things with the same core platform.

An electronic store allowing 3d party businesses list their wares for a uneque consumer/business users are limited to use

It's not that weird. The cash price for gasoline is lower because there are no CC processing fees.

Herr the CC fees are 0.12%~ cash or card cost the same here

Spotify provided free music when the alternative was buying music. They don't get to complain about unfair pricing advantages now.

They still do. and now apple can sell their music services 30% cheaper than any competition providing purchasing in the application. Or they only allow it on their website as consumers wonder why they can’t subscribe in the app like Apple Music.

 

[Sciomar]

It is rough being at the top, everyone else wants what you have and they'll do whatever they can to take it from you.

 

[vipergts2207]

Actually, it is. You responded to a market share question, ad I provided information relevant to comparing Spotify's position to Apple. Spotify, as I pointed out, has 2x the market share of Apple Music. Th smartphone numbers show, even if a manufacturer converted 100% of their phone owners to their own streaming service they could not achieve Spotify's numbers.

They are the dominate player and can use that to push Car Thing. If you believe companies should not be allowed to do that then the EU should force Spotify to open up Car Thing in the name of creating an equitable market.

Where is Spotify’s monopoly or duopoly power? There are around half a dozen relevant players in the music streaming space. Spotify might be the dominant one, but most markets have a dominant player. There’s nothing wrong with that unless we get into a situation where there’s a lack of competition, but that’s clearly not the case with music streaming.

Streaming music report sheds light on battle between Spotify, Amazon, Apple, and Google

Spotify reportedly controls 31 percent of the market.

www.theverge.com

 

[svish]

Never ending legal troubles for Apple!!

 

[0111587]

OK... you can sign up with HBO Max without going through the App Store. And Spotify can't?
Also... a lot of ISP plans offer Spotify as an additional package. No App Store in between.

In other news... products are priced differently in different stores. People are outraged.

You can and it cost the same as signin with App Store.

 

[darngooddesign]

They still do. and now apple can sell their music services 30% cheaper than any competition providing purchasing in the application. Or they only allow it on their website as consumers wonder why they can’t subscribe in the app like Apple Music.

Spotify has a long history of taking advantage of their unfair pricing advantage, giving away music for free when the competition was selling music, so they don't get to complain now.

Spotify has a free service, Apple does not, so Spotify has a competitive advantage there.

Apple Music is 6.99 + 30%.

 

[0111587]

Also Spotify family plan costs $15.99 in US but $20.69 in EU so I can't see the argument here.

 

[BaldiMac]

Sure, now they don’t because it’s not possible to offer the apps for a competitive price. And would be weird having a 9.99$ online and 14.29$ in the app

They currently offer the app for the same price.

Same thing is true for Spotify. The question is who have more left to pay the expenses.

No, it's not. Spotify didn't spend billions to create iOS.

Spotify=70%-85% is kept after sale to pay all expenses.
Apple Music=99.98% is kept. O.02-0.12% is the card fees payed in EEA

Again, you just made up numbers. 0.02% card fees is imaginary and ignores all the money Apple spent to create the platform. Money Spotify doesn't need to spend because of Apple. Spending billions to create your own platform where you don't have to pay a commission is a competitive advantage, not anti-competitive.