Apple Faces Further Charges in EU Antitrust Case Triggered by Spotify

[PlayUltimate]

The hints that the iPhone going to a subscription model also hints that Apple may steer away from the purchasing model for Apps in the App Store. Apple will likely irk a number of people but I could see the App Store becoming even more curated and flipping to a number of smorgasboard app packages. This could be something similar to Apple Arcade but with more tranches. Apple Writer, Apple Business, Apple Productivity, Apple Entertainment, Apple Provides (free Apps), et al. No more lawsuits because the consignment model is gone. But people will still sue.
(I honestly don't think this will happen. But it would likely be a legal "nuclear" option.)

 

[d686546s]

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


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.

So by your logic Apple should pay a commission to the all the network providers because they built up all the infrastructure your iPhone uses? I'm sure Tim Cook will be very happy to give them 30% of all iPhone sales and 30% of every app sale that downloads over a cellular network.

Apple developed iOS and the App Store so they could sell you hardware. It's perfectly fine for Apple to charge for services rendered, but not to use your market power in one area to disadvantage your competition in another. Did Apple spend "billions" to develop Apple Music? I don't think so.

Open up the iPhone, allow alternative app stores. I'd still shop with Apple, but at least then Apple could actually claim that it's because of consumer choice rather than a lack of alternatives. Apple keeps claiming that its services are so great for consumers that they would hardly choose anything else, on the other Apple seems to panic with the sheer thought of competition.

 

[BaldiMac]

So by your logic Apple should pay a commission to the all the network providers because they built up all the infrastructure your iPhone uses?

A commission? No. They pay what the people that built the infrastructure charge.

I'm sure Tim Cook will be very happy to give them 30% of all iPhone sales and 30% of every app sale that downloads over a cellular network.

Again, Apple already pays for the bandwidth.

Apple developed iOS and the App Store so they could sell you hardware. It's perfectly fine for Apple to charge for services rendered, but not to use your market power in one area to disadvantage your competition in another. Did Apple spend "billions" to develop Apple Music? I don't think so.

I don't understand what your point is here. Apple isn't disadvantaging competition. They created an advantage for themselves. Google, however, does engage in horizontal contracts that limit competition.

Open up the iPhone, allow alternative app stores. I'd still shop with Apple, but at least then Apple could actually claim that it's because of consumer choice rather than a lack of alternatives. Apple keeps claiming that its services are so great for consumers that they would hardly choose anything else, on the other Apple seems to panic with the sheer thought of competition.

I certainly respect that opinion. It's certainly reasonable. I just think that the disadvantages that multiple App Store will create outweighs the potential benefits for me.

 

[PlayUltimate]

So by your logic Apple should pay a commission to the all the network providers because they built up all the infrastructure your iPhone uses? I'm sure Tim Cook will be very happy to give them 30% of all iPhone sales and 30% of every app sale that downloads over a cellular network.

Apple developed iOS and the App Store so they could sell you hardware. It's perfectly fine for Apple to charge for services rendered, but not to use your market power in one area to disadvantage your competition in another. Did Apple spend "billions" to develop Apple Music? I don't think so.

Apple, via licensing fees that are attached to the cellular chip, does pay the cellular providers what was agreed upon. Apple created the App Store marketplace, not iOS, as a means to distribute software from independent developers in a safe manner. Apple did not need the App Store since they were initially providing software directly on device. The terms and conditions were put into place at the time of creation and have changed little since that time.
I'm not sure how you see that Apple is using its market power to disadvantage anyone; it is allowing Apple competitors access to the store.

 

[djphat2000]

So by your logic Apple should pay a commission to the all the network providers because they built up all the infrastructure your iPhone uses? I'm sure Tim Cook will be very happy to give them 30% of all iPhone sales and 30% of every app sale that downloads over a cellular network.

Apple has to pay licensing fees to Qualcomm for the modems that connect you to those networks. Royalties and such. And any IP they don't own they have to pay for as well. The cellular companies themselves collect their on going payments from the consumer. TXT and Data Rates may apply!

Apple developed iOS and the App Store so they could sell you hardware. It's perfectly fine for Apple to charge for services rendered, but not to use your market power in one area to disadvantage your competition in another. Did Apple spend "billions" to develop Apple Music? I don't think so.

They spent billions on Beats. They created iTunes, and iPods and the whole back end systems to support all of that. Spotify can't even give you Hi-Res, while Apple "can" and for no extra charge!
Apple is the whole widget company. They like and prefer to make the whole thing to sell their customers. If someone doesn't like it, they can pick something else. You don't have to develop for Apple, as many games are NOT available for either macOS or iOS. So clearly no one is forced to sell anything on Apple's many platforms.

Open up the iPhone, allow alternative app stores.

NO. Pick any number of Android phones for that.

I'd still shop with Apple, but at least then Apple could actually claim that it's because of consumer choice rather than a lack of alternatives.

They already proved that, they are in the spot because the consumers chose them. They existed when there was a bunch of alternatives. They, along with Google. Won that war.

Apple keeps claiming that its services are so great for consumers that they would hardly choose anything else, on the other Apple seems to panic with the sheer thought of competition.

They don't want anyone messing with how they do business. They got to this point the right way (mostly) and should be allowed to continue. They are not looking to be the only option in town, just the best one. And people have chosen for the most part that they want Apple products. Otherwise they would have failed just like Nokia. Even the second time when Microsoft bought them.

 

[jlc1978]

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

Really? The whole argument seems to be Apple has a large market they control and thus are unfair competitors because they represent such a large user base. Even laws targeted at them specifiaclly include size and user base to narrow teh targets.
.

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.

So since there are alternatives it's ok to exclude competition even if you are teh dominant player? Seems taht would be teh get out of jail free card for Apple as well.

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.

Spotify has 2x the market share. If that is not big enough to be considered having monopoly power then Apple's 23% in smart phones isn't either, because there are plenty of players in that market as well.

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.

You mean like being able to set lower payment rates than competitors because you are the dominant player? It seems the are using their market power to control payment rates. Having a streaming device that locks out competition will only amplify that.

The criteria, if it to be established, needs to be applied broadly across services; not targeted to a few.
Meta with their new product, Epic for selling in game items, etc.

 

[jlc1978]

Open up the iPhone, allow alternative app stores. I'd still shop with Apple, but at least then Apple could actually claim that it's because of consumer choice rather than a lack of alternatives. Apple keeps claiming that its services are so great for consumers that they would hardly choose anything else, on the other Apple seems to panic with the sheer thought of competition.

But give users choice to block side loading by default and block access to core app data as well; such as contacts, calendar, etc, if the user wants. Enable them and privacy protections by default to require allowing bypassing them so the user knows what they are allowing apps to access.

 

[BaldiMac]

But give users choice to block side loading by default and block access to core app data as well; such as contacts, calendar, etc, if the user wants. Enable them and privacy protections by default to require allowing bypassing them so the user knows what they are allowing apps to access.

It's all about user choice right up to the first exclusivity agreement.

 

[vipergts2207]

Spotify has 2x the market share. If that is not big enough to be considered having monopoly power then Apple's 23% in smart phones isn't either, because there are plenty of players in that market as well.

Nobody said Apple has a monopoly in smartphones. Apple is part of a duopoly in smartphone OS and app distribution, alongside Google.

You mean like being able to set lower payment rates than competitors because you are the dominant player? It seems the are using their market power to control payment rates. Having a streaming device that locks out competition will only amplify that.

The criteria, if it to be established, needs to be applied broadly across services; not targeted to a few.
Meta with their new product, Epic for selling in game items, etc.

They get to set lower rates because they have more customers. As an artist, you might get a lower rate per play, but you also have the biggest potential listener base by far. And again, as long as there’s is plenty of competition in the space, which there is, there’s nothing wrong with that. If only Spotify and Apple Music existed as relevant streaming platforms, I would agree that we indeed have a problem, but that’s not the case.

 

[darngooddesign]

You mean like being able to set lower payment rates than competitors because you are the dominant player? It seems the are using their market power to control payment rates. Having a streaming device that locks out competition will only amplify that.

You mean like Spotify offering free and significantly cheaper streaming of music they didn't have the rights to when Apple was only selling music?

 

[BaldiMac]

Nobody said Apple has a monopoly in smartphones. Apple is part of a duopoly in smartphone OS and app distribution, alongside Google.

There is no duopoly of smartphone OS. Each manufacturer releases their own version of android OS, not Google.

As far as app distribution, the web is also a competitor. The lack of competition for native apps comes from Google's agreements with their own horizontal competition to require Google Play and other services on android devices.

 

[vipergts2207]

There is no duopoly of smartphone OS. Each manufacturer releases their own version of android OS, not Google.

It’s all Google Android. The fact that a smartphone manufacturer adds a custom UI over the top (One UI in the case of Samsung) doesn’t change the fact that it’s still the same OS. Particularly since app distribution is tied to the OS itself, not the UI.

As far as app distribution, the web is also a competitor. The lack of competition for native apps comes from Google's agreements with their own horizontal competition to require Google Play and other services on android devices.

The web is not an in-kind replacement for apps running directly on hardware. And good point, we need to make sure Google isn’t allowed to act anti-competitively either.

 

[BaldiMac]

It’s all Google Android. The fact that a smartphone manufacturer adds a custom UI over the top (One UI in the case of Samsung) doesn’t change the fact that it’s still the same OS. Particularly since app distribution is tied to the OS itself, not the UI.

Nope. It's android (small "a'). And app distribution is not tied to the OS. It's tied to Google Play services that Google licenses to its own competitors.

The web is not an in-kind replacement for apps running directly on hardware. And good point, we need to make sure Google isn’t allowed to act anti-competitively either.

The web can be an in-kind replacement for may types of apps. A whole lot of App Store apps are nothing more than web views. More to the point, web apps can compete with native apps. For an example, see Wordle.

 

[vipergts2207]

Nope. It's android (small "a'). And app distribution is not tied to the OS. It's tied to Google Play services that Google licenses to its own competitors.

And Google Play and it’s services runs on Android does it not? Google controls app distribution through Android/Google Play and Apple controls app distribution though iOS/App Store.

The web can be an in-kind replacement for may types of apps. A whole lot of App Store apps are nothing more than web views. More to the point, web apps can compete with native apps. For an example, see Wordle.

But not all of them, correct? Sure some apps would work fine over the web, but others would not, aka not in-kind. Additionally, WebApps require an active internet connection, so not only would some apps be non-starters as a WebApp, but even some that would work as a WebApp are useless with no internet.

 

[BaldiMac]

And Google Play and it’s services runs on Android does it not? Google controls app distribution through Android/Google Play and Apple controls app distribution though iOS/App Store.

Correct!

But not all of them, correct? Sure some apps would work fine over the web, but others would not, aka not in-kind.

Correct!

 

[jlc1978]

It's all about user choice right up to the first exclusivity agreement.

xclusivity agreemenst are certainly a valid business decision; and users can weigh the value of buying or not buying. Has nothing to do with alloing users to block apps from 3rd party stores or ensuring privacy.

 

[BaldiMac]

xclusivity agreemenst are certainly a valid business decision; and users can weigh the value of buying or not buying. Has nothing to do with alloing users to block apps from 3rd party stores or ensuring privacy.

My point was that sideloading proponents are presenting sideloading as an option that people that don't want sideloading can ignore. That's only true up until an app that is important to me signs an exclusivity agreement with a third-party app store.

 

[jlc1978]

My point was that sideloading proponents are presenting sideloading as an option that people that don't want sideloading can ignore.

I agree, which is why I think Apple should allow blocking sideloading as a user preference.

I would also enable it by default.

Neither would limit a user's ability to sideload.

That's only true up until an app that is important to me signs an exclusivity agreement with a third-party app store.

I agree, but there is nothing wrong with an app doing that if they think it is a better deal for them.

 

[BaldiMac]

I agree, but there is nothing wrong with an app doing that if they think it is a better deal for them.

Sure. But that would be a worse situation for me.

 

[PlayUltimate]

Was looking at a retail franchise the other day. The requirements were: Liquidity of $155K - $350K, $55K franchise fee, 5% gross sale royalty. These are requirements just to open a business. Granted the franchise provides a product. But the costs compared to attempting to create an app. For the independent developer (business owner), Apple is arguably one of the best low cost opportunities. If due to these lawsuits/regulations the initial investment requirements change, the people that are hurt is the new guy who cannot afford the upfront costs.

 

[usagora]

Of all the bad takes in the wide Internet world of bad takes, this takes the bad take cake.

I don't like the fact that there's only one broadband ISP in my area, so I suppose I am free to start my own broadband company and raise it to the point where it's competitive with Time Warner? Problem solved?

You should just say "I'm OK with unfair competition" - it's more direct and less intellectually dishonest.

Nothing unfair about it. Apple wasn't handed where they are now on a silver platter, so why should anything be taken from them as if it were just because other companies are jealous and run to big brother to cry about it?

Also, I don't know you personally, but I'm taking a wild guess that Spotify has a whole lot more money and resources to actually be able to develop those things. It won't happen overnight, but neither did Apple get where it's at overnight. I don't think anyone at these companies that are whining are exactly begging for food on the street. They're doing VERY well. But as the saying goes, "How much is enough money? Just a little bit more." The thing is, they need to work for it instead of trying to get the government to hand it to them.