Apple Responds to EU's Decision to Narrow Antitrust Case Prompted by Spotify

[AppliedMicro]

They have no reason to stay on the App Store from their perspective

They have a very good reason - a native app provides a much better user for their users than a web interface.

That they don't tells me that I'm right and that the cost of doing everything that Apple does for them in the App Store costs at least the 30%.

Wrong. They are basically forced to submit an app to the App Store in order to compete with other music streaming services - including Apple’s own. This is the argument that many competition authorities have concluded. You often can’t just ignore a monopoly or duopoly in a market - such monopoly and pricing power is in fact one of the main criteria in determining such market conditions.

The actual value of Apple‘s services is quite unimportant - it’s all about having access to Apple’s customers (that’s why it’s also called a platform tax). I believe that even many opponents of antitrust proceedings and „App Store“ legislation targeting Apple would concede that. - they‘d just justify Apple’s terms „because Apple created the platform, they can charge whatever they like“.

They have no legal leg to stand on if they can go do it themselves

Legal legs to stand on are being created by legislators around the world, to limit Apple’s gatekeeping and pricing power and to increase competition.

 

[DeepIn2U]

I think this argument works for small companies / apps but not for big companies where economies of scale kick in. For them it’s just a blatent platform tax.

Apple acts like the App Store is still the really compelling proposition it initially was in 2008, where for ‘the little guy’ it looked after distribution, payent & billing & much of the marketing & promotion. But it’s just not like that anymore.

Yet, it’s a platform they do NOT have on their own to cater to 2 billion devices and users!

Sure the sales of said app/sale/device is lost on a user account that gets 1 purchase per account for a few devices but it’s a sale non-the-less.

The encomies of scale you fail to understand is the distribution is seem less, sales pretty much guaranteed (by credit card payments), against fraud payments, arbitration of a sale - will reduce labour and accounting and internal negotiations. Android has over a billion devices and users yet majority of these user do NOT pay premium prices for the same apps. Furthermore storage of apps on servers is no Inter Inter all which the encomies of scale saves HUGE costs for big players a LOT more than smaller developers save.

Economies of scale is a LOT more than just sales my friend. No other platform comes close to as many devices with support across 6yrs. The more a user pays to upgrade for os support the less the end user pays for apps. Even today as of this date not 1 android device matches even 5yrs support and security updates. Still more than 1yr less than iOS iPadOS which Android tablets pretty much limited to 3 major players.

So continue on with wisdom here.

 

[OneBar]

They have a very good reason - a native app provides a much better user for their users than a web interface.

That's opinion. I use both the mobile and desktop apps and the web interface and the web and desktop apps are objectively superior to the mobile app.

Wrong. They are basically forced to submit an app to the App Store in order to compete with other music streaming services - including Apple’s own. This is the argument that many competition authorities have concluded. You often can’t just ignore a monopoly or duopoly in a market - such monopoly and pricing power is in fact one of the main criteria in determining such market conditions.

Even allowing that this is the situation, that they have no other option than to use the app store, their transactions take place on their website, not through the app store. So according to Apple's rules, the mobile app is a free app and they shouldn't be charged for Apple hosting it. After doing a little reading, this is the case. Spotify is not paying Apple anything unless people are still subbed through the App Store. New Premium accounts can only be purchased through their website which means Apple doesn't get 30% of that sub. Spotify has the cake, is eating it too, and is still whining because reasons?

The actual value of Apple‘s services is quite unimportant - it’s all about having access to Apple’s customers (that’s why it’s also called a platform tax). I believe that even many opponents of antitrust proceedings and „App Store“ legislation targeting Apple would concede that. - they‘d just justify Apple’s terms „because Apple created the platform, they can charge whatever they like“.

Apple's services are the main reason for the 30% fee, albeit with some margin of profit, of course. Just like if you resell through Wal-Mart or whoever. You get charged a fee for the construction, maintenance, and use of their stores, as well as a margin for WM's profit. Otherwise you have to build and maintain a store yourself, in which case you're not going to be able to charge less for your product, which is the lame story everyone keeps fronting. No one is going to host their own software and charge a penny less than what Apple's charging.

Legal legs to stand on are being created by legislators around the world, to limit Apple’s gatekeeping and pricing power and to increase competition.

You want to play in my yard, I get to gatekeep. You don't get to enter my property whenever you want and do what you want. Yes they are gatekeeping; it's their property, they get to do that. Otherwise they'll have every virus and malware and spyware app hosted on their site and everyone's devices will be compromised.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I use both the mobile and desktop apps and the web interface and the web and desktop apps are objectively superior to the mobile app.

It is objectively impossible to provide (just to give a relevant example) an viable offline listening mode as a web app.

Spotify has the cake, is eating it too, and is still whining because reasons?

Because Apple purposely makes it hard or rather impossible for Spotify to refer users to subscription options on their own website from the app - while shoving their own competing music streaming services into people‘s faces like there’s no tomorrow (which they can, because they control the operating system and supply the Music app as a component of it).

Apple's services are the main reason for the 30% fee, albeit with some margin of profit

There‘s no reason to a 30% fee - except that that’s what Apple initially charged when the App Store was a small upstart. And the margin isn’t just „some“ - it’s considered a supracompetitive margin by regulators, lawmakers and experts. And their margins are a multiple of Walmart‘s, while we’re at it.

Just like if you resell through Wal-Mart or whoever. You get charged a fee for the construction, maintenance, and use of their stores, as well as a margin for WM's profit. Otherwise you have to build and maintain a store yourself, in which case you're not going to be able to charge less for your product, which is the lame story everyone keeps fronting

I don‘t consider the old „just like Walmart“ story any less „lame“, to be honest. Walmart doesn’t control 50% of the market and it doesn’t lock in their customers with network effects and technological barriers. It also doesn’t prohibit suppliers from selling accessories (for products distributed through Walmart) through direct sales channels.

So that’s that - the comparison is flawed.

You want to play in my yard, I get to gatekeep. You don't get to enter my property whenever you want and do what you want. Yes they are gatekeeping; it's their property, they get to do that

Absolutely.

Until the size, scope and importance of your property becomes so big that your gatekeeping becomes too undesirable economically and societally - and your rights will be curtailed by law. And/or the government (partly) expropriates you. For the greater good of competition and society. Using specifically designed law, if necessary.

You may disagree and not like it.
But I applaud it.

Otherwise they'll have every virus and malware and spyware app hosted on their site and everyone's devices will be compromised.

Yeah, and think about all the children!

 

[OneBar]

It is objectively impossible to provide (just to give a relevant example) an viable offline listening mode as a web app.

A download is a download. As far as I'm aware, when you download for offline listening from Spotify, it downloads songs to your device, much like Apple Music does. Going through the app store isn't required and doesn't happen.

Because Apple purposely makes it hard or rather impossible for Spotify to refer users to subscription options on their own website from the app - while shoving their own competing music streaming services into people‘s faces like there’s no tomorrow (which they can, because they control the operating system and supply the Music app as a component of it).

And yet I get dozens of ads saying just this every day. They run their own ads on their own service pointing to their own website for their Premium service. Just like every other media service on the free tier does.

There‘s no reason to a 30% fee - except that that’s what Apple initially charged when the App Store was a small upstart. And the margin isn’t just „some“ - it’s considered a supracompetitive margin by regulators, lawmakers and experts. And their margins are a multiple of Walmart‘s, while we’re at it.

Yes because regulators, lawmakers, and "experts" have any idea what the business's structuring comprises. We see this time and time again when they call some business owner in to question them before Congress and the Congressmen are asking questions that have zero bearing on business at all or the specific business they brought in. I don't particular care what the comparison is between Apple's and WM's margins; they exist and that's the point. People pay them willingly and that's the secondary point. If they were terrible, people wouldn't pay them.

I don‘t consider the old „just like Walmart“ story any less „lame“, to be honest. Walmart doesn’t control 50% of the market and it doesn’t lock in their customers with network effects and technological barriers. It also doesn’t prohibit suppliers from selling accessories (for products distributed through Walmart) through direct sales channels.

So that’s that - the comparison is flawed.

Yeah WM controls more like 70-90% of the market where they have a physical store. In some situations it's 100% when smaller operations can't compete.

Absolutely.

Until the size, scope and importance of your property becomes so big that your gatekeeping becomes too undesirable economically and societally - and your rights will be curtailed by law. And/or the government (partly) expropriates you. For the greater good of competition and society. Using specifically designed law, if necessary.

You may disagree and not like it.
But I applaud it.[/QUOTE]
That's not how business or property ownership in general works, sorry. I cannot own so much land that the government says yeah, you can't do that anymore.

Yeah, and think about all the children!

Unironically, yes.

 

[AppliedMicro]

A download is a download. As far as I'm aware, when you download for offline listening from Spotify, it downloads songs to your device, much like Apple Music does

It is not the same. Spotify isn’t a music download service - it‘s a streaming service. They can‘t just allow their customers unprotected music downloads for offline use for licensing reasons. They have to enforce an „expiry date“ on these songs.

Yes because regulators, lawmakers, and "experts" have any idea what the business's structuring comprises

They have an idea. Experts have an idea. As do regulatory authorities and competition authorities.
I‘m not saying that politicians always make perfectly informed and reasonable decisions - but to suggest that no one ever has any idea about businesses and how to regulate them don‘t have any idea is hogwash.

And you don‘t need to be a genius to figure out that payment processing doesn’t cost 30% of non-physical software sales. Not even if you add in VAT/sales tax handling on a larger scale. Neither do

Yeah WM controls more like 70-90% of the market where they have a physical store

Locally. As does Apple control 100% of the App download business for their mobile operating system.
Here’s the difference: Walmart doesn’t control 80% of the whole nationwide market. You can drive a few minutes longer to shop somewhere else.

That's not how business or property ownership in general works, sorry

That‘s not how they work in general - but that’s how it works in specific circumstances.
Also called the concept of eminent domain. Again, we’re not talking about land used by one or a few people. With Android and iOS and their respective app stores, we‘re talking about a platforms used by a combined majority of the population.

 

[OneBar]

It is not the same. Spotify isn’t a music download service - it‘s a streaming service. They can‘t just allow their customers unprotected music downloads for offline use for licensing reasons. They have to enforce an „expiry date“ on these songs.

It's still a download to your device.

They have an idea. Experts have an idea. As do regulatory authorities and competition authorities.
I‘m not saying that politicians always make perfectly informed and reasonable decisions - but to suggest that no one ever has any idea about businesses and how to regulate them don‘t have any idea is hogwash.

And you don‘t need to be a genius to figure out that payment processing doesn’t cost 30% of non-physical software sales. Not even if you add in VAT/sales tax handling on a larger scale. Neither do

Have you seen the criminal and legal records of the majority of these people? They honestly and literally have no idea how to run business or what technology does. And again, Spotify isn't paying Apple anything except on recurring old subs through the App Store. Any new subs go directly through Spotify and Apple gets nothing.

Locally. As does Apple control 100% of the App download business for their mobile operating system.
Here’s the difference: Walmart doesn’t control 80% of the whole nationwide market. You can drive a few minutes longer to shop somewhere else.

Locally is all WM has. Apple isn't going into a market and undercutting the competition until they fold and then raise their prices. That's WM's business practice.

That‘s not how they work in general - but that’s how it works in specific circumstances.
Also called the concept of eminent domain. Again, we’re not talking about land used by one or a few people. With Android and iOS and their respective app stores, we‘re talking about a platforms used by a combined majority of the population.

That's not how eminent domain works either. Government cannot come into your property and tell you how to use it, no matter the size or traffic. Even if the government is looking to build a highway through it, you can tell them no and make them go around. I deal with this every day. Government cannot come into my business and dictate how much I charge for my services. That's dictated by the market and should be. If you have a problem with how much Apple charges, take your app to the Android market. If your bottom line concern is making a profit, go where you think that will be most readily accomplished. Don't whine about a market doing exactly the same thing you're doing.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Locally is all WM has. Apple isn't going into a market and undercutting the competition until they fold and then raise their prices. That's WM's business practice.

Yes - and that’s why Walmart will remain largely unregulated.
And Apple won‘t. Walmart and its biggest competitor don’t serve 95% or more of the entire country.

Even if the government is looking to build a highway through it, you can tell them no and make them go around.

As a matter of fact, governments do this regularly. They take away (parts of) someone‘s land to build infrastructure - and if necessary against that person‘s will. The person may be able to challenge that legally and have the right to a fair process. But ultimately governments are able to do it and prevail in some cases.

Government cannot come into my business and dictate how much I charge for my services. That's dictated by the market and should be

Depending on the size, nature and importance of your business, they can. And they do.
Especially when something has become critical infrastructure (or equivalent to that) to society or enough other markets or businesses.

On a side note, Apple’s commission rates are not dictated by competition or the market today. They’re operating a classic duopoly with Google in most countries and are able to charge rates that aren’t subject to market competition.

 

[OneBar]

Yes - and that’s why Walmart will remain largely unregulated.
And Apple won‘t. Walmart and its biggest competitor don’t serve 95% or more of the entire country.

Neither does Apple.

As a matter of fact, governments do this regularly. They take away (parts of) someone‘s land to build infrastructure - and if necessary against that person‘s will. The person may be able to challenge that legally and have the right to a fair process. But ultimately governments are able to do it and prevail in some cases.

This is literally my job. They cannot take your land without a legally binding agreement from both parties and satisfactory compensation for the land. We had a large highway project right here in our town that we were going to be engineering get derailed because landowners didn't want it going through their land. And this was a 50 year DOT plan.

Depending on the size, nature and importance of your business, they can. And they do.
Especially when something has become critical infrastructure (or equivalent to that) to society or enough other markets or businesses.

Example?

On a side note, Apple’s commission rates are not dictated by competition or the market today. They’re operating a classic duopoly with Google in most countries and are able to charge rates that aren’t subject to market competition.

They're not? Because if I don't like their price I can take my app to Android and sell it on several other marketplaces not the App Store. My last job was as a graphic designer for a publisher and when we started converting our books to ebooks, the boss whined and complained about the 30% until he sat down and put a pencil to our cost and it came out to about 50% on printed materials. We only had to produce the ebook once and then it was done. When you have to do all the work yourself to produce a product, it costs you more than offloading that to someone else to produce at a cut. And now if you're a small business it's 15%.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Neither does Apple.

What is Google's and Apple's combined market share for smartphone app downloads in your jurisdiction?

This is literally my job. They cannot take your land without a legally binding agreement from both parties and satisfactory compensation for the land.

It takes me literally one minute of googling to find the U.S. Department of Justice confirming my point:

"Federal agencies condemn for any of the following reasons:
A landowner is unwilling to sell at any price;"

Anatomy Of A Condemnation Case

www.justice.gov

State governments or agencies will have similar rights. Though they may prefer to opt for a consensual approach in order not drag this out in the courts.

Example

Access and usage of telecommunications lines and networks.
They are regulated in (at least some, but important) European Countries.
As is their wholesale pricing.

When you have to do all the work yourself to produce a product, it costs you more than offloading that to someone else to produce at a cut.

Absolutely.

Do I believe that Spotify wants to do everything themselves? Definitely not. But they want to "shop around" among competing offers to Apple's own service - while still offering it in-app (at least linking to it).

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

But by the very first quote Spotify has different rates based on region/country outside of the USA.

And sue to the pay subscriptions vs free it would seem there is a variable rate that is consolidated.

Also stated is “nobody looks at per stream anymore..” listed in the WallStreet Journal link above.

So it’s not that Apple’s report is incorrrect it’s just that it doesn’t follow the model that Spotify uses and reports. By volume of subscribers of course Apotify would “generate more for the music industry” it’s simple mathematics. Yet narrow down to the same numbers for each at say Apple’s max subscribers or recalculate Apple’s subscriber count to match Spotify the numbers - in total would be very different.

An app being atrocious is subjective - to many iPhone users Apple Music as an app is fine - of course recommendations and opinions vary but the choice of algorithms vs human curated playlists definitely shows a clear winner in every genre or for new music discovery winning in Spotify.

Non of your links disprove Apple’s claim succinctly does it? Simply that disprove the claim - not by comparison based on subscriber or service variables.

Nope, it is that Apples report is incorrect.

Spotifys rate is skewed by the fact they are a much bigger service by subscriber numbers and that they have an ad supported tier. Apple trying to make a straight comparission is very disingenuous.

Even if it was accurate you've got the fact that Apples annual revenue is more than thirty times what Spotifys is but they are trying to take credit for paying musicians a few pennies more.

Just more PR and spin designed to protect their App Store monopoly.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Nope, it is that Apples report is incorrect.

Spotifys rate is skewed by the fact they are a much bigger service by subscriber numbers and that they have an ad supported tier. Apple trying to make a straight comparission is very disingenuous.

Even if it was accurate you've got the fact that Apples annual revenue is more than thirty times what Spotifys is but they are trying to take credit for paying musicians a few pennies more.

Just more PR and spin designed to protect their App Store monopoly.

by that notion then so is Spotify's report being disingenuous as IT is trying to compare Apple's payment rates to their different tiers.

Either way you look at it ... Apples to Apple's vs Orange to Oranges SHOULD be done - and if not you cannot compare a tomatoe vs a tomato. see'in? cheekiness aside we're debating the same $ amount just in different legal tender if you will.

What' you're stating is the same PR spin ... just that Spotify isn't paying you and the news articles are not specificaly conclusive ... it's just they want to go against Apple. haters vs lovers man.

not saying anybody is wrong its just what it is.

narrowing it down to per stream per artist per track is THE simplest and most EQUAL way to measure.
Then by ad supported tier ... then it's NOT Spotify whom makes the payment solely it is Spotify + the company paying the ad during such a teir and split up. I think you missed that critical part so did the articles as well.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

by that notion then so is Spotify's report being disingenuous as IT is trying to compare Apple's payment rates to their different tiers.

Either way you look at it ... Apples to Apple's vs Orange to Oranges SHOULD be done - and if not you cannot compare a tomatoe vs a tomato. see'in? cheekiness aside we're debating the same $ amount just in different legal tender if you will.

What' you're stating is the same PR spin ... just that Spotify isn't paying you and the news articles are not specificaly conclusive ... it's just they want to go against Apple. haters vs lovers man.

not saying anybody is wrong its just what it is.

narrowing it down to per stream per artist per track is THE simplest and most EQUAL way to measure.
Then by ad supported tier ... then it's NOT Spotify whom makes the payment solely it is Spotify + the company paying the ad during such a teir and split up. I think you missed that critical part so did the articles as well.

Yeah simplest if for example you have been reported to regulators for abusing your market position and were looking for some positive PR.

In every other sense it is totally misleading.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Yeah simplest if for example you have been reported to regulators for abusing your market position and were looking for some positive PR.

In every other sense it is totally misleading.

Let’s make it clear.

Apple was never “reported” to regulators. Complaints were sent in over and over until decisions to make change. It’s NOT as if regulators did NOT know as Apple had to register their business practices I. The first place to operate.

Next Apple reported their stance on Apple Music payments LONG before complaints I’d market abuse.

Curious when did the same practices became viewed as abuse vs acceptable when nothing changed?! Hmm.

Oh well this debate isn’t going anywhere as we’re both a rock in eithers foot in the ground like a tree root.

Cheers it’s been healthy.

 

[OneBar]

What is Google's and Apple's combined market share for smartphone app downloads in your jurisdiction?

I have no way of finding that out but I know just as many people using either system, anecdotally.

It takes me literally one minute of googling to find the U.S. Department of Justice confirming my point:

"Federal agencies condemn for any of the following reasons:
A landowner is unwilling to sell at any price;"

Anatomy Of A Condemnation Case

www.justice.gov

State governments or agencies will have similar rights. Though they may prefer to opt for a consensual approach in order not drag this out in the courts.

And yet you do not understand terminology. You cannot condemn land. You can only condemn a structure. We were discussing land and not structures.

Access and usage of telecommunications lines and networks.
They are regulated in (at least some, but important) European Countries.
As is their wholesale pricing.

Telecoms are a public utility.

Absolutely.

Do I believe that Spotify wants to do everything themselves? Definitely not. But they want to "shop around" among competing offers to Apple's own service - while still offering it in-app (at least linking to it).

And lowering Apple's prices or allowing Spotify to sell their subscription in the app store is going to cause that competition to materialize....? They're not contracted to Apple exclusivity. The fact that there is an Android app and pc app testify to that being a moot point. They're present in all the competing markets.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And yet you do not understand terminology. You cannot condemn land. You can only condemn a structure

Quote: "the land is condemned and taken for the use of the Government"

Source: United States Code, Title 40, SUBTITLE II, PART A, CHAPTER 31, SUBCHAPTER II: ACQUIRING LAND, §3114.

👉 If you really know better (and why wouldn't you, since this is "literally (your) job"?), I suggest you contact the Office of the Law Revision Counsel in the United States House of Representatives (that published this source) for correction.

Telecoms are a public utility.

Considering the volume and variety of business transactions that are conducted over mobile smartphone OS platforms and apps, smartphone platforms also increasingly be considered being similar to a utility.

And lowering Apple's prices or allowing Spotify to sell their subscription in the app store is going to cause that competition to materialize

It will allow fairer competition between Spotify and Apple Music - and it will allow for competition among payment/transaction processing providers for such subscriptions.

The fact that there is an Android app and pc app testify to that being a moot point. They're present in all the competing markets.

PC apps aren't really a competing market for smartphone apps (though there is some degree of overlap).

 

[OneBar]

Quote: "the land is condemned and taken for the use of the Government"

Source: United States Code, Title 40, SUBTITLE II, PART A, CHAPTER 31, SUBCHAPTER II: ACQUIRING LAND, §3114.

👉 If you really know better (and why wouldn't you, since this is "literally (your) job"?), I suggest you contact the Office of the Law Revision Counsel in the United States House of Representatives (that published this source) for correction.

It just occurred to me that you switched from state to federal regs. Maintain your lane, please. States do not condemn land and the federal guys don't do it very often.

Considering the volume and variety of business transactions that are conducted over mobile smartphone OS platforms and apps, smartphone platforms also increasingly be considered being similar to a utility.

Except smartphones operate on proprietary software that telecoms do not. Has nothing at all to do with volume of use.

It will allow fairer competition between Spotify and Apple Music - and it will allow for competition among payment/transaction processing providers for such subscriptions.

PC apps aren't really a competing market for smartphone apps (though there is some degree of overlap).

They are literally a dollar difference in sub price and if you think Spotify is going to drop their price because Apple charges less on legacy subs, because they get nothing on new subs, you got another thing coming. They'll pocket that difference and neither the consumer or the musician will see any change.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It just occurred to me that you switched from state to federal regs. Maintain your lane, please.

There's no lane to maintain. This isn't a land condemnation forum. This wasn't about state law - just as regulations for App Stores aren't instituted by individual state governments - they're (usually) federal bills or federal regulatory action.

States do not condemn land

They have laws that allow for it and explicitly word it as such.
It takes literally seconds to google for example:

Quote: "Drilling Offset Well on Condemned Land
Source: Sec. 52.094 of the Texas Statutes

Quote: "LAND MAY BE CONDEMNED FOR HARBORS AND WHARVES."
Source: Section 458.24 of the 2022 Minnesota Statutes

👉 Now, rather than engaging in yet another attempt at narrowing and diverting the subject (after 1. "structures, not land", 2. "federal, not states"), after being caught with such grossly wrong statements, I suggest you begin to get acquainted with applicable eminent domain laws in your state. Especially since you claim they are literally your job.

My point still stands: Government can "take away" from someone without their agreement in some circumstances, when public utility outweighs individual property or the rights thereto.

Except smartphones operate on proprietary software that telecoms do not

They may do - but that doesn't make them a non-utility. Communications infrastructure can very well be or consist of proprietary technology. Are there telecommunications providers that provide their services on at least in part proprietary protocols or software? Absolutely!

They are literally a dollar difference in sub price (...) They'll pocket that difference and neither the consumer or the musician will see any change.

Pricing alone is not sufficient to assess the level of competitiveness in a market, as long as cost structures or marketing opportunities are impeded for one competitor.

Whether Spotify will pocket a difference is pure conjecture at this point. Even if they did, it would allow for fairer competition with Apple than if they couldn't.

 

[pasamio]

I’m not a dev at all - nor do I know anyone who is - so I defer to your knowledge and experience on this.

But isn’t that the great thing about the Mac being open?

For those that want to set up their own distribution, marketing and billing for their apps, they can.

Apple still provides the notarisation service.

For those that just want to develop, there’s the Mac App Store.

It's an effect of the nature of the platform and the evolution of the ecosystem. The era that gave rise to the Mac is one where mostly open platforms were the way because the focus of the hardware companies was to make money from the hardware. That has evolved over time and in part due to Jobs' authoritarian nature, he set out to build an app store that had rules and restrictions on the device for which his company made. That's a business choice Apple made, a lucrative one and it's well reported that Steve didn't think it'd be a big market for Apple. What ends up happening is not that Apple dominates the market, in the US it's around 50% marketshare but globally Android is easily the most dominant force. Regulators are left in this awkward situation where this platform that has been slowly growing from marginal market share at launch into an increasingly larger company is coincidentally the more lucrative platform. That leads to the situation where you have to define the product as a monopoly to try to break it apart even though in the EU, Apple's got like 35% of the market.

However the great thing about the market is that I have that choice. I could choose Android and have an open ecosystem, open development, easier access to side load what ever I want. I choose not to though and Apple should also have the choice to do what it wants as well with it's own IP.

 

[OneBar]

There's no lane to maintain. This isn't a land condemnation forum. This wasn't about state law - just as regulations for App Stores aren't instituted by individual state governments - they're (usually) federal bills or federal regulatory action.

They have laws that allow for it and explicitly word it as such.
It takes literally seconds to google for example:

Quote: "Drilling Offset Well on Condemned Land
Source: Sec. 52.094 of the Texas Statutes

Quote: "LAND MAY BE CONDEMNED FOR HARBORS AND WHARVES."
Source: Section 458.24 of the 2022 Minnesota Statutes

👉 Now, rather than engaging in yet another attempt at narrowing and diverting the subject (after 1. "structures, not land", 2. "federal, not states"), after being caught with such grossly wrong statements, I suggest you begin to get acquainted with applicable eminent domain laws in your state. Especially since you claim they are literally your job.

My point still stands: Government can "take away" from someone without their agreement in some circumstances, when public utility outweighs individual property or the rights thereto.

Yeah that's not at all the case. I'm not sure why they are using the word "condemn" when they're literally outlining the purchasing of easements or rights of way. The Texas one even states that in this situation, the mineral rights of the owner supersedes the surface rights of the condemning party. It also explicitly outlines that this is always a case of purchasing and the land owner is compensated. So, once again, no the government cannot just arbitrarily come in and take your land.

They may do - but that doesn't make them a non-utility. Communications infrastructure can very well be or consist of proprietary technology. Are there telecommunications providers that provide their services on at least in part proprietary protocols or software? Absolutely!

Actually no. If telecoms or water companies or electric companies utilized proprietary software, then they wouldn't be publicly accessible. I would have to purchase special equipment from them to use their service and it would not be compatible with any other company of the same product. ie, I would not be able to call you on my AT&T landline if you were using COMCAST.

Pricing alone is not sufficient to assess the level of competitiveness in a market, as long as cost structures or marketing opportunities are impeded for one competitor.

Whether Spotify will pocket a difference is pure conjecture at this point. Even if they did, it would allow for fairer competition with Apple than if they couldn't.

And yet pricing is the argument. Or rather forcing Apple to allow a customer to initiate the purchase via the app, even though it would only redirect to their website anyway. When going straight to the website is simpler and faster.

Allowing purchases through the app store does nothing for the competitiveness of Spotify versus Apple Music. In fact, it would hurt them at that point as they then become subject to Apple's purchase tax, which means they hike their prices to compensate. There is literally no advantage to forcing Apple to let them purchase in-app.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I'm not sure why they are using the word "condemn" when they're literally outlining the purchasing of easements or rights of way.

Condemnation means that they're taking the land from the owner without an agreed purchase and price.

The government can't condemn land "arbitrarily" (I never said that). It needs to have a justified purpose. And the land owner will usually be entitled to fair compensation/damages. But government can lawfully take away property rights even against the land owner's will.

Actually no. If telecoms or water companies or electric companies utilized proprietary software, then they wouldn't be publicly accessible

Actually yes.

Of course they use proprietary software. A lot of routing equipment, firewalls etc. used in telecommunications use proprietary software and hardware. This also extended to end-user equipment. Phone companies in many countries prohibited the use of non-approved hardware with their networks for decades and required use of their proprietary end-user devices. Yet these networks were still publicly accessibly, as anyone could sign up and be connected.

When going straight to the website is simpler and faster.

Apple currently prevents developers from even telling users to go to their web site, let alone linking to it.

Allowing purchases through the app store does nothing for the competitiveness of Spotify versus Apple Music. In fact, it would hurt them at that point as they then become subject to Apple's purchase tax, which means they hike their prices to compensate. There is literally no advantage to forcing Apple to let them purchase in-app

...as long as they are required to use Apple's In-App purchase system and pay its fees.

That's why legislation is being brought on to allow developers transaction in or from apps - but without going through Apple's system and their "tax".

 

[pasamio]

That's why legislation is being brought on to allow developers transaction in or from apps - but without going through Apple's system and their "tax".

Even then Apple still charge 27% after the removal of the payment processing related overhead. It'll be interesting to see if the regulators attempt to go after Apple for a revenue sharing arrangement based on their intellectual property because that would have a really broad set of unintended consequences I suspect.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Even then Apple still charge 27%

With new legislation, they probably won't.

The 27% charge was Apple's reaction to the case in the Netherlands.

 

[OneBar]

Condemnation means that they're taking the land from the owner without an agreed purchase and price.

The government can't condemn land "arbitrarily" (I never said that). It needs to have a justified purpose. And the land owner will usually be entitled to fair compensation/damages. But government can lawfully take away property rights even against the land owner's will.

Unless the land owner doesn't agree to the purchase price. We have a project right now that the state government can't complete because the last remaining land owner won't agree to a price on easement and they can't eminent domain it without an agreement.

Actually yes.

Of course they use proprietary software. A lot of routing equipment, firewalls etc. used in telecommunications use proprietary software and hardware. This also extended to end-user equipment. Phone companies in many countries prohibited the use of non-approved hardware with their networks for decades and required use of their proprietary end-user devices. Yet these networks were still publicly accessibly, as anyone could sign up and be connected.

Using a third party product that runs software isn't the same as iOS or Android.

Apple currently prevents developers from even telling users to go to their web site, let alone linking to it.

And yet every single Spotify ad I hear is for signing up for Premium on spotify dot com.

...as long as they are required to use Apple's In-App purchase system and pay its fees.

That's why legislation is being brought on to allow developers transaction in or from apps - but without going through Apple's system and their "tax".

Again, they aren't required to use Apple's purchase system. In fact, you can't purchase Premium through Apple and haven't been able to for a few years now. You have to go through their website. And they're not hurting because of it nor would they see any benefit from being able to purchase through the app.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Unless the land owner doesn't agree to the purchase price

No. They can do it against the will of the land owner.

But to reiterate, government absolutely can take property (such as land) against the owner's will.
Even if the land owner does not agree to the price that's offered or determined as fair compensation.

Government can only do so on a legal basis of course (such as is provided for many construction projects). The taking authority is required to negotiate a fair price in good faith first. If there's no agreement, the land owner may of course challenge the taking it in court, which will determine if the taking is justified. And that may prolong and complicate the case, which is why in in practice the government agency may want to avoid it.

We have a project right now that the state government can't complete because the last remaining land owner won't agree to a price on easement and they can't eminent domain it without an agreement.

Eminent domain is the legal concept to be able to take it regardless. Without an agreement.

Honestly, I think there's no point in rehashing that discussion. Anyone could consult the statutes of his directions, ask a lawyer or just read one of the more accessible explanations (such as this one). It's very simple.

Yet you keep pointing to that one particular project of yours, for which government can't or has decided not to take such action. There may be good reasons or that (opposition in court or public, resulting in further delays or costs). Even if they can‘t your one particular case, that doesn‘t mean that government can never do it against the will of the property owner. And it doesn’t mean that they always have to reach agreement.

Using a third party product that runs software isn't the same as iOS or Android.

What's iOS or Android? They're both open source operating systems that run a proprietary layer on top.
Same as for many utility or infrastructure providers.

And yet every single Spotify ad I hear is for signing up for Premium on spotify dot com.

Yes - and it may still not as comfortable as doing it in-app for many people.
Also, not every app developer has the advertising resources that Spotify has.

And they're not hurting because of it nor would they see any benefit from being able to purchase through the app.

I don't go to my bank's website, when I can make payment with an app more comfortably.

Also, an app developer may advertise "add-ons" and additional functionality in-app. It's additional "friction" from a user experience point of view, if I have to go to an external website (that Apple even prohibits them from pointing me to) and will lower the "conversion rate" of such ads into paying customers.

That said, as well-known as Spotify is and as relatively their range of subscriptions is, they probably may not even be the very best example of suffering from the Apple tax.