Apple to Be Fined Over $500 Million in EU Music Streaming Probe

[wbeasley]

Haha, my bet is they will fall on the finish line as everyone else did when they get to learn how Teleological interpretation of Law works alongside comparative law interpretation. Both heavily favored by the ECJ. 😎

Teleological interpretation requires that legislative provisions be interpreted to advance their purpose in light of constitutional values. The interpretation that best advances constitutional values must be preferred.

And I would love to se Apple try and pullout expecting concessions as they give up the entire market to rivals as people move on 😂, do you honestly think if the violent protests in France, Germany or Sweden don’t sway politicians, you think Apple user will?

Politicians here don’t care that much about winning as the USA, they are very often crazy ideologies who refuse to abandon principles and end up in coalition governments anyway. Parties have hold strong to their values even when half the voters abandons them😂

I would say it’s extremely obvious they care about the market and competition, as the 30 years of antitrust cases show. And lobbying is not that easy to do, you have 3 bodies you must lobby. One that writes laws who aren’t politicians and two others who are politicians and can change the legislation divided among a 100~ independent parties or so.

I actually think if Apple comply and deliver the branched iOS that meet the words of the EU directive and then abandons it people will spew.

The EU dont like big companies, especially foreign, because we've had decades of scifi where companies rule the future and not governments. Like banks and big pharma and big food. governments only appear to run the place. the real strings are pulled behind the scenes by these players.

The EU cant even agree to add new member states without playing games... when faced with a real threat to their survival.

 

[wbeasley]

Again there was no issue with in app purchase until Apple Music launched & then things changed.
It is about better prices that’s why Spotify want to offer promotions on iOS app but aren’t allowed

what promotions? they are free to cut their prices anytime they like. many apps do. regularly...

it's not about prices at all. it's about paying a fee for the hosting environment. they want it free.

 

[wbeasley]

Apple has changed things in order to comply with the regulations. In this case, the regulations are meant to prevent dominant companies from engaging in anticompeititve behavior and wield too much power, control, influence, etc. in particular markets.





More like Apple is wealthy enough to maintain large legal teams to try to push the envelope, exploit potential loopholes, etc.

EU dont do much about compressed hard carbon prices... very happy that diamond supply and prices are controlled aren't they?

EU also get their knickers in a knot over cheap grain from Ukraine...

 

[steve09090]

If Apple was in compliance with the law, they wouldn't have made appeals and ultimately changed some of their "behavior" in the EU market.

That’s just an opinion. Just because "X" could be true, does not mean "X" is true?

 

[wbeasley]

hands up anyone who think the EU alt app store is going to be a success with customers or those setting up shop?

and alternative payments? when you know if there is a refund issue, Apple will wipe their hands and you have to deal with someone else?

customer behaviour has changed here over the years. I rarely carry cash anymore. I'll use my Watch and if I forget it or it's gone flat, use the backup tap card. Watching, most people do the same. The cash economy hates it. Banks are ditching ATMs and in bank cash withdrawl so huge savings on transport and security.

 

[I7guy]

Common antitrust laws that have been around for ages which prohibit unfair or anticompetitive business practices of major players that can stifle competition. Apple has been engaging in anticompetitive behavior by restricting sideloading and alternative app stores in a major segment of the mobile OS market and in doing so is stifling app access competition.





If Apple was in compliance with the law, they wouldn't have made appeals and ultimately changed some of their "behavior" in the EU market.

Antitrust is malleable. There is no one size fits all.

 

[wbeasley]

Antitrust is malleable. There is no one size fits all.

how many European products have dodgy and anticompetiive practices?

werent they caught out dumping tinned tomatoes cheaply in Australia?
the whole olive oil industry that doesnt grow enough Italian olives for the amount of oil that supposedly comes from those olives?

The Guardian reported this recently on this case:
In the years since, the complaint has narrowed somewhat. Apple declined to respond directly to the FT’s report, saying it won’t comment on speculation, but pointed to a decision by the European Commission last year to drop the “tax” aspects from the investigation launched by Spotify’s complaint. In the revised statement of objections, the key harm was no longer the 30% fee extracted from apps that use in-app purchases, or the requirement to offer them in the first place, but simply the ban on telling users that other payment options exist.

“We’re pleased that the Commission has narrowed its case and is no longer challenging Apple’s right to collect a commission for digital goods and require the use of the in-app payment systems users trust,” Apple said at the time.

Those so-called “anti-steering” rules have been tested by regulators around the world, and in various jurisdictions Apple has been hit with formal limits on its ability to impose them. But those limits rarely go as far as competitors such as Spotify would like, since Apple has hit on a canny wheeze: if forced, it allows companies to direct users to alternative ways of paying, and then charges a commission anyway. In some cases, that new commission has been an eye-watering 27% of the cost, with the justification that the 3% saving on the in-app purchase commission reflects the fact that Apple isn’t paying for credit card processing directly.

‘Now we’re just haggling over the price’

So the end result, even against Apple, isnt going to make Spotify happy.

 

[webkit]

That’s just an opinion. Just because "X" could be true, does not mean "X" is true?

It's a fact that Apple tried to fight/appeal some of the EU regulations. It's a fact that Apple changed its "behavior" in the EU market. Those aren't "opinions" and I hardly think they are just coincidences.

 

[webkit]

Antitrust is malleable. There is no one size fits all.

As can be true for various types of laws. Sometimes laws are enforced more vigorously, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes full or partial settlements are reached, sometimes they aren't. Different cases with similar circumstances can have different results. Sometimes rulings are overturned, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes laws have to be adapted to changes in society, business, etc. Laws and processes can vary by city, state, and country, etc. And so on.

 

[I7guy]

As can be true for various types of laws. Sometimes laws are enforced more vigorously, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes full or partial settlements are reached, sometimes they aren't. Different cases with similar circumstances can have different results. Sometimes rulings are overturned, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes laws have to be adapted to changes in society, business, etc. Laws and processes can vary by city, state, and country, etc. And so on.

Sometimes there is disagreement about the outcome of various enforcements and thinks they are wrong. Or some are way too hellbent on seeing antitrust issues when there actually are none.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I actually think if Apple comply and deliver the branched iOS that meet the words of the EU directive and then abandons it people will spew.

The EU dont like big companies, especially foreign, because we've had decades of scifi where companies rule the future and not governments. Like banks and big pharma and big food. governments only appear to run the place. the real strings are pulled behind the scenes by these players.

If apply only follow the words and not the intentions of the legislation they will be hit hard to a rude awakening.

And no, EU don’t like companies abusing their position, especially if they try to influence politics. Europeans have big trust in their government for a reason.

The EU cant even agree to add new member states without playing games... when faced with a real threat to their survival.

Why do you think that? Adding new members requires they fulfill the 'Copenhagen criteria' and every current EU country agrees that they have fulfilled their obligations adequately.

how many European products have dodgy and anticompetiive practices?

werent they caught out dumping tinned tomatoes cheaply in Australia?
the whole olive oil industry that doesnt grow enough Italian olives for the amount of oil that supposedly comes from those olives?

Many and they get hit with fines all the time.

The Guardian reported this recently on this case:
In the years since, the complaint has narrowed somewhat. Apple declined to respond directly to the FT’s report, saying it won’t comment on speculation, but pointed to a decision by the European Commission last year to drop the “tax” aspects from the investigation launched by Spotify’s complaint. In the revised statement of objections, the key harm was no longer the 30% fee extracted from apps that use in-app purchases, or the requirement to offer them in the first place, but simply the ban on telling users that other payment options exist.

“We’re pleased that the Commission has narrowed its case and is no longer challenging Apple’s right to collect a commission for digital goods and require the use of the in-app payment systems users trust,” Apple said at the time.

Those so-called “anti-steering” rules have been tested by regulators around the world, and in various jurisdictions Apple has been hit with formal limits on its ability to impose them. But those limits rarely go as far as competitors such as Spotify would like, since Apple has hit on a canny wheeze: if forced, it allows companies to direct users to alternative ways of paying, and then charges a commission anyway. In some cases, that new commission has been an eye-watering 27% of the cost, with the justification that the 3% saving on the in-app purchase commission reflects the fact that Apple isn’t paying for credit card processing directly.

‘Now we’re just haggling over the price’

So the end result, even against Apple, isnt going to make Spotify happy.

Nope, if you read what the commission said was in regards to Spotify’s complaints about antitrust practices it only covers the anti-steering rules. The fee is a separate issue not covered

This procedural step follows the Commission's Statement of Objections which outlined the Commission's preliminary view that Apple abused its dominant position by: (i) imposing its own in-app purchase payment technology on music streaming app developers (‘IAP obligation'), and (ii) restricting app developers' ability to inform iPhone and iPad users of alternative music subscription services (‘anti-steering obligations').​

​

Today's Statement of Objections clarifies that the Commission does no longer take a position as to the legality of the IAP obligation for the purposes of this antitrust investigation but rather focuses on the contractual restrictions that Apple imposed on app developers which prevent them from informing iPhone and iPad users of alternative music subscription options at lower prices outside of the app and to effectively choose those.​

​

The Commission takes the preliminary view that Apple's anti-steering obligations are unfair trading conditionsin breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU').​

​

In particular, the Commission is concerned that the anti-steering obligations imposed by Apple on music streaming app developers prevent those developers from informing consumers about where and how to subscribe to streaming services at lower prices. These anti-steering obligations: (i) are neither necessary nor proportionate for the provision of the App Store on iPhones and iPads; (ii) are detrimental to users of music streaming services on Apple's mobile devices who may end up paying more; and (iii) negatively affect the interests of music streaming app developers by limiting effective consumer choice.​

 

[Abazigal]

They know they can't compete, so this is their attempt at clawing back some semblance of control.

And it's funny that Spotify can on one hand boast to be a leader in music streaming, yet with the other hand run to the EU commission with a tin can, crying and complaining that they are being bullied by a company whose music streaming service sports way fewer subscribers than them.

 

[wbeasley]

If apply only follow the words and not the intentions of the legislation they will be hit hard to a rude awakening.

And no, EU don’t like companies abusing their position, especially if they try to influence politics. Europeans have big trust in their government for a reason.

Why do you think that? Adding new members requires they fulfill the 'Copenhagen criteria' and every current EU country agrees that they have fulfilled their obligations adequately.

Many and they get hit with fines all the time.

Nope, if you read what the commission said was in regards to Spotify’s complaints about antitrust practices it only covers the anti-steering rules. The fee is a separate issue not covered

This procedural step follows the Commission's Statement of Objections which outlined the Commission's preliminary view that Apple abused its dominant position by: (i) imposing its own in-app purchase payment technology on music streaming app developers (‘IAP obligation'), and (ii) restricting app developers' ability to inform iPhone and iPad users of alternative music subscription services (‘anti-steering obligations').​

​

Today's Statement of Objections clarifies that the Commission does no longer take a position as to the legality of the IAP obligation for the purposes of this antitrust investigation but rather focuses on the contractual restrictions that Apple imposed on app developers which prevent them from informing iPhone and iPad users of alternative music subscription options at lower prices outside of the app and to effectively choose those.​

​

The Commission takes the preliminary view that Apple's anti-steering obligations are unfair trading conditionsin breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU').​

​

In particular, the Commission is concerned that the anti-steering obligations imposed by Apple on music streaming app developers prevent those developers from informing consumers about where and how to subscribe to streaming services at lower prices. These anti-steering obligations: (i) are neither necessary nor proportionate for the provision of the App Store on iPhones and iPads; (ii) are detrimental to users of music streaming services on Apple's mobile devices who may end up paying more; and (iii) negatively affect the interests of music streaming app developers by limiting effective consumer choice.​

Europeans have big trust in their governments?

France strikes went on for how many weeks?
The government ups the retirement age?
The Eiffel Tower was closed this week...

Italy government is a mishmash of minor parties and often erupts into biffo on the floor.

I think that's a rather LOOOOONG stretch of the truth in your comment

As for laws, many a lawyer will argue words are what's argued about not intent. you follow the LETTER OF THE LAW (words).

Others here have nailed it. Including many app devs. They like the app store. Even at 30% commission to Apple.
And piracy is less on iOS so rewards devs better.

If Spotify is the dominant music provider, they cant complain about steering. They are the ones steering users to sign up outside the app store.

The sooner Apple have a great Playlist/Library import tool, the sooner I will be ditching Spotify.
I'm tired of their whinging. And they havent made a move on promised high res in two years.
And knowing them, they will charge more for it and not compensate artists more.