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

[I7guy]

They can‘t substitute for a smartphone - or only very poorly. When I‘m out to meet someone or run errands, I‘m not going to lug around a laptop computer to text people, send/receive a picture or find a public transit connection - or even just a place on the maps. Paper maps aren’t really sold in stores anymore - they‘ve been replaced by digital maps on smartphones.

...and your stubborn insistence that cell phones/smartphones aren't required doesn't help.

There's not much real-world "back and forth" on that question.
The question if people think one "needs" a smartphone has been answered by the sheer numbers:
👉 „The vast majority of Americans – 97% – now own a cellphone of some kind. Nine-in-ten own a smartphone“

I don‘t know any people below the age of, say 70, that would dispute the fact one „needs a smartphone“ in today’s modern society. Smartphones have become as ubiquitous as cars - probably more so in Europe than the U.S. - and about as „needed“ or useful.

Though there are certainly many that would agree we don't need to stare on our phones nearly as much we do everyday.

The only people (like you) and instances I have come across of people disputing the need for a smartphone on Apple-focused internet forms such as MacRumors are when it's in the context of justifying Apple's App Store terms and conditions and Apple's right to set them "as they please" (Which you can have differing opinions on - and the both of us clearly have )

The only people with arguments supporting the DMA and making their assertions the conclusions are those who support this type of legislation. It’s okay to be for this type of legislation but at least argue honestly.

It’s a life planning problem if your life will stop because you lose control of your smartphone. Not that it’s a pleasant experience.

 

[BaldiMac]

The DMA is not an antitrust action directed at one specific company, but a very general framework that applies to many different actors.

I disagree. The DMA targets specific companies with specific requirements justified by arbitrary metrics.

 

[steve09090]

Nothing has really changed since Apple replied to the complaint by Spotify in 2019.

Let’s be clear about what that means. Apple connects Spotify to our users. We provide the platform by which users download and update their app. We share critical software development tools to support Spotify’s app building. And we built a secure payment system — no small undertaking — which allows users to have faith in in-app transactions. Spotify is asking to keep all those benefits while also retaining 100 percent of the revenue.​

Meanwhile Spotify want control of the App Store. From Spotify:

What’s one of the top complaints about Spotify? It’s actually something that until now has been outside of our control: the ability to seamlessly subscribe to and buy things through Spotify on your iPhone.​

Surely that’s a straight out bald face lie! It is and always was absolutely within their control. They just wanted all the benefits and pay none of the costs associated with it. They do it with Google, but they refuse with Apple. But of course this means they will also tell Google that they want their 4% back as well.

——-

2/3rds of all tracks streamed by Spotify (under Spotify’s 2023 rules) will not be paid to artists. And only tracks that are streamed more than 1000 times (which makes up the other 1/3rd) will get any royalties.

The only people (like you) with arguments supporting the DMA and making their assertions the conclusions are those who support this type of legislation.

It’s a life planning problem if your life will stop because you lose control of your smartphone. Not that it’s a pleasant experience.

I could easily live without a smartphone. All I would need is a portable streaming device and an iPad to keep me happy.

 

[steve09090]

I disagree. The DMA targets specific companies with specific requirements justified by arbitrary metrics.

Correct. Which is exactly why Spotify put the initial complaint in.

 

[steve09090]

Apple should go through the Ad route. For every "free" app, Apple are entitled to place ads within the app. For people to get ad free apps, the app company needs to Pay.

This is the exact model Spotify use within their eco system. Apple should do the same.

 

[MilaM]

It’s a life planning problem if your life will stop because you lose control of your smartphone. Not that it’s a pleasant experience.

This law is not about the (largely philosophical) question if someone could theoretically live without a smartphone. It's about the economic opportunities (e.g. jobs) of possibly millions of people living in the EU.

 

[MilaM]

The DMA targets specific companies with specific requirements justified by arbitrary metrics.

I agree. But I don't think that the metrics are arbitrary.

 

[steve09090]

This law is not about the (largely philosophical) question if someone could theoretically live without a smartphone. It's about the economic opportunities (e.g. jobs) of possibly millions of people living in the EU.

What the law is about is different to the reason Spotify complained. They complained because they want the benefits of the App Store without paying for it. Apple contributed to Spotify being so successful and Spotify don’t want to pay Apple, in the same way they don’t want to pay the artists who made them rich.

If a relationship doesn’t work. Get out. Which is why so many artists are dumping Spotify. OMG, the number of law suits against Spotify for ripping off people…

 

[MilaM]

What the law is about is different to the reason Spotify complained.

My comments were about the DMA, not the Spotfy/Apple fine. I did not notice that this thread is about the latter.

 

[steve09090]

My comments were about the DMA, not the Spotfy/Apple fine. I did not notice that this thread is about the latter.

I’m so confused about what this thread is about now! 😂

 

[I7guy]

This law is not about the (largely philosophical) question if someone could theoretically live without a smartphone. It's about the economic opportunities (e.g. jobs) of possibly millions of people living in the EU.

Smartphones are a commodity. They come in many different sizes and shapes. What the common thread is cell signals. I can do my banking on a laptop with a usb cellular modem, galaxy, iPhone 15, iPad etc. obviously the smaller the factor the easier to carry around.

 

[Realityck]

I’m so confused about what this thread is about now! 😂

Its about a Financial Time hearsay assumptions article about a maybe, possible, doubtful, definitely, unlikely, discussion per so so ears to the wall rumor. Clearly little substance or facts involved. Just read the source.

 

[MilaM]

Its about a Financial Time hearsay assumptions about a maybe, possible, doubtful, definitely, unlikely, discussion per sos so ears to the wall rumor.

I agree that it's better to wait for the actual decision. But the FT has a very good reputation. When they publish information like this, there most likely is something to it.

 

[steve09090]

I agree that it's better to wait for the actual decision.

Oh dear. We waste so much time in these forums.. oh look… sunshine outside… (closes curtains)

 

[wbeasley]

It’s not necessarily that easy which is why there needs to be more antitrust scrutiny on the dominate players that do exist. Many consumers would like to see more mobile OS options but it can be very costly and risky for a company to try to create/market their own OS and be successful. Even desktop OS giant Microsoft failed to do so.

Exactly.

So people whinge about the "monopoly" and "no choice" but no one is willing to do anything?

And yes, even Microsoft failed (but let's face it, they didnt get their interface right back when everything had to look like a PC screen and then they got duped by the Nokia guy they brought in).
However, if consumers want more choice, that says there is a market waiting for the right idea.

It's surprising there aren't more Android offshoots pushing the limits...

Or perhaps there isn't as much demand as tech pundits make out and the masses and their wallets are quite happy with the way both Android and iOS work for them? A bigger screen, longer battery life and nicer camera maybe rate higher on their needs list than an alt app store?

 

[wbeasley]

Yeah

Apple may not be able to control the fact that there are only two major mobile and tablet operating systems but they can control their "anticompetitive behavior"and it's the app access restricting anticompetitive behavior that warrants antitrust scrutiny due to the fact there are only two major mobile and tablet OS players.

right, Apple is stifling competition...

"How many apps are in the Apple Store 2023?


In July 2023, the App Store offered more than one million gaming apps. In contrast, the store had 3.83 million non-gaming apps available in the same period. 18 Jan 2024"

They are stopping so much from happening hahahah.

"As of January 2023, Apple had paid a total of over 320 billion U.S. dollars to iOS app developers selling goods and services through the App Store."

More evidence that Apple just wants it all for themselves

What you mean by lack of competition is the type of apps you want aren't available...

But they are. Android let you host those apps. Your grey zone emulators and ROMs, your dodgy date renting apps, your backend hardware access apps... you HAVE a choice. But you are DEMANDING Apple let you do the same on their hardware.

 

[wbeasley]

This law is not about the (largely philosophical) question if someone could theoretically live without a smartphone. It's about the economic opportunities (e.g. jobs) of possibly millions of people living in the EU.

There area millions of apps in the store and devs getting paid by Apple.
Large amounts of cash flow to devs.

If EU wants a slice of the pie they should encourage and support dev work that makes killer apps that people want to use priced well so money flows to them. That's how competition works. Not legislation that kills opportunities,

 

[Realityck]

I agree that it's better to wait for the actual decision. But the FT has a very good reputation. When they publish information like this, there most likely is something to it.

That is something akin to Forbes and Bloomberg. Doesn’t mean it is factual, just a continued speculation article written without any official reporting from a legit source.

 

[wbeasley]

Oh dear. We waste so much time in these forums.. oh look… sunshine outside… (closes curtains)

given the small number of contributors for and against this, it would be easy to infer that most people, even tech interested ones, really dont care for what the EU are pushing.

If they get the alt app stores and alt payments through, I guess we see what impact it has to security for everyone and whether anyone can actually make a living off these stores

It might even play against other countries forcing Apple to open things up

Perhaps Apple can find ways to let EU residents set their country of choice (to outside EU) and keep things as they are.
Or only add new features to non-EU iOS (effectively delivering what the EU wanted and forking the code with the EU branch deadended...)

And then they will all cry. Again...

 

[steve09090]

given the small number of contributors for and against this, it would be easy to infer that most people, even tech interested ones, really dont care for what the EU are pushing.

If they get the alt app stores and alt payments through, I guess we see what impact it has to security for everyone and whether anyone can actually make a living off these stores

It might even play against other countries forcing Apple to open things up

Perhaps Apple can find ways to let EU residents set their country of choice (to outside EU) and keep things as they are.
Or only add new features to non-EU iOS (effectively delivering what the EU wanted and forking the code with the EU branch deadended...)

And then they will all cry. Again...

I don’t think they’d be able to make EU Country changes. That’d be shut down pretty quickly. I can’t even download BBC iPlayer because my account originates from Australia, regardless of where I am living.

Apple will likely just accept this, as they have no choice anyway. But EU people say how wonderful the EU are when they are ‘sticking it to the man' but they also cry about how much each country has to contribute. When the decisions have been shown to be, at times based on bribes. It’s Faux Rage.

People supporting this have a very inward look at the system yet ignore the harm Spotify has done to others. No company last forever, including Apple, but it will be a very good day when Spotify goes into bankruptcy because they lose their very many infringing lawsuits. Spotify are not good for the Music industry. Vultures.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Perhaps Apple can find ways to let EU residents set their country of choice (to outside EU) and keep things as they are.

Please, yes! Steer consumers to setting their country outside of the EU, where things stay as they are.

I'm waiting for the resulting market investigation and fine for circumventing the DMA 😄

 

[AppliedMicro]

If EU wants a slice of the pie they should encourage and support dev work that makes killer apps that people want to use priced well so money flows to them. That's how competition works

Exactly.

The less money flows to Apple in transaction costs, the more money all these innovative third-party developers receive, to invest in their innovative app development.

 

[BaldiMac]

I agree.

That would contradict your claim that the DMA doesn't target a specific company.

But I don't think that the metrics are arbitrary.

Really? So what is the non-arbitrary justification that says a company with 44 million users should have different rules that a company with 46 million users.

 

[AppliedMicro]

it will be a very good day when Spotify goes into bankruptcy
Spotify are not good for the Music industry. Vultures.

Why does the music industry have contracts with Spotify and allow their content to be streamed, if it's so bad for them? 🤷‍♂️

 

[wbeasley]

Why does the music industry have contracts with Spotify and allow their content to be streamed, if it's so bad for them? 🤷‍♂️

because the music industry have always been about making money for the industry (execs etc) not the artist.
the delivery method might have changed, the business model hasnt