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

[cupcakes2000]

I was talking about retail prices, not deals or free Galaxy buds or whatever other tactics companies use to put people on contracts. If you get a phone on a contract, you generally don’t own that phone until the contract is complete or you pay a penalty if you cancel the contract.

Well from an EU perspective who cares about that? People care about getting good deals. If you need a contract anyway it’s irrelevant. The fact is is what you said is incorrect for all intents and purposes of getting a phone. You can get most other phones for far cheaper than iPhones.

 

[Hails09]

Then they can charge what they want.

Spotify are perfectly capable of taking payments from their own store and get the free ride as they continue to do now, for nothing in the App Store. But they want both. They want to take app payments through Apples Secure Payment system and not pay a dime for it.

We are obviously looking at this from different sides of the room. I think if people want to use a service, they should pay for it. You think they should get it for free.

Saying that, Spotify still charge more than Apple despite going through their own store, they have ad supported versions and get revenue for that. They under pay royalties and they have a much bigger market share. Spotify are not losing money compared to Apple. Despite all that, Apple raised their prices in 2022 and Spotify raised them higher again in 2023. They didn’t have to do that. Apple raised them to pay more royalties. Spotify raised them to 'give customers a better experience'. In fact they stopped giving royalties to artists with less than 1,000 streams….

So, you support Spotify's greedy, artists sucking business model. Got it.

If Apple have done nothing wrong then
Why is some of their App Store rules getting regulated by EU.
I don’t use Spotify

 

[SmugMaverick]

Well from an EU perspective who cares about that? People care about getting good deals. If you need a contract anyway it’s irrelevant. The fact is is what you said is incorrect for all intents and purposes of getting a phone. You can get most other phones for far cheaper than iPhones.

It doesn't matter, the point still stands that owning an iPhone is not a show of wealth.

Galaxy 24 Ultra costs more than Pro Max, but people will call them broke.

It's all apple marketing and people in the EU don't fall for it because its not a statement, its a tool.

 

[steve09090]

Well from an EU perspective who cares about that? People care about getting good deals. If you need a contract anyway it’s irrelevant. The fact is is what you said is incorrect for all intents and purposes of getting a phone. You can get most other phones for far cheaper than iPhones.

I was just providing info and comparing retail prices. I wasn’t checking food stamps available on phones. Don’t be upset. You are talking about something entirely different.

 

[Hails09]

It doesn't matter, the point still stands that owning an iPhone is not a show of wealth.

Galaxy 24 Ultra costs more than Pro Max, but people will call them broke.

It's all apple marketing and people in the EU don't fall for it.

Exactly I’m starting to see a lot more people with Samsung ultra models than new iPhones.

 

[cupcakes2000]

I was just providing info and comparing retail prices. I wasn’t checking food stamps available on phones. Don’t be upset. You are talking about something entirely different.

I’m talking about acquiring a phone. As were you.

My contract is 34.99 a month, regardless of my phone. If I want to add a phone to it, I can every two years. This year, a pixel 8 is 1 euro, an iPhone 15 pro is 569€ - I just checked. My bill doesn’t change for either one I add, if I didn’t want a phone with it my bill will be reduced by 8€

 

[steve09090]

If Apple have done nothing wrong then
Why is some of their App Store rules getting regulated by EU.
I don’t use Spotify

Pages and pages on that answer.

Exactly I’m starting to see a lot more people with Samsung ultra models than new iPhones.

Samsung and Google make some damn nice phones.

 

[steve09090]

I’m talking about acquiring a phone. As were you.

My contract is 34.99 a month, regardless of my phone. If I want to add a phone to it, I can every two years. This year, a pixel 8 is 1 euro, an iPhone 15 pro is 569€ - I just checked. My bill doesn’t change for either one I add, if I didn’t want a phone with it my bill will be reduced by 8€

Cool. So equivalent to costing less than €200 for the phone. Great deal.

 

[MilaM]

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


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.

I just agreed to the fact that there are "specific requirements" or threshholds in the law. If there weren't it would indeed be arbitrary.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Cool. So equivalent to costing less than €200 for the phone. Great deal.

It is a great deal, it’s not a bad deal for the iPhone but it’s still considerably more money for essentially the same product, an advanced smartphone.

 

[steve09090]

It is a great deal, it’s not a bad deal for the iPhone but it’s still considerably more money for essentially the same product, an advanced smartphone.

I guess not unlike Google cutting costs for Spotify in the Google Play Store. It’d be nice if Apple provided such discounts, but it is what it is.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Please don’t call me a liar.

What you said is exactly what I said. The difference is you think Spotify should get access to the App Store for free. FREE!! Spotify could also have charged $9.99 but would have to take 15% (don’t exaggerate it’s not 30%) but some of that would have reduced their net amount. Thats exactly what the cost is for.

There is a cost in using the App Store, and Spotify would get all of the many benefits of that. They just wanted all the benefits for free. How scummy is that?

… and there’s a cost to running Spotify. If Apple can pay out over $320 billion dollars since 2008, and about 60 billion last year….then I don’t think Spotify and other competitors needs to subsidize apples services

Apple launches their music service, yet they demand their competitors should subsidize Apple with 15-30% of their revenue before profit and taxes, jusy So Apple can be able to provide a better service to customers for better price and profit.

that sounds way more scummy than the developer being allowed to offer apples IAP and their own solution next to each other.

Heck developers could use Apple Pay or the wallet and pay the 0.1% or whatever transaction fee Apple takes for cards to be compatible with Apple pay.

That’s way better than using the IAP

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That’s not stifling competition.
Every closed system does it.
Printers could only use certain inks. That’s why printers were cheap as. Subsidies
Claimed back over use time.

Side loading isn’t allowed on many things.

How many hate their tv experience and can change it? We have a government that wants to ensure free to air apps get first placement on smart screens and all streamers scream over how unfair it is.

Seems people like flexibility when it suits them.

You bought a phone knowing it was a locked environment. Get over it.

Buy the Android one if you want to fiddle.
It really is that simple. The choice is yours.

Guess what the law states here about printers….
You are allowed to use 3d party inc cartridges and they can’t force you to use their expensive Crappy cartridges

Real freedom. People like freedom.

 

[steve09090]

… and there’s a cost to running Spotify. If Apple can pay out over $320 billion dollars since 2008, and about 60 billion last year….then I don’t think Spotify and other competitors needs to subsidize apples services

Apple launches their music service, yet they demand their competitors should subsidize Apple with 15-30% of their revenue before profit and taxes, jusy So Apple can be able to provide a better service to customers for better price and profit.

that sounds way more scummy than the developer being allowed to offer apples IAP and their own solution next to each other.

Heck developers could use Apple Pay or the wallet and pay the 0.1% or whatever transaction fee Apple takes for cards to be compatible with Apple pay.

That’s way better than using the IAP

Ah..the Apple can afford it argument. Fair enough.

Spotify make more money than Apple for music. Should Apple subsidise Spotify because they can’t run a business efficiently?

Just a small point of order…. Apple haven’t demanded anyone subsidise revenue, it’s a cost for using the service. We can differ on this subject but it is what it is, and Apple have been consistent from the day they opened the store. Spotify are the ones trying to change the rules. But you can believe what you want. Enjoy.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

…Spotify are perfectly capable of taking payments from their own store and get the free ride as they continue to do now, for nothing in the App Store. But they want both. They want to take app payments through Apples Secure Payment system and not pay a dime for it. …

no, they want the ability to:

1. Inform the user that it’s cheaper to do it on their website
2. Use their own payment method
3. Offer apples IAP service with 15-30% fee
4. Compete on equal and fair terms and not subsidize Apple Music.

And they are paying 99$ developer fee for publishing accessibility to the AppStore

Ah..the Apple can afford it argument. Fair enough.

Spotify make more money than Apple for music. Should Apple subsidise Spotify because they can’t run a business efficiently?

Just a small point of order…. Apple haven’t demanded anyone subsidise revenue, it’s a cost for using the service. We can differ on this subject but it is what it is, and Apple have been consistent from the day they opened the store. Spotify are the ones trying to change the rules. But you can believe what you want. Enjoy.

Nope, it’s more the point of that the AppStore isn’t unprofitable if they can do that.
And Spotify making more money is irrelevant if Apple is margin squeezing their competitors, Spotify isn’t the only one.

Well apple haven’t been consistent, they are taking 15-30% for some transactions and 0% for other transactions on arbitrary reasons that isn’t related in the cost of the service they provide known as Price discrimination applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage.

And the inability to communicate with the user for better deals with Anti-steering practices is anticompetitive for preventing consumers from accessing information or choices that would allow them to benefit from lower prices or better quality services.


The laws have always been there

 

[wbeasley]

Including Apple Music then, yes. A few extra fractions of a pence in the pound doesn’t make Apple the musician saviour people around here seem to think it does, I’m afraid.

No one likes ads, but what an outrageous claim 😂 this is the type of thing that certainly needs to be backed up with a couple of proofs if you have them.

cmon, everyone knows to mute/ignore ads
or how to install adblockers

only very non tech people suffer ads.

Apple still pay more for music than Spotify. And more again for Spatial Audio tracks.

The actual original comment was about the Music Industry. They settled for small payments. They trickle a bit through to artists. The industry has always been like that.

 

[steve09090]

no, they want the ability to:

1. Inform the user that it’s cheaper to do it on their website
2. Use their own payment method
3. Offer apples IAP service with 15-30% fee
4. Compete on equal and fair terms and not subsidize Apple Music.

And they are paying 99$ developer fee for publishing accessibility to the AppStore


Nope, it’s more the point of that the AppStore isn’t unprofitable if they can do that.
And Spotify making more money is irrelevant if Apple is margin squeezing their competitors, Spotify isn’t the only one.

Well apple haven’t been consistent, they are taking 15-30% for some transactions and 0% for other transactions on arbitrary reasons that isn’t related in the cost of the service they provide known as Price discrimination applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage.

And the inability to communicate with the user for better deals with Anti-steering practices is anticompetitive for preventing consumers from accessing information or choices that would allow them to benefit from lower prices or better quality services.


The laws have always been there

At this stage, all I am hearing is blah blah blah. I’m over this. It’s a circular argument and we’ve hashed this out much more than we need to over and again.

Ultimately there are 2 perspectives in this which is why they argue these things in court.

 

[wbeasley]

That’s not why they stopped in app purchase it was because of Apple Music it’s to do with Apple Music being 9,99 & for Spotify it would have to be 12,99 with in app purchase because of the fees Spotify used in app purchase from the start it was only when Apple launched Apple Music things got ugly
So stop spreading miss truths

Apple Music was available at least 6 months before Spotify pull app purchases.

I thought the EU was all about competition and consumers getting better prices?
Oh it was the 30% (which Spotify forgot to tell everyone is 15% after the first year) which is "unfair"?
Ever heard of retail and ow much they charge to put things on shelves, or better shelves or take on spec and set their own prices and return? It's commerce whether it's digital or real world.

Spotify has an ad version to offset all the Free accounts that Apple gets nothing for at all...

 

[MilaM]

Ultimately there are 2 perspectives in this which is why they argue these things in court.

It's also complicated by the fact, that there is little precedent. I don't think that ever before two companies had such strong grip on a marketplace like it is the case with Apple and Google. You can't really compare it with markets for physical goods. Most intuition we have from our experience with physical stores does not translate well into marketplaces for digital goods and services.

 

[wbeasley]

Facts: can get a pixel 8 for 1 euro with a contract. Same contract requires an initial payment of 400euro or more for an iPhone 15 pro.

sounds like someone at Google is playing unfair competition subsidizing that Pixel heavily
very anti competitive... hahaah

 

[wbeasley]

Exactly I’m starting to see a lot more people with Samsung ultra models than new iPhones.

You see a lot more Samsung phone here too - a few months after launch when they drop 30% regularly to clear stock

 

[steve09090]

sounds like someone at Google is playing unfair competition subsidizing that Pixel heavily
very anti competitive... hahaah

Can you imagine if Apple tried to undercut anyone? People would go crazy about that! 🤪

 

[wbeasley]

Apple should just pull Spotify app for a month from the app store.
App dev not happy with terms can be the reason.
It puts it back on Spotify then to stop whinging.
And when people can't find their app to download for free anymore, perhaps they might shut up

No one is forcing them to put their app there.

Apple users can log in via safari and run their music streams from there...

Ever noticed that Office 365 is available and you can buy a sub in app? Same price... they prefer people actually use their apps...

And Adobe...

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple Music was available at least 6 months before Spotify pull app purchases.

I thought the EU was all about competition and consumers getting better prices?
Oh it was the 30% (which Spotify forgot to tell everyone is 15% after the first year) which is "unfair"?
Ever heard of retail and ow much they charge to put things on shelves, or better shelves or take on spec and set their own prices and return? It's commerce whether it's digital or real world.

Spotify has an ad version to offset all the Free accounts that Apple gets nothing for at all...

Eu is for the market and a healthy competition.

Spotify can claim whatever they want, even say they think Tim is smelly feets and it impacts their business…In the end of the day the actions they filed a complaint over must still be against the law as antitrust or anticompetitive.

You are free to read EU law and you will know what the legal meaning of unfair is. Thera about 80 years of Jurisprudence by the European Court of Justice in regards to the Rome statutes.

 

[MilaM]

Apple should just pull Spotify app for a month from the app store.
App dev not happy with terms can be the reason.
It puts it back on Spotify then to stop whinging.
And when people can't find their app to download for free anymore, perhaps they might shut up

You have provided the best reason why this action against Apple is justified. Thank you!