Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU Fines Apple $2 Billion for Anti-Competitive Behavior Toward Spotify
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Digital goods can be consumed on the iPhone, android, windows, etc... if I buy a Spotify subscription it isn't tied to the iPhone. If I buy a character in League of Legends Wild Rift I am not tied to the iOS app. If I buy an Office 365 subscription I can use it on the Mac or PC as well...
But in this case Spotify is limited from even communicating from within their own products... that is the issue here that got Apple fined.
Why does that matter, the technology on which the apps are built are still the same, Apple is still hosting both apps etc
And Apple does not actually cover the provision of the actual digital service, as the music Spotify streams comes from their own servers.
So these days when Apple rarely puts anything to be excited about the forum should be dead? I remember when me and the wife used to watch the events together just to see what they were launching but there’s no point anymore since we already know it won’t be anything new and exciting.
If Apple goes back to being brave enough to innovate and try to lead the industry again I will yet again be excited for their product launches.
As a concerned neuropsychguy, I might be interested in your take on Apple unsatiable desire for control.
I mean, if Apple were a person, you can’t deny they suffer from a severe disorder in that regard, can you?
I also can't buy any games on my digital only Playstation 5 outside of my Playstation nor transfer to another console. And Sony gets a 30% cut of all sales. No one is going after XBOX or Playstation for the exact same issue. And they have the same level of monopoly.
Just because some number of consumers still signed up for Spotify doesn’t mean what Apple mandates isn’t anti-competitive.
Just a little more effort is need from your end to understand this business model. You can do it if you want to.
It didn't matter that they couldn't communicate inside the app. Spotify removed the ability to subscribe inside the app. So customers signed up on the web site. They didn't need Spotify to tell them that the internet/web sites exist.
Um, how does this address the point that digital goods purchased (say on Apple's platform) are usually available across multiple platforms and aren't tied to Apple's platform? Sure you can't play PS5 games on Xbox, but that isn't analogous since I can use my MS 365 subscription on Mac and PC as well as iPad.
It's a business model sure, that doesn't make it either logical, ethical, or (in this case) legally defensible.
It matters if the argument is that consumers aren't harmed. Inconvenience is still harm.
Apple has a vested interest in bringing as many developers as possible to its platform regardless because ultimately that's what sells their hardware. If there's only crappy apps for the iPhone, why buy an iPhone?
Anyway, I don't think anyone is genuinely arguing that Apple shouldn't be compensated at all.
They do charge developers a yearly fee already. If that's not high enough they should increase it and they can still maintain tiers or exempt developers of a certain size.
They should be able to monetise the App Store, as long as there's the possibility of genuine competition.
I just don't see why service providers shouldn't be able to point to their own websites to encourage consumers to sign up there when Apple can do so for its own services. I understand that this is a risk to Apple's business model, but I don't think that's an overriding concern against the anti-steering provisions.
Apple says it has to be compensated because it costs money to run the App Store, but no one is forcing them to run the App Store in the first place. If it's a viable service financially, which I assume it is, then it will continue.
How inconvenient could it be if 99% of their iOS subscribers used their web site to pay for their subscriptions?
Sort of. The iOS app store isn't the "only place in town", it's more like one of only two places in town (iOS and Android) as far as app sales/access options. Apple (with iOS) and Google (with Android) are the only two major players in the mobile OS market. The issue is the dominance, control, power, etc. Apple and Google have in that market which makes it necessary to address potential anticompetitive behavior. A company doesn’t necessarily have to control an entire market (be the only place in town) to face antitrust matters.
The issue is that Apple prevents other music streaming services from informing users about the discounts "outside the Apple ecosystems." They cannot even tell the users that they can buy cheaper even on their own (Spotify's) website. The basic fine is actually $40 million and 1.8 billion is a fine as a deterrent.
Brussels fined Apple 1.84 billion euros ($2 billion) on Monday, the iPhone maker's first ever EU antitrust penalty, for preventing Spotify and other music streaming services from informing users of payment options "outside its App Store".
EU is doing it by market cap though. They're not actually prohibiting anti-steering throughout the market. So the EU apparently has a market based reason for keeping anti-steering practices available for companies below the cap.
Apple wants to start charging for API usage? Yeah.... lets see how well that goes over with developers.
Also, I'm curious how Apple can both charge Spotify for a developer license and claim that they don't receive anything from Spotify. Are they waiving Spotify's $99/year developer fee?
Especially because the developer fee is what pays for distribution, Test flight, app reviews, and engineering assistance.
Thinking that Apple can charge for API use and Framework use is just pure conceited greed on Apple's part though. Like, how do you expect _any_ developer to program for your platform if you charge a license for API calls?
Apple is so concerned about their app store revenue, they're spouting words that are seriously angering developers, and they don't even realize it.