I thought this was the threshold under the Digital Markets Act, which doesn't apply to this case or this fine.
Do you have any source you can point me toward? Thanks!
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
I thought this was the threshold under the Digital Markets Act, which doesn't apply to this case or this fine.
Do you have any source you can point me toward? Thanks!
Spotify is the global music streaming leader and the EU music streaming leader. Most of that growth happened on the smartphone platforms so I have a hard time viewing Spotify as being a victim of mobile operating systems. They didn't get into that position by limiting their service to desktops/laptops (which was their original business model).
I cannot pay for my Office 365 subscription on iOS or iPadOS...
Edit: Furthermore, the main point in favour of Apple getting a cut was the idea that the goods are consumed on iOS, if the goods aren't just consumed on iOS then that argument falls apart. That is the point I am making here, sure you can come up with other arguments but they don't support the idea that consuming a good on a thing entitles the owner of the thing to a share of sales. If that were the case all purchases made online should pay a percentage to the telecom companies.
I can easily argue everything Apple does helps sell iPhones. Not just API's. The iPhone isn't static physical device or iOS. There is way more going into it than helping developers.
The rules were created long ago that allowed for that. What you're asking for is everyone to be treated the same. Which they do not have to be. If Apple wanted to let everyone on for free, they could if that was their intention. That wasn't. So we are coming from a pre-established place with a pre-established set of rules that worked perfectly fine until EPIC.
Apple originally wanted WebApps. Real apps provide a better experience of course, and it exists. With rules, 70/30 split. Physical goods and services apps are "free". IAP outside of that are 70/30, and so is anything that charges for the app outright. All established well known rules of the road.
Many of these companies have web sites that offer the same thing already. So they do not have to be on the AppStore. Again, you as an end user could work perfectly fine with just an iPhone an not download anything from the appstore. All your banking/finance, social media, communications, and media can be had without ever downloading an app from the store.
One could argue that this already exists. Oddly enough it's the bigger companies complaining about the 30%.
The only reason the EU can bring this specific fine is because Apple have their own streaming app. So they are inferring that Apples music app doesnt cost 30% of Apple's subscription cost to run, so therefore it's unfair.
How do they know what Apple Music costs to run internally?
Spotify had been barely profitable for years and yet they can say that Apple Music runs on thin air?
In that regard the EU and US arguments rulings are different.
In fact, even with the US judgement, apple still legally demand 27% of sales made externally that derived from the appstore. So Apple still want to get paid for providing the opportunity for developers to make money. The web link ban was just a way to get what they felt entitled to. There are clearly other more onerous ways to get there as we are seeing now.
The EU on the other hand, seems to be saying Apple cannot demand any money for giving access to the market place via their App Store but MUST freely distribute apps for its competitor? (who happen to be the market leader anyway!). That doesnt sound like business, it sounds like charity.
A large part of Apple’s success of the iPhone is due to the App Store too, through 3rd party buy-in (remember “there’s an app for that”). It goes both ways here.
Of course it doesn’t, because they have to unfairly charge users more money through iOS for the same level of service accessible from their other apps, including the web. User A has to pay more than user B simply because they subscribed through iOS rather than the website. That isn’t just bad for Spotify - it’s bad for Apple customers. They pay more for subscriptions than non-Apple customers.
Incorrect, developers pay Apple $100 per year. These services are common to all developers, not exclusively developed for Spotify. Nevertheless, if Apple isn't happy with the price, then charge more. Charge for API access for various services like weather and maps if you want. Apple is free to become the AWS/Azure of apps if it wants to. But charge for what you provide, not demand a tariff for services you don’t provide.
Except Apple wants a free tax from Spotify. The Spotify platforms connect to Spotify services to access Spotify data streams that provide music licensed by Spotify. Yet because Apple is one player among several of step 1, it thinks it is entitled to 30% of the rest of it? Absolutely absurd.
In a lot of the best retail areas, or the most prestigious retail places, there is only 1 landlord. The whole of Regent St in the West End of London is owned by 1 company. Westfield shopping centres in major cities have 1 landlord. If you want to sell next to Gucci or Prada you have to pay that company. Apple is like a luxury shopping arcade, its not like a whole town.
You're correct about the DMA not applying. My mistake!
“These anti-steering provisions are neither necessary nor proportionate for the protection of Apple’s commercial interest and “negatively affect the interests of iOS users, who cannot make informed and effective decisions” about music streaming apps to use on their device. In practical terms, this means that “for almost ten years” iOS users may have been paying “significantly higher” prices because of the high fees imposed by Apple to developers and passed on to the end consumer in the form of higher subscription prices. Added to this is the non-monetary damage “in the form of a degraded user experience,” since iOS users had to perform a “cumbersome” search before finding the desired offering, “or they never subscribed to any service because they did not find the right one on their own.”
Taking into account the duration and severity of the infringement, the total turnover, and the fact that “incorrect information was provided in the administrative procedure,” the European Commission imposed a fine of 1.8 billion euros, “proportionate to Apple’s global revenues and is necessary to achieve deterrence.” As the Commission points out, this is a lump sum fine, made necessary because “a significant part of the harm caused by the infringement consists of non-monetary harm, which cannot be adequately accounted for under the revenue-based methodology.” In addition, the U.S. company was ordered to remove the anti-steering provisions and to “refrain from repeating the infringement or from adopting practices with an equivalent object or effect in the future.”
Apple must pay EU a 1.8 billion euro fine
EU Commission finds abuse of Apple's dominant position in music streaming market through anti-steering practices
www.eunews.it
---
Note the phrase "may have been paying". May have been? Basically the EU can't actually provide evidence of this type of harm (which is part of Apple's response to the fine). Spotify's original argument was that they had to pay 30% commission on $9.99 and Apple didn't, NOT that Spotify had to raise prices on iOS. They never did raise the price of their app on the App Store. They just decided to eliminate in-app subscriptions.
The EU is also claiming that web search is "cumbersome" which is not supported by the fact that 99% of Spotify's iOS subscribers were paying via the internet at the time of Spotify's complaint to the EU. Add that to the fact that Spotify has always been the dominant streaming service by market share and you've got some really flimsy arguments coming from the EU.
Yes, it's true that Apple didn't allow communication inside the app. No doubt. But pretty much everything else the EU is saying is doubtful...the monetary harm, the user experience and the inconvenience. None of those things are really quantified by the EU and certainly aren't supported by what actually happened per Spotify. As Apple points out, Spotify used the term "stagnant" to define the music streaming market at a time when Spotify was rapidly increasing their customer base.
Last edited:
Let me help you out. Apple is run by deeply immoral people. Therefore, when a fact supports their argument, they mention it. When it doesn’t, they lie.
So second thread now that unable or unwilling to backup your statement.
Apple is a duopoly in the mobile market,
iOS is not a separate market to the rest of the mobile market.
hence why people keep asking you what monopoly?
perhaps you might want to think about that before keep copy paste that apple is a monopoly and then not being able to back it up.
"Deeply Immoral"?. I'm pretty certain you don't know what that means. Because a corporation tries to maximize profits, does not equate to "deeply immoral". At worst they are morally neutral.
immoral : morally wrong, or outside society's standards of acceptable, honest, and moral behavior: an immoral act.
If you think their behavior is outside society's standards, you haven't lived in a capitalistic society. Virtually every single for-profit company does everything they can to maximize profit. Hence mergers, layoffs, price-increases, cost-cutting
Why isn’t Apple just increasing the Annual fee anyway? Is it still 99$ per year? I feel like that’s the only thing that hasn’t increased.
Even the Big Mac has almost doubled since I graduated university in 2016
Even the Big Mac has almost doubled since I graduated university in 2016
…. and in technology natural monopolies have always existed. Look at the market for office productivity software, CAD software, search, operating systems, CPUs and monitor OEMs.
Competing landlords are merely one tube stop (or a five minute walk away).
Luxury shopping arcades don’t account for 20, 30, or 50 percent of all retail space in London - nor the UK as a whole.
To keep with the analogy, I have little doubt that Spotify are happy to sell next door or five minutes away (i.e. using their own billing and payment processing).
It's not full of lies and misinformation, so not even close. Doesn't even ask for money...
Not sure if you’re from the U.S. of A. - but you may be familiar with the concept of punitive damages or criminal fines. Or in this case that’s sufficiently deterrent.
“the Commission decided to add to the basic amount of the fine an additional lump sum of €1.8 billion to ensure that the overall fine imposed on Apple is sufficiently deterrent. Such lump sum fine was necessary in this case because a significant part of the harm caused by the infringement consists of non-monetary harm, which cannot be properly accounted for under the revenue-based methodology as set out in the Commission's 2006 Guidelines on Fines”
Last edited:
"Artists"
They mostly generate the same tunes or even let the AI "compose" (read steal) stuff.
The EU is using the term "constituted unfair trading conditions." This is what the Dutch antitrust agency used against Apple and kept fining it on a weekly basis. Apple lost the case in courts, I believe. The EU's argument is that "Apple prevented Swedish streaming service Spotify and others from informing users of payment options outside its App Store (ecosystem - including on even on their websites). Hence the basic fine is 40 million and 1.8 billion fine as a deterrent. The 1.8 deterrence fine is determined based on Apple's revenue.You're correct about the DMA not applying. My mistake!
“These anti-steering provisions are neither necessary nor proportionate for the protection of Apple’s commercial interest and “negatively affect the interests of iOS users, who cannot make informed and effective decisions” about music streaming apps to use on their device. In practical terms, this means that “for almost ten years” iOS users may have been paying “significantly higher” prices because of the high fees imposed by Apple to developers and passed on to the end consumer in the form of higher subscription prices. Added to this is the non-monetary damage “in the form of a degraded user experience,” since iOS users had to perform a “cumbersome” search before finding the desired offering, “or they never subscribed to any service because they did not find the right one on their own.”
Taking into account the duration and severity of the infringement, the total turnover, and the fact that “incorrect information was provided in the administrative procedure,” the European Commission imposed a fine of 1.8 billion euros, “proportionate to Apple’s global revenues and is necessary to achieve deterrence.” As the Commission points out, this is a lump sum fine, made necessary because “a significant part of the harm caused by the infringement consists of non-monetary harm, which cannot be adequately accounted for under the revenue-based methodology.” In addition, the U.S. company was ordered to remove the anti-steering provisions and to “refrain from repeating the infringement or from adopting practices with an equivalent object or effect in the future.”
Apple must pay EU a 1.8 billion euro fine
EU Commission finds abuse of Apple's dominant position in music streaming market through anti-steering practices
---
Note the phrase "may have been paying". May have been? Basically the EU can't actually provide evidence of this type of harm (which is part of Apple's response to the fine). Spotify's original argument was that they had to pay 30% commission on $9.99 and Apple didn't, NOT that Spotify had to raise prices on iOS. They never did raise the price of their app on the App Store. They just decided to eliminate in-app subscriptions.
The EU is also claiming that web search is "cumbersome" which is not supported by the fact that 99% of Spotify's iOS subscribers were paying via the internet at the time of Spotify's complaint to the EU. Add that to the fact that Spotify has always been the dominant streaming service by market share and you've got some really flimsy arguments coming from the EU.
Yes, it's true that Apple didn't allow communication inside the app. No doubt. But pretty much everything else the EU is saying is doubtful...the monetary harm, the user experience and the inconvenience. None of those things are really quantified by the EU and certainly aren't supported by what actually happened per Spotify. As Apple points out, Spotify used the term "stagnant" to define the music streaming market at a time when Spotify was rapidly increasing their customer base.
Which begs to question why Spotify is even complaining. And what the problem "is". They don't have to offer any means of payment on the platform. And still get every cent they feel they are due.
If we focus on the iPhone/iOS/iPadOS. This was the terms of the agreement. I understand they don't like it anymore. But, those are the terms. As the device only ever had 1 way to get an App on it. Or, you could create a web app for nothing.
They don't have to. As they don't have to be on the platform at all. We don't have to have Apple make iPhones. Can't force them to make it. They "Apple" choose to make them. And they created the rules everyone was following for many years now. It wasn't onerous to anyone, and you don't have to develop for Apple. A choice many developers make when not making an application for say the Mac OS. If a developer has a choice to or not make something for the platform. Then Apple should have the right to pick and choose as well.
Apple: if you want to sell your app on my iPhone, you pay X.
Dev: But what if I don't want to pay you X?
Apple: Then you can't sell on my platform. But, if you make it a free App. You're all good. Or web app.
Dev: Well, that's not fair. I should have the right to sell on any platform I want, and make 100% from it.
Apple: Ok, put your game on my platform. I have a right to your games you sell on other platforms.
Dev: I will not make enough money to justify it, not enough people buy games on Mac.
Apple: So you want full access to me, but I can't have full access to you?
Dev: Well, yeah.
Apple: ...... no. You don't want to lose money, and neither do I. Let's agree to disagree.
Very ruff analogy.
This is true. But, Apple customers expect Apple to handle this. Again, since inception this is the way. The new EU rules make it possible to get around this now. And the developer can save 3% on the charge if they still use the Apple Store. If they move out of the store, they can save that 27% too, but pay .50 euro cents per download over 1 million. This would end up costing Spotify well under 1% of what they could have paid Apple had they allowed IAP. 1 user $11 a month, 1 download .50 euro. In 1 year that user paid Spotify $132 (about US dollars). Spotify gives up .50 for the download. For less than 1% in the first year. It's zero after that. If I understand the rules correctly.
Apple isn't monetizing you. They are monetizing the developer. You did pay for the device. And again, you could potentially never need to use the store other than to update the default apps. They are charging the developers, they are not charging you anything more. They are providing you as a customer an easy way to get apps securely and efficiently. While allowing developers to provide those apps to you. You paid much on the hardware and OS side, developers pay on the APIs and everything that goes into making this system work for both Apple and devs. And only if they actually charge for the app or IAP. Otherwise, it's $99 a year.
Everyone that sells something pays for access to consumers like you. Unless you're in a back ally. But, even then. Someone paid someone to be there to sell you something.
It competes with other stores. If you purchased an Android. That has a store built in as well. And they let you install other 3rd party stores. In the EU, you will have the ability to do the same within the iPhone.
The end user has something to worry about. Which will affect Apple, good service or not. The rules Apple came up with at least provide some level of control. No direct side loading, so no need for additional security on the device. Since the 3rd party appstore will have to comply with some rules of the road. Same for the apps within it. This isn't a bad setup at all. Keeps people like me from having to deal with a less secure OS. I can stick to my current configuration. While those that want this feature have it, and it doesn't bleed over to the default OS we all use.
It's fragile because the EU wanted to break it up. It was fine before this new rule. And by the way Apple crafted the rules. It maybe just fine afterwards as well.
The European Commission today fined Apple €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) for anti-competitive conduct against rival music streaming services. In a response published on its website, Apple fiercely attacked the Commission's decision, as well as Spotify's behavior.
The fine comes as the conclusion to a long-running investigation by the EU, triggered by a complaint from Spotify, into Apple's treatment of third-party music streaming services on the App Store. The Commission now says that Apple abused its dominant position in the market by forbidding music streaming apps to tell users about cheaper subscription prices outside the app.
In an extensive public response, Apple noted that while Spotify has a dominant, 56 percent share of Europe's music streaming market and a "large part of their success is due to the App Store," the company does not pay anything to Apple because it refuses to sell subscriptions in its app. Apple listed a large number of services that it provides to Spotify for free, such as distribution, APIs, frameworks, TestFlight, App Review, and in-person engineering assistance. "But free isn't enough for Spotify," Apple says. "They also want to rewrite the rules of the App Store — in a way that advantages them even more."
Apple said that Spotify claimed in 2015 when it started working on the investigation with the European Commission that the "digital music market had stalled, and that Apple was holding competitors back." "Unfortunately for their case, Spotify continued to grow," Apple added.
Apple noted that three different related cases mounted against it by the European Commission over the past eight years consistently found no evidence of consumer harm and no evidence of anti-competitive behavior.
Apple also said that it is set to comply with the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) within days, alluding to the release of iOS 17.4, which includes a number of significant changes for users in Europe to meet the legislation's requirements. It believes that today's fine is "an effort by the Commission to enforce the DMA before the DMA becomes law," since it is "not grounded in existing competition law." Apple plans to appeal the decision.
Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: EU Fines Apple $2 Billion for Anti-Competitive Behavior Toward Spotify
Rather overtly aggressive response from Apple. Not surprised though, they should play by the rules.
They don't have to. And thus don't' have to be on the platform as an App. They can use the web.
maybe? maybe costs?
Xcode is free for those on the Mac. Apple made rules for iOS/iPad OS that is different from MacOS.
How many businesses you know run at operation costs only?
So then why are you here? If the discourse is so negative to you why engage in it?