Doesn’t matter who the CEOs are. If shareholders want to maximize profits, ANY CEO must legally adhere to their wishes. Shareholders need to go and ones in favor of customer satisfaction need to take their place. I want a proper Mac Pro again.
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
…which, particularly for a music streaming app that may want to run in the background, is a significantly worse experience.
Good to see EU is not playing around when it comes to regulation, as well that Apple is free to appeal, but must cough up first.
I demand Spotify play my ads on their service for free. There is no way Spotify should profit off my advertising.
Tim Cook should pull out a Jeff Bezos move here and decrease Apple Music subscription to €6.99 in the EU 
This'll get overturned, just like the Ireland tax ruling.
While I agree in principle with the EU's position on Apple's anti-steering rule, the fact that they let this rule exist for more than a decade before opening an investigation and then instituting a $2 billion fine without trial is wrong and/or incompetent.
(And their statement is weirdly misleading. "In particular, the Commission found that Apple applied restrictions on app developers preventing them from informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app." Why use the word "services" when anyone else, including their own press release, would refer to it as "pricing".)
(And their statement is weirdly misleading. "In particular, the Commission found that Apple applied restrictions on app developers preventing them from informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app." Why use the word "services" when anyone else, including their own press release, would refer to it as "pricing".)
So it doesn’t break down at all then, as the ‘rent’ is the dev fee, and $99 is not, in fact $0 as you’re trying to infer. If it’s not enough, that’s only apples fault.
Well, whilst that’s true, Apple is in no uncertain terms under full control of what can or can’t happen on iOS. So whilst they don’t have a monopoly on mobile OS’, they do on iOS. Now - under general conditions that’s a laughable statement. But this is not general conditions, there are billions of iOS devices. That’s where the problem lies, and that’s why the term gate keeper is used and not monopoly.
The EU’s actions certainly hit home with them and seem to have struck a nerve. Same as with their recent “Complying with the Digital Markets Act” whitepaper. including emails from worried EU citizens to Tim Cook.
All very uncharacteristic communication for Apple - compared to the Apple of old that remained aloof in their communication and routinely couldn’t be bothered to comment.
Don’t hold your breath. Just like the Ireland tax ruling.
“The European Commission appealed the decision of the lower court before the European Court of Justice, the supreme court in matters of EU law.
In November 2023, the advocate general Giovanni Pitruzzella in his role of top adviser to the European Court of Justice, recommended that the European Court of Justice annuls the decision of the lower European General Court” (Wikipedia)
https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-court-adviser-backs-eus-14-bln-tax-order-apple-2023-11-09/
Except Apple is not a monopoly neither is Apple Music. So you don’t know what a monopoly is.
…or, you know, just play fair, don’t stifle competition and work on making iOS more secure.
👉🏻 And provide a fair and App Store with competitive and superior user experience.
Make an attractive offer with attractive commission rates on in-app purchases that Spotify & co. will gladly want to pay for Apple’s “premium” user experience and customer base.
Apple isn't a person. In the U.S. corporations have some legal standing as "persons" but not full personhood; a legal status with some attributes of a "person" is a far cry from being able to diagnose a company with any sort of psychiatric disorder. Doing so would be inappropriate. I also didn't make any diagnoses about any commenters here. All I did was reflect that I'm concerned by how much hate some people have for an entity like Apple. I'm also concerned about people who express nothing but cultic love for the company.
Let's have a discussion. If you provide me with 5 reasons why Apple is correct to protest this ruling and fine by the EU and what Spotify is asking, I'll provide you 5 reasons why Spotify/the EU are correct to go after Apple.
Last edited:
That doesn’t mean anything.
Apple is what it is on their own iOS, with their own iPhones worldwide.
So, yes in the EU they still control everything that can or cant happen on an iPhone. They control one of only 2 mainstream mobile os’ in the EU. They gate keep it.
So yes, definitely in the EU
people saying the EU is only going after Apple because it isn’t an European company clearly has never been dealing with the bureaucracy over here.
Why do you think we hardly have any huge tech companies over here? Because we are in our own ways
Why do you think we hardly have any huge tech companies over here? Because we are in our own ways
Most companies can be said to have a monopoly on their own products. If you are going to use the term that way, it's effectively meaningless.
And if you are arguing that the EU is locked in a OS duopoly, then the EU should end Google's anticompetitive agreements with its horizontal competitors. No more duopoly..
Another part of the reasoning:
„The Commission also justifies the current billion-dollar fine by the fact that Apple provided incorrect information in the administrative proceedings and that the amount should be deterrent.“
„The Commission also justifies the current billion-dollar fine by the fact that Apple provided incorrect information in the administrative proceedings and that the amount should be deterrent.“
If IKEA sells your furniture in their store and add on a 30% charge over the price you normally charge, and prevents you from advertising your website, then maybe you can sue them. It might be worth a try.
Or it could stay, just like the Dutch Antitrust ruling against Apple. Anything is possible. But that is years away. For now, Apple has to pay the fine and comply with the regulation first.
Would Steve not have wanted Apple to make its own SoC? That doesn't count for innovation these days?
From that SoC we have
1) Vision Pro
2) Macbook (air and pro)
3) Mac Pro
4) Mac Studio
5) Mac Mini
6) Watch
7) Apple TV
8) homepod
9) iPhone
10) iPad (Air, mini, Pro)
11) iMac
I very much get that Steve could sell ice to eskimos and fire in hades. But, we are innovating none the less.