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
Because Apple just accept all things china says straight away & changes it without much fight
What's the commodity or service? Is it smartphones? Operating systems? Apps? App Stores? It doesn't have a monopoly over any of those.
If the commodity or service is their own platform, then refer back to my comment to which you replied (i.e., Apple has an Apple monopoly), or this one.
I don't see what's ironic about that, it's not even surprising. Which organisation would you expect to be more interested in consumer protection and maintaining competitive markets (which let's not forget are the basis of capitalism) - the EU or the CCP?
There are more phones and App Stores than Apple's.
It would cost me thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, for me to switch to a different automobile manufacturer. Does that make Stellantis a monopolist? Or is your second point irrelevant?
The EU is so damn stupid. If that **** comes to the US, Target will have to tell customers they can purchase things for less at Walmart.
The cost to switch away from iOS to Android is not just the cost of the phone. The cost of switching car manufacturers is just the cost of the car.
Apple is in business to make money so they will need to decide going forward.
Rather than just pulling out, they should just pass along all the cost they are incurring.
You will have to ask Spotify, but the fact that they are as keen to offer a more convenient way to let people sign up as Apple is keen to prevent even the slightest hint of any other payment option that isn't its own suggests that there is a problem.
The general principle is that agreements cannot undermine legal requirements. It doesn't matter how long the status quo has persisted, if it violates the law it's not permitted.
Also what do you mean they don't like it "anymore." Lots of companies have always only begrudgingly accepted the status quo.
An analogy for what? Why should Apple have any kind of role in choosing which services a developer should offer on their platform on the back of anti-steering provisions?
I was responding to a post that said developers should have to pay for "access" to Apple users, which is nonsense and treats apple users as some kind of asset Apple is entitled to monetise. But as I said, I've already paid good money for the device and I don't belong to Apple.
If I choose their store, then yes by all means they should be able to profit from that. We will see if the DMA is effective in creating a situation where there's an actual possibility for competition.
Is that because Spotify are paying money to Apple and Google though? Genuine question, I dunno what deal they have.
No. They don't pay Apple anything (other than the standard developer fee.) Spotify pays artists less per stream because they offer so many free streams. They pay based on a percentage of their revenue. (I think 70-75% of their revenue goes to the music industry.)
Spotify was originally a web wrapper on iOS with some low level C bindings to make it talk to the iOS media APIs. I don't know if it still is, but in a world where they used a webapp, I don't think that the differences wouldn't be as stark as you think they would be (if that makes sense).
But even then, the app store is just a wall for Spotify, as they already had the app distribution, update mechanism, payment processing, and security in place.
True but Apple is getting sued for this. It won’t be a viable strategy long term.
What a fantastically stupid idea. That'll be a fun one to explain to the Board & shareholders.:
Tim, why did Apple just abandon $94 billion dollars in revenue?
Tim: Uhhhhh.......
More like without any fight. Xi says jump, Tim says how high.
Nah. They aren't suing. Th EU has decided that it's better to skip a trial and go right to the verdict and punishment.
No they won't and that's a laughably absurd take.
No, it's more like allowing HP to advertise on/in their product packaging (found at Target and Walmart stores) that customers can buy ink at hp.com. This sort of thing already happens in the U.S.
Not true. You can switch to Android simply by buying a new phone. You're now on Android. Done!
Now, if you want to have the same apps on Android as you had on your phone, you may need to buy them again. But that's true with the car, as well: If you upgraded the suspension, wheels, engine, exhaust, tires, stereo, etc., you'll need to repurchase those items for your new vehicle. Heck, you're not going to move your gas over to the new vehicle, either!