What do you mean by lack of due process and timeliness? It took five years and multiple consultations to reach the verdict.
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
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but due process is usually more than the prosecution preparing their case and then skipping the trial.
As far as timeliness, Apple had the same rules for over a decade before the EU opened an investigation in Jun 2020. And now they've announced a $2 billion dollar fine a couple days before the law that they created to address the issue goes into effect.
Guess you don‘t know, but Apples first chip of the A-series, the A4 was introduced with the iPhone 4 from Jobs.
So Tim did nothing, but reiterating the things jobs has done. And also the road to use Apple silicon for Macbooks was already paved:
Yep, Jobs started taking control of their silicon destiny by buying PASemi and Intensity long before his death.
Per Apple's response to the EU, they include the stat that EU music streaming services had 25 million subscribers in 2015 (the year Apple Music launched) and now have 160 million subscribers ten years later. That means Spotify and the EU are claiming competitive harm in a market environment with a 27 percent annual growth rate.
And below is Spotify's general growth rate since the introduction of Apple Music. Apple appears to be correct that the EU can't provide evidence of harm.
backlinko.com
And below is Spotify's general growth rate since the introduction of Apple Music. Apple appears to be correct that the EU can't provide evidence of harm.
Spotify User Stats (Updated June 2024)
Important Spotify user stats. Includes data on subscribers, availability and more.
backlinko.com
Does the US not protect companies in the US? If your answer is no, I feel for you and the lie.
Spotify was praising Apple entering the market back in 2016 too.
"It's great that Apple is in the game. They are definitely raising the profile of streaming. It is hard to build an industry on your own," Jonathan Forster, a vice president and one of its first employees, told Reuters in an interview.
"Since Apple Music started we've been growing quicker and adding more users than before."
No matter what, always follow the Money. And you will be astonished how your Government spends it! Nothing is what it seems! Apple knows the deck is stacked!
I love it how within days so many forum participants became experts in EU competition law and proceedings.
Regulatory fines are quite common, even in the US, and not everything goes to trial. It's not like these decisions are reached behind closed doors with no input from anyone. Due process can mean a lot of things.
Apple still has the the courts all the way up to the EU's highest court available to appeal the decision.
I can see where you're coming from, but it doesn't matter. New legislation that clarifies anti-steering rules doesn't change that and, as such, doesn't change anything as this addresses past conduct the EU has determined wasn't in line with already existing legislation and which has persisted over a long time.
Good god, where do you start..
Apple on the brink of being sued by their own government and people are still plugging away with this.
I’ll leave it at this
The US gov crippled Huawei phones global appeal because it was destroying the competition and that set mobile hardware back, look at how stale the iPhone is now because they got what they wanted.
That was political. This fine is not.
Get. Over. It.
Apple don’t care about flags, they care about €$¥£.
The US gov crippled Huawei phones global appeal because it was destroying the competition and that set mobile hardware back, look at how stale the iPhone is now because they got what they wanted.
That was political. This fine is not.
Get. Over. It.
Apple don’t care about flags, they care about €$¥£.
Reference
Sounds like an interesting legal challenge to take in. Surely they they don't think consumers "only" learn about everything via only app stores?
How this work, you have Apple ready to comply with DMA only for IPhone (iOS) usage before March 7th, and you have EU Commission fining Apple before March 7th without considering all the other methods a consumer would learn about subscriptions along with all the other AppleOS's involved that are not part of the DMA?
Sounds like an interesting legal challenge to take in. Surely they they don't think consumers "only" learn about everything via only app stores?
Last edited:
Sure, but regulatory fines are usually tied to specific metrics or practices, not subjective standards. No part of Article 102 specifically prohibits anti-steering provisions, so an investigation based heavily on Spotify should be decided by courts who are there to interpret law in my opinion.
The option to appeal certainly adds due process to the process, but announcing the verdict and punishment before the trial is icky to me.
Of course it matters. Waiting more than a decade to investigate a practice and then declaring it illegal days before Apple changes the practice is nothing more than rent seeking by the EU.
The commission final statement of objections came in Feb 2023 after the DMA was announced. The EU obviously felt the need to clarify the law with the DMA. Maybe they could have waited a couple more days for it to go into effect.
That's Apple's position!
"Apple is set to comply with the DMA in days, and our plans include changes to the rules challenged here. What’s clear is that this decision is not grounded in existing competition law. It’s an effort by the Commission to enforce the DMA before the DMA becomes law."
Yep, just like mom used to say: Two wrongs make a right.
Oh wait, that's not it, is it?
This. I truly do not understand the argument here... that Apple should allow Spotify to utilize the App Store to post billboards for cheaper payment avenues. I genuinely want someone to explain that to me. In my mind, the analogy would be for Walmart to not stock Samsung TVs, but instead have posters pointing to www.samsung.com to buy direct from them. Is that a bad analogy? Again, genuine question.
Just because alternatives exist doesn't mean a company can't be considered a monopoly e.g., Microsoft was declared a monopoly in the 1990s despite there being alternatives like Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc.
Even if Apple isn’t a "monopoly", they do have a dominant position in mobile OS as part of a duopoly with Google/Android and deserve antitrust scrutiny regarding their anticompetitive behavior. A company doesn't necessarily need to be a "monopoly" (how that is defined can vary) to face antitrust fines, litigation, etc.
Ahh but looked at what happened with all the fuss about MS buying Activision Blizzard and so many regulators raising a big stink.
No. In that scenario, it would be more like a publishing company including advertising for their online bookstore in their books for sale in your store as an alternative place to buy their books. It would be like magazine publishers including advertising in their magazines for sale in your store as an alternative place to buy/subscribe to their magazine.
That’s not remotely the argument. People want to be able to freely advertise their wares within their own apps. Who said anything about advertising billboards in the AppStore?
It would be more like allowing Samsung to advertise their website on/in product packaging for televisions at Walmart.
If someone wants to put a "billboard" of sorts in the App Store, they have pay Apple for advertising e.g., https://searchads.apple.com/
Comparisons with physical stores don't make much sense. Walmart does not force you to sign a contract with them that prohibits you to buy from any other store before you do business with them.