EU Fines Apple $2 Billion for Anti-Competitive Behavior Toward Spotify

[AppliedMicro]

You keep mentioning the law, but sections of the DMA law that involves 22 digital platform companies hasn’t even reached March 7th yet? That is what I find is confusing?

Apple has been found acting anticompetitive towards Spotify for past conduct, under existing competition law - see original post of this thread.

Apple existing business terms do not allow for distribution through other stores/sites and they do not allow in-app purchases for digital goods/services through providers other than Apple. These are, on their own and alone, clear violations of the DMA - and anticompetitive, since the DMA explicitly is about enabling competition.

They’re presenting developers the choice of a) accept existing anticompetitive terms or b) accept new business terms. Whether that will satisfy regulators of overall compliance remains to seen.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple has been found acting anticompetitive towards Spotify for past conduct - see original post of this thread.

Apple existing business terms do not allow for distribution through other stores/sites and they do not allow in-app purchases for digital goods/services through providers other than Apple. These are, on their own and alone, clear violations of the DMA - and anticompetitive, since the DMA explicitly is about enabling competition.

What do "clear violations of the DMA" have to do with this thread? You seem to be supporting Apple's point that this fine is an attempt to enforce the DMA before the DMA goes into effect.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You seem to be supporting Apple's point that this fine is an attempt to enforce the DMA before the DMA goes into effect.

These are two separate (though obviously related things).

What do "clear violations of the DMA" have to do with this thread?

I was replying to @djphat2000 ’s post above that clearly referenced the DMA “law” and Apple‘s “solution” to it.

 

[webkit]

Why should I tell you, if competition can decide?

And it's competition that should help drive the decision but Apple wasn't allowing that to happen due to its restrictions on alternative iOS app stores and sideloading. Where App Store rates and other factors go in the coming years will hopefully start to become more and more market/competition driven but I imagine the App Store will continue to the main source for apps on iOS for quite a while.

 

[BaldiMac]

These are two separate (though obviously related things).

But they are separate. So again, why are you using the DMA to justify the fine?

I was replying to @djphat2000 ’s post above that clearly referenced the DMA “law” and Apple‘s “solution” to it.

I was referring to your reply in the post that I quoted. Not the reply you mention here.

 

[AppliedMicro]

But they are separate. So again, why are you using the DMA to justify the fine?

They are separate and I'm not.

The fine just coincidentally was given at about the same time as the DMA coming into effect.

 

[BaldiMac]

They are separate and I'm not.

The fine just coincidentally was given at about the same time as the DMA coming into effect.

Ah. You edited your post after I hit reply.

 

[avz]

In the world - sure, certainly in some places more than others, and as I say - never say never, but let’s keep this discussion relevant and not bring up Hitler in to a conversation about allowing sideloading on a bloody telephone.

I was replying to the other poster about the political prospects of the EU which has a potential to stifle its economy(bloody telephone that is). I am not sure why you felt the need to jump right in perhaps I did manage to touch the nerve. Lets hope that never will forever remain never.

 

[Realityck]

Apple has been found acting anticompetitive towards Spotify for past conduct, under existing competition law - see original post of this thread.

Apple existing business terms do not allow for distribution through other stores/sites and they do not allow in-app purchases for digital goods/services through providers other than Apple. These are, on their own and alone, clear violations of the DMA - and anticompetitive, since the DMA explicitly is about enabling competition.

They’re presenting developers the choice of a) accept existing anticompetitive terms or b) accept new business terms. Whether that will satisfy regulators of overall compliance remains to seen.

reference

The Importance of Procedural Safeguards for the EU’s New Competition Tool Proposal

orgs.law.harvard.edu

In particular this part of this write up.
===
“The same case team is charged with several functions of which some might seem to be inconsistent. Thus officials may receive complaints, investigate the facts, reach a preliminary view that there has been an infringement, make an accusation, receive the defence, consider whether it is persuasive, organise the hearing, consider afresh the defence and then frame the condemnation and help decide the penalty. The decision is formally taken by a political and not a judicial or quasi judicial body.”[38]

This institutional design is especially problematic for the New Competition Tool, since the penalties wouldn’t be based on wrongdoing (like anticompetitive conduct cases) nor invited by the affected parties (like a merger review). With the NCT, the decision rests on a judgement of the extent to which a party should be penalised for the greater good of the market. Such inquiries, to which there can be many answers, lend themselves to a more consultative, deliberative and transparent decision-making process.[39]

The EU’s bigger problem is judicial review. Some parts of the process are relatively fast but less rigorous, and others are more rigorous but far too slow. DG COMP holds administrative hearings before deciding on penalties. These are ‘trials’ of sorts—except they lack important components like the ability to call or cross-examine witnesses.[40] The nature and timing (before the decision) of the hearings mean they do not qualify as judicial review.[41]
===
You know if Spotify sees the EU commission 65 times about instituting this and then this penalty appears with additional markup as a example not to do it again without Apple as a example being part of the due process that is very one sided when it goes up for a review in the EU court of appeals? But hey let's see how it plays out. Your guess to the outcome is as good as mine. We simply don't know how this will go.

 

[cupcakes2000]

In other words, they're not really competing with the App Store.

It’s an alternate store, so of course they would be.

So much hate for Apple in this thread. Just go with Android if you hate Apple policies and tactics so much. Seriously, they’re just phones. Why cares that much?

Hate? I don’t know if anybody ‘hates’ Apple. It’s just a company that produces phones and stuff. It’s perfectly acceptable to buy a product and not be happy with certain aspects of it. Most of the time I barely know who made the product in the first place. A black and decker drill, a Braun toaster? No idea. Don’t care. I buy things due to lots of factor but the manufacturer that makes it barely comes in to the equation.

Now Apple has a good eco system, and due to ‘lock in’ (yes, this also needs regulation) I tend to prefer to buy other Apple products. But they’re all my products, I bought them. They’re not apples. I should be able to decide what I do with it without their interference.

Perhaps you’re confusing hate with frustration, and perhaps anger even. On the other hand, it’s massively apparent, since this latest ‘scandal’ but also for every time something has happened before, that people do seem to unconditionally love Apple.

I was replying to the other poster about the political prospects of the EU which has a potential to stifle its economy(bloody telephone that is). I am not sure why you felt the need to jump right in perhaps I did manage to touch the nerve. Let’s hope that never will forever remain never.

It’s a forum, ‘jumping in’, as you call it, is kind of the point of them.

 

[macjoshua]

Now Apple has a good eco system, and due to ‘lock in’ (yes, this also needs regulation) I tend to prefer to buy other Apple products. But they’re all my products, I bought them. They’re not apples. I should be able to decide what I do with it without their interference.

I understand the sentiment, but you didn’t buy iOS - you bought a phone that’s licensed to use it. That’s how most software works. If you buy an Android phone, you don’t own Android OS either, they just allow people to do different things with it.

 

[djphat2000]

If the law provides for it, I’m entitled to. So are third-party developers.

Laws don't force business to exist. This isn't a government entity. Nothing entitles you or anyone to a businesses goods or services if they don't exist anymore.

Of course - third-party businesses are directly affected by anticompetitive behaviour - consumers aren’t.

In this instance, they are affected because they want to make more money than they currently are able to. So they are looking to save money anyway they can. 30% was never an issue when they signed up for it and made money within the store. When they started to slow down and growth became "harder". They are looking for ways to make more by spending less or not paying as many "fees" as possible. They have no intention of lowering the price.
Has Netflix ever lowered the price, Disney, hulu, XM Radio, any TV/Cable/Satelite service. Anything? Has anything gone down?

Why should I tell you, if competition can decide?

Because if you can't tell me or anyone else for that matter. You're leaving it open to interpretation. And at present that interpretation is "free ride". I don't care what you built, I just want in and I don't want to pay for it.

Not necessarily for free - but on fair terms.

What is Fair? Who or whom gets to make that decision? Consumers spoke when they picked Android and iOS as the two dominate mobile OS's. There is an abundance of choice of devices between them as well. Lowest price goes to Android, and the highest price too. We already agree that consumers are not the ones petitioning for this. It's business with their own agenda. Businesses that can already do exactly what they want on Android (Side-load, 3rd party stores). Without even looking at Apple. Yet, Apple is the one in the crosshairs of this legislation. And when they complied with it. No outcry from consumers. No, it's the same businesses that want to free ride on Apple. They are not interested in fair terms, they want FREE TERMS. And they can't have it.

Apple steering developers of many (most) apps to their own App Store on legacy business terms - that have been found anticompetitive and of which many provisions violate the legislation - is undermining the law.

😆
those developers made billions of dollars off the AppStore. I want on that boat.
Anti-Competitive for restricting messaging to end users from within the App they purchased ALREADY on the AppStore? Give me a break. Do you shop in a physical store? Do you see product A with 2 prices. One for that store your in and one for the one that is cheaper down the street? Most likely no. You as a consumer "shop" for what you're looking for. If your on iOS, you knew going in that was the only store available. If you're looking for a bargain or more options, purchase an Android. Now, in the EU you can purchase an iOS device and if anyone makes a 3rd party store. You can pick it if you wish. Without affecting the rest of us that don't want it. Or want it to affect our device's OS. Its great!

 

[wbeasley]

it's getting to the stage on here where we should just set up a Go Fund Me to buy certain posters Android phones.

It is hate to complain as they do and argue against people who are happy with the walled garden they bought in to.
it is hate to claim apple management are evil. legally that's defamatory as well.

arguing against people who made an informed choice and are happy is an attack on their values and decision making ability.
because they dont want what you want doesnt make their view less valued.
they arent the ones changing their minds or demanding changes to a product.

I dont like everything Apple do. Or every product they make. Or the premium for storage.
But overall, these products offer more of what I want.

If an item is advertised as doing XYZ and it does XYZ, then it meets the advertised claims.
If you want it to do ABC as well, knowing it doesn't already do them then yes, you own the device and you can do whatever you like to it to make it run ABC as well or instead. But you are going to need a lot of knowledge and tools to do it. But by all means go ahead. And you dont have the right to demand the item adapt to your desires.

You can suggest it would be nice to allow it. You can make a case for adding features and the benefits to others.
But you can't demand it. And you should have no expectation to be listened to.

 

[I7guy]

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.

It's not apples problem from the hundreds of cell phone manufacturers that they elect to save $$$ by not doing R&D and instead paying a $1.00 to google for a premade operating system. So apple deserves scrutiny, actually all companies deserve scrutiny, but there has been no finding of anticompetitive behavior with respect to the app store. The DMA is an acknowledgement of no finding.

 

[I7guy]

Apple has been found acting anticompetitive towards Spotify for past conduct, under existing competition law - see original post of this thread.

Apple existing business terms do not allow for distribution through other stores/sites and they do not allow in-app purchases for digital goods/services through providers other than Apple. These are, on their own and alone, clear violations of the DMA - and anticompetitive, since the DMA explicitly is about enabling competition.

They’re presenting developers the choice of a) accept existing anticompetitive terms or b) accept new business terms. Whether that will satisfy regulators of overall compliance remains to seen.

This, imo, will take years to resolve. Just like the ireland tax case. Grab a bag of huge popcorn and we'll see. Even in the US we call them antitrust TRIALS.

 

[webkit]

It's not apples problem from the hundreds of cell phone manufacturers that they elect to save $$$ by not doing R&D and instead paying a $1.00 to google for a premade operating system. So apple deserves scrutiny, actually all companies deserve scrutiny, but there has been no finding of anticompetitive behavior with respect to the app store. The DMA is an acknowledgement of no finding.

So...?

It's not Google's "problem" that Apple is unwilling to make Safari available on Windows or Android thereby giving Chrome even greater market share in various markets.

It's not Microsoft’s "problem" that computer makers don't create their own operating systems thereby giving Windows even greater market share in various markets.

Etc.

None of this gives Google, Microsoft, Apple or other dominant companies the right to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

 

[I7guy]

So...?

It's not Google's "problem" that Apple is unwilling to make Safari available on Windows or Android thereby giving Chrome even greater market share in various markets.

It's not Microsoft’s "problem" that computer makers don't create their own operating systems thereby giving Windows even greater market share in various markets.

Etc.

None of this gives Google, Microsoft, Apple or other dominant companies the right to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

Bottom line: it’s still not apples problem the competition is lazy and wants to save money.

 

[webkit]

Bottom line: it’s still not apples problem the competition is lazy and wants to save money.

Bottom line, it doesn't mean Apple or other dominant companies should be able to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

Again, just because Apple is unwilling or too "lazy" to offer a browser to compete on Windows and Android doesn't mean Google should therefore get an automatic pass if they engage in anticompetitive behavior in markets where Chrome dominates.

 

[I7guy]

Bottom line, it doesn't mean Apple or other dominant companies should be able to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

You keep saying that but there isn’t a finding. Apple is fighting the $2b fine.

Again, just because Apple is unwilling or too "lazy" to offer a browser to compete on Windows and Android doesn't mean Google should therefore get an automatic pass if they engage in anticompetitive behavior in markets where Chrome dominates.

Analogy falls flatter than a bad soufflé.

.

 

[webkit]

You keep saying that but there isn’t a finding. Apple is fighting the $2b fine.

Analogy falls flatter than a bad soufflé.

I was speaking more broadly to point out the irrelevancy of your "not Apple's problem" comment. Once again, just because the "competition" chooses not to or is too "lazy" (your word) to go into a business/market does NOT give Apple or any other dominant company the right to engage in anticompetitive behavior or automatically make them immune to antitrust laws.

Google shouldn't get a pass if they engage in anticompetitive behavior regarding Chrome just because Apple chose not to or is too "lazy" to offer a browser for Windows and Android just as Microsoft shouldn't get a pass if they engage in anticompetitive behavior regarding Windows just because computer makers chose not to or are too "lazy" to offer their own OS just as Apple shouldn't get a pass if they engage in anticompetitive behavior regarding iOS just because other phone makers chose not to or are too "lazy" to offer their own OS.

 

[I7guy]

I was speaking more broadly to point out the irrelevancy of your "not Apple's problem" comment. Once again, just because the "competition" chooses not to or is too "lazy" (your word) to go into a business/market does NOT give Apple or any other dominant company the right to engage in anticompetitive behavior or automatically make them immune to antitrust laws.

What anticompetitive behavior does apple engage in? Please be specific in a region by region basis. Factual not an opinion.

Google shouldn't get a pass if they engage in anticompetitive behavior regarding Chrome just because Apple chose not to or is too "lazy" to offer a browser for Windows and Android just as Microsoft shouldn't get a pass if they engage in anticompetitive behavior regarding Windows just because computer makers chose not to or are too "lazy" to offer their own OS just as Apple shouldn't get a pass if they engage in anticompetitive behavior regarding iOS just because other phone makers chose not to or are too "lazy" to offer their own OS.

IMO, the analogy about browsers isn’t quite there. Fundamentally the windows landscape hasn’t changed except google is more oooukar than ever. Fundamentally iOS hasn’t changed except for apple being popular and more manufacturers paying google $1.

No anti-competitive behavior here.

 

[bcortens]

What anticompetitive behavior does apple engage in? Please be specific in a region by region basis. Factual not an opinion.

Seriously?
Spotify not being able to provide a payment button in the App that doesn't pay Apple a 30% commission certainly seems anti-competitive to me.

 

[I7guy]

Seriously?
Spotify not being able to provide a payment button in the App that doesn't pay Apple a 30% commission certainly seems anti-competitive to me.

Yep seriously. Yeah that opinion is what the eu is hanging its hat on.

 

[bcortens]

Yep seriously. Yeah that opinion is what the eu is hanging its hat on.

Netflix, Amazon, Hey, etc... could all also point to Apple's rules ... there are quite a few developers who have issue with the rules limiting communication with customers, rules that Apple ignores. Apple puts annoying red dots in the settings app to bug you to subscribe to their services for gods sake.

 

[webkit]

What anticompetitive behavior does apple engage in? Please be specific in a region by region basis. Factual not an opinion.

Once again, I was speaking broadly and was stating that just because a company's "competition" chooses not to or is too "lazy" to go into a particular business/market does not automatically make that company immune to antitrust laws. Therefore, your "not Apple's problem" comment was irrelevant.

IMO, the analogy about browsers isn’t quite there. Fundamentally the windows landscape hasn’t changed except google is more oooukar than ever. Fundamentally iOS hasn’t changed except for apple being popular and more manufacturers paying google $1.

No anti-competitive behavior here.

Do you not understand what the word "if" means? How can you say there is "no anti-competitive behavior here" when I didn't even give examples of possible anticompetitive behavior that could apply?