I understand. Your post was a 100,000 ft pie in the sky comment. Got it.
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
Wait. You are saying platform owner wants to induce their customers to buy more of their products and services. WOW that’s antitrust./s
It's anti-competitive because Apple also has products in those categories.
So you're claiming Target can't advertise it's own store brand because it competes with other products it sells? Huh. Never heard that one before.
I think you are confusing a competitive advantage that Apple has gained through investment with an anti-competitive action.
Apple charging third party apps 15-30% (with which they compete and don’t have to pay a similar 15-30% fee) just to have in app purchase buttons is anticompetitive. If Apple wants to be a platform and charge for platform access then they will get in trouble if they also compete with apps on that platform.
Okay, you're moving the goalposts.
But let's look at your new claim. Why is it anticompetive to charge for access to your property under specific terms? Can you cite any precedent where similar requirements were ruled anticompetitive?
Who says it’s anticompetitive. The eu? This lawsuit will drag on for years.
physical stores do this all the time. Walk into any Best Buy and find an HDMI cable branded by the store. Look at its price, and compare it to AudioQuest (A big brand for hi-end cables, and I am not vouching for them). The store brand is WAY cheaper and does the same thing.
People still buy the Audio Quest cable, knowing the difference in price AND having a cheaper option.
People shop and figure out what they want to pay for something. Never needed the governments help in finding a price I like to pay for something. But, if I am in a store, I don't expect that store to tell me the price is cheaper across the street.
If Apple is not allowed to compete with other companies selling similar products. How does anyone get to compete with anyone with similar products? Apple having a Streaming service. Doesn't prevent you from signing up for Netflix or Spotify. Nor does having Spotify or Netflix prevent you from signing up for Apple's services. You can have both or all, or one or the other. The price you pay for it is up to what you're willing to pay for it. And the value you get out of it. And with those other services not able to be signed up for on iOS. You have to then look for it online. Which people seem to be doing just fine for many years now. Spotify is number one in the EU. And yet they complain?
Around three years. Ask Google how it went for them when they challenged a similar complaint and fine in court.
Exactly that. The difference being, we are not talking about retailing physical goods. It's a completely different situation.
No. But the arguments for why Google was fined are quite similar, at least superficially.
Google is no Apple as far as understanding legalities. Additionally this assumption concerning interpretation of what constitutes something that effects consumers improperly, Apple is likely extremely experienced from both a hardware and software stance, as they been challenged a endless amount of times in court. Google is a very different company and likely doesn't have employee ethics training at the same level. Example Google deleting chats that were necessary for fact finding during their Epic trial.
Last edited:
I think it's exactly the other way around. Google's business practices have been under much more scrutiny over anticompetitive behaviour in the past. It's Apple's management who is not used to be questioned in this regard. That also explains their almost hysterical and unprofessional conduct in this case, in my opinion.
that was so "anticompetitve" less than 1% of users were using the facility to subscribe before Spotify pulled it out.
so 99% of their customers managed to sign up a different way.
and Spotify has more (currently at least) subscribers than other music streamers.
but it's Apples anticompetitive behaviour that is the problem LOL
how is Apple Music anticompetitive to Spotify when you cant subscribe in the app?
outside all the money goes to Spotify.
that's a very level playing field.
so level that Spotify have way more marketshare. for now.
anticompetitive would be Apple removing other streaming apps because they didnt want people using them instead of their own.
Apple charges these apps nothing if they dont use the in app payment system. not to the 15-30% fee you mention.
if Apple forced users to go to a webpage to signup for AM would you be happy?
That would make it an extremely level playing field.
And you know what, Apple users are very easy to adapt and do things like this. it's not hard.
do it once and it's done. you'd swear setting up a Spotify sub was hard work. it's not.
unsubscribing is harder. think they asked me 3 times to "be sure" what i was doing.
and had the follow up email warning me as well...
if only they'd worked as hard adding features...
I've had enough of Spotify's broken promises to deliver High Res streams.
Using the EU to do their dirty work was the final straw.
They now get A$12.99 less each month.
Left my free account there.
they aren’t charging access to the property (iOS and App Store) they are putting in place rules that say that after a user has already bought the product that the app can’t communicate with customers of the app without throwing some money apples way at the same time.
As so many others have pointed out. Spotify’s app isn’t part of apples store after I’ve downloaded it. So all these ridiculous grocery store analogies make no sense.
So we are just getting some CostCo stores in Australia.
They charge you membership to buy at the store. Can they do that in the EU?
Way back, video rental stores used to sign people up as members (to finance buying tapes) which was your contribution to running the store and increasing the titles available.
none of this was seen as anticompetiive.
As I posted previously in that other thread, there are a number of different issues and by confusing them Apple is able to act anticompetitively while convincing people that analogies like yours are appropriate.
The issues break down something like this (in my mind):
1. Should Apple have some form of license fee for iOS SDKs and technologies?
- I think the answer to this is yes, but Apple acts like the answer is both yes and no, because they have so many inconsistent rules on this, if Apple wants to be a fair and equal platform on which apps compete fairly they have to charge everyone the same license fee structure rather than carve out exceptions for particular app categories (Reader apps, apps for purchasing real world goods and services)
- Apple, again, acts like the answer here is yes for some apps and no for others based on which apps they can bully.
- I think the answer for this one should be no.
- If the answer was yes, and we take it to its actual logical conclusion, then all revenue from purchases made in safari should also count.
- If Apple has a large enough universal fee for accessing the iOS SDK then they can roll the cost of running the store into that.
- However if they want to make the fee smaller (or zero) they could have some sort of annual hosting and review cost based on the number of installs - Similar to CTF but more targeted towards recouping the costs of running the store - it would also have to be more universal than the current fee structure is as well.
In your analogy, the membership would be issue 1 above but also reaching outside of the store into the home after the purchase has been made to demand further fees if you happen to use the thing you brought home from the store to make further purchases is issue 2. Again, what Apple is asking for is like buying a laptop at Costco and then Costco expects to be able to get a share of all purchases you make using the laptop.
Apple is acting like the Spotify being unable to add their own in app purchases system is like issue 1 when in fact it is issue 2.
Aside: This is not security, apps for purchasing real world goods already let you use alternative payment systems right in the app, Stripe has a whole SDK for it. If these apps are allowed then security argument is just empty words.
Apple charges a percentage fee (I think its 12/27% right now) if you want to include your own in app purchase system for digital goods (an arbitrary and capricious distinction vs physical goods). Up until recent court rulings apps couldn't even include a link to their website to sign up.
I don't want Apple to post a link to a website to sign up for Apple Music, what I want is for Spotify to be able to use their own IAP system without paying a fee to Apple for a share of a transaction they have nothing to do with (just like countless physical goods apps do).
I have addressed the issue of the percentage of the fee being a platform access fee above.
That's exactly my point. You put it there to create an irrelevant distinction, so you could ignore counter-examples to your claim.
They are charging for access to their property as established in court, and those are the terms that they charge for use of their property.
So? They agreed to specific terms. You don't get to ignore the contract because you walked out of the store. Xbox games still pay a fee to Microsoft even when they are sold through Target.
I completely agree.
I would argue there is a big difference between a game console and a general purpose computer (which an iPhone more closely resembles).
I would also point out that in principle (as I have said repeatedly) I am not opposed to a platform access fee. But it must be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, none of which describes apples fee structure.
In the EU Apple doesn’t own the software on the phone, the user owns a copy, Apple can’t, in the EU, tell users what they can do with their software.
As I keep pointing out, there is a difference between an SDK fee and an attempt to get a share of all transactions that occur on a platform.
Sure, you could argue that, but why? The distinction is subjective and legally irrelevant.
It is reasonable in that it is comparable to other platform fees. It is non-discriminatory in that the terms apply equally to all developers.
Not really. You are simply referring to the first sale doctrine, which is similar in both the EU and the US. It basically allows you to use and sell the copy that you purchase. That goes out the window as soon as you accept the first update or modify the software in any way.
But that is irrelevant, since what we are really talking about is contract terms between Apple and developers which have nothing to do with your ownership of a copy of the software.
Sure, but it's a distinction without any legal meaning. There's nothing wrong or uncommon to base a contract on agreements for future revenue. The problem in these forum is that many posters seem to be completely unaware of business outside of what the read about Apple. They are completely shocked that Apple would do something that is both legal and common.
In reality, there is nothing wrong with the specific terms that Apple uses in the App Store. The real argument is that once Apple meets some undefined and arbitrary threshold, the same legal strategies should be regulated to open competition. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that in my opinion. I just think that specific regulations
One is a platform that is fairly vital to function well in most advanced economies, the other plays video games...
Why doesn't Walmart pay the fee?
Why doesn't Netflix pay the fee?
App categories being picked out based on arbitrary characteristics that have nothing to do with access to the platform, use of apple's SDKs and resources etc... = Discrimination
The EU seems to believe that I should be able to enter into a separate contract with Epic if I so choose without Apple being able to mediate that decision.
My point is not that there is anything uncommon about it, rather that Apple can't talk out of both sides of its mouth at once and expect me to believe them. They can't say they need money for the platform on the one hand and then give all of these exemptions on the other. The idea that somehow everything about an App is transformed by allowing that App to include its own in app purchase payment processing is ridiculous. Apple wants a cut of the purchase if it is in app but not otherwise? It has no coherence. Spotify doesn't become more expensive to Apple by having their own in app payment system, Apple doesn't make extra money by preventing Spotify from having in app payments.
Edit: To clarify, Apple keeps making claims about how Spotify wants access to things for free, but Spotify has access already for free. Spotify running its own IAP system changes nothing for Apple... preventing it is incoherent...
So?
Why do you ask the same questions when we've discussed this many times? There is nothing wrong with charging for some things and not charging for other things. They've created rules that balance customer satisfaction, revenue generation, and developer support.
Not in any legal sense. But we've discussed this. I'm free to charge differently for different things.
You can certainly mischaracterize the situation that way.
The problem here is that you see a contradiction when there isn't any.
If I say I'll let you have free access to my yard unless you use the pool, most people would think that is generous, not incoherent.