Well of course not, BMW and Volvo are both European companies so no reason for the protectionist EU racket to leap into action.
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
Well of course not, BMW and Volvo are both European companies so no reason for the protectionist EU racket to leap into action.
No that’s not it. Post can’t advertise they are selling the same product somewhere less expensive because Costco demands 30% commission.
Im a part time furniture manufacturer & IKEA has a huge market advantage. Can I sue them somehow? It has to be tried I guess…
Not really. The hypothetical store in the mall would have the ability to provide information via the internet and social media and email too. They're not just limited to providing information inside the store.
the APIs available to developers free of charge are alone are worth it. Sure apple does charge a lot but it's not like they collect toll fees and relax all the time and do nothing, there is a tremendous amount of work being poured into running the App Store as fluid as it is.
Is it overreaching to reach the same conclusion as the legal system of United States of America?
EU: "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 ('anti-steering provisions'). This is illegal under EU antitrust rules."
US: "The district court found that Epic suffered an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, concluded that Apple’s anti-steering provision violates the UCL’s unfair prong, and entered an injunction prohibiting Apple from enforcing the anti-steering provision against any developer."
Could it possible be that Apple is just flagrantly engaging in anti-competitive behaviour on multiple continents when multiple legal systems are saying that they're behaving in an anti-competitive way?
The analogy doesn't work because Post isn't actually advertising in Costco itself. They are advertising in their own product after you take it home from Costco.
A. Apple wasn't fined $2 billion in the United States.
B. The EU is using a market cap approach which allows anti-steering to be used by companies below the cap.
Post can advertise on the internet and social media too. So they're not actually restricted to doing something inside Costco to communicate with customers.
This is not a justification. This is an explanation of the business model. And I also showed examples of other business that work this way. But you seem stuck in the same place of comparing each and every customer with each other. All you have to wrap your head around is that there exists business models where not all customers are paying equally. Same as several premium apps. Some people pay, lot of people use it for free. Just with a little effort, you can wrap your head around this concept.
They probably wouldn’t be able to print on the boxes that go to Costco, this product is sold at Sam’s club cheaper.
Not unwelcome to see that this rare high-profile statement at least had a bit of a casual and conversational tone – it feels like something in the tradition of "Thoughts On Flash." It would have been nice if it had been signed by a person.
(Also unexpected: the boilerplate on today's statement lists Apple's "five platforms" with no mention of visionOS.)
(Also unexpected: the boilerplate on today's statement lists Apple's "five platforms" with no mention of visionOS.)
So you don't think smartphone users can access the internet and social media?
Not on the outside, no, but again we see how the analogy breaks down.
Costco would have to be giving away the Post Cereal and somehow you pay for it later at Sam's Club.
If this analogy is to work there is no way for Costco to get paid, the only restriction they are putting on Post is that they can't tell you where you are supposed to pay for it.
When your country can’t innovate you regulate and take it from those that can.
yes. Spotify does not deserve a free ride. Apple should drop the current argument and simply charge Spotify for the API access, engineering time or simply refuse to lend any additional help. The app will degrade and not function optimally and the end result will be worse for Spotify.
In which case Apple can't make the argument that they deserve to be paid for the dev tools and platform access because the argument only works if everyone has to pay. If only some people have to pay it makes no sense because all developers use the tools.
Ever since the App Store turned into a revenue and profit centre it has poisoned Apple.
This analogy doesn’t even make any sense. Spotify isn’t trying to guide consumers to a competing App Store, not that they even exist on iOS yet. They’re telling consumers to buy direct from them. I don’t see Costco having a problem if Post were to advertise a subscription cereal service run by Post in their boxes of cereal.
Then they have to do the same for Microsoft, Netflix, Adobe, Walmart, Uber, Target, etc...
Anyone selling products at Costco can communicate with customers via a wide variety of means. They're not actually limited to doing it inside Costco or inside the packaging of their products.
Digital goods are consumed on the iPhone. Physical goods are not.
As Apple already pointed out in their response to the EU, what Spotify did is end the ability to subscribe inside the app. So customers went to Spotify's web site and paid for the subscription there. That's how 99% of Spotify's iOS subscriptions were not subject to a commission.
In other words, not communicating inside the app was not a barrier for getting customers to go to the web site. People who use smartphones know that they can access the internet and go to business web sites.