Spotify Files Complaint Against Apple With the European Commission Over 30% Tax and Restrictive Rules (spotify.com) 257
Spotify today filed a complaint with EU antitrust regulators against Apple, saying the iPhone maker unfairly limits rivals to its own Apple Music streaming service. Spotify CEO Daniel Ek writes in a blog post: In recent years, Apple has introduced rules to the App Store that purposely limit choice and stifle innovation at the expense of the user experience -- essentially acting as both a player and referee to deliberately disadvantage other app developers. After trying unsuccessfully to resolve the issues directly with Apple, we're now requesting that the EC take action to ensure fair competition. Apple operates a platform that, for over a billion people around the world, is the gateway to the internet. Apple is both the owner of the iOS platform and the App Store -- and a competitor to services like Spotify. In theory, this is fine. But in Apple's case, they continue to give themselves an unfair advantage at every turn.
To illustrate what I mean, let me share a few examples. Apple requires that Spotify and other digital services pay a 30% tax on purchases made through Apple's payment system, including upgrading from our Free to our Premium service. If we pay this tax, it would force us to artificially inflate the price of our Premium membership well above the price of Apple Music. And to keep our price competitive for our customers, that isn't something we can do. As an alternative, if we choose not to use Apple's payment system, forgoing the charge, Apple then applies a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions on Spotify.
For example, they limit our communication with our customers -- including our outreach beyond the app. In some cases, we aren't even allowed to send emails to our customers who use Apple. Apple also routinely blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades. Over time, this has included locking Spotify and other competitors out of Apple services such as Siri, HomePod, and Apple Watch. We aren't seeking special treatment. We simply want the same treatment as numerous other apps on the App Store, like Uber or Deliveroo, who aren't subject to the Apple tax and therefore don't have the same restrictions.
To illustrate what I mean, let me share a few examples. Apple requires that Spotify and other digital services pay a 30% tax on purchases made through Apple's payment system, including upgrading from our Free to our Premium service. If we pay this tax, it would force us to artificially inflate the price of our Premium membership well above the price of Apple Music. And to keep our price competitive for our customers, that isn't something we can do. As an alternative, if we choose not to use Apple's payment system, forgoing the charge, Apple then applies a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions on Spotify.
For example, they limit our communication with our customers -- including our outreach beyond the app. In some cases, we aren't even allowed to send emails to our customers who use Apple. Apple also routinely blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades. Over time, this has included locking Spotify and other competitors out of Apple services such as Siri, HomePod, and Apple Watch. We aren't seeking special treatment. We simply want the same treatment as numerous other apps on the App Store, like Uber or Deliveroo, who aren't subject to the Apple tax and therefore don't have the same restrictions.
competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to wonder if Spotify had something to do with Elizabeth Warren's comments about breaking up Apple as well.
I'd imagine that when you go against a company like Apple in a legal battle, you're going to try to fight it on multiple fronts. That way, Apple can't focus their efforts and assemble a legal "dream team" to quash the EU filing because they have other Antitrust filings elsewhere to battle.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple could fund a 100 lawyers for a 100 years out of petty cash. Multiple fronts isn't going to overwhelm Apple's legal team.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it sounds like the internet explorer case that microsoft lost, but on steroids. Its significantly more egregious since the app store is the gateway to loading software. At least in windows 98/xp the only means of installing software was to download a zip/exe/cab file and run an installer. That precluded the ability to stifle the customers power to install whatever they wanted. They still lost. With the app store, they can not only tell you what you can and cannot install, but also force the vendors to give them a cut of gross sale regardless how razor thin the profit margin is. I really don’t see how it’s much different then the mob showing up in your business and insisting that you buy their fire insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they not allowed to just charge iOS users more, or require subscriptions to be bought via their web site?
I seem to dimly recall Apple banning that, or wanting to...
Re: competition (Score:3)
The big difference is Windows marketshare was significant enough to be talked about as a monopoly.
Apple's not even the market leader.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has one of the two biggest app markets. They use that to help their apps. Spotify does not own an app market.
Apple owns an app market because it created one for itself. Spotify is free to do the same.
Fair competition should allow for Spotify either use Apple as a service to sell their app *OR* compete with Apple's app.
What they should not be forced to do is both use Apple as a service and compete with their app and that is what is wrong here.
Spotify isn't forced to deal with Apple AT ALL. It is free to ignore Apple entirely.
because Apple leverages the market to make it more affordable.
And the very last thing consumers want is for something to be more affordable.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's more like saying someone has monopolized diesel distribution, when the majority of cars use gas... You are free to choose a diesel car knowing these restrictions, or you can just as easily buy a gas car.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon has hundreds of house brands competing against 3rd parties (and they use sales information to drive new brands...).
But they don't charge 30% per transaction.
Amazon's annual fee and small order fee (Score:5, Informative)
Summary of fees to sell physical goods on Amazon:
- $480 per year for a seller to be on its platform
- 15 percent of each order's total, including shipping but excluding sales tax, or $1.00 per order, whichever is higher
- 3 percent of sales tax
Apple charges each seller only $99 per year, and it has no $1 minimum fee per order. I imagine the $1 minimum fee has something to do with credit card and ACH debit processors taking a 30 cent fee per transaction.
Paid apps and in-app purchases on Amazon Appstore have a similar fee structure to Apple (source [amazon.com]), though without the $99 per year fee:
- 20 percent for movie and TV subscription IAPs within Android apps
- 30 percent for paid apps and all other IAPs, including paid Alexa skills
Re:Amazon's annual fee and small order fee (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
he's specifically responding to someone who said amazon doesn't do this. he isn't addressing the morality of the activity, he's addressing the assertion that amazon isn't engaging in this activity.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an excellent summary of why Amazon needs its behavior curtailed as well. They should be able to put all their own-branded crap (and it really is crap) on the store, or charge such abusive fees, but not both.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is the only one who forces you to use their store, and prohibits you from using anyone else's. That's the lack of competition we're talking about. In Amazon and the Google
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple makes a phone and sells music services on it.
Spotify could make a phone and sell music services on it too. But instead, it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.
On a related note...Spotify of course doesn't make the music either. It is just a middle man. It wants to connector creators and consumers, and charge a Spotify tax to SOMEBODY (either users who pay, or advertise), to make use of its marketplac
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
What was Apple's chance of going up against everyone else in the mobile world? Hint: it was given virtually no chance of success at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was blackberry, symbian, windows mobile...
Apple succeeded because their product was vastly superior to these existing offerings in various ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.
Apple rides on the coattails of the semiconductor industry. Shame.
Re:competition (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple makes a phone and sells music services on it.
Spotify could make a phone and sell music services on it too. But instead, it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.
On a related note...Spotify of course doesn't make the music either. It is just a middle man. It wants to connector creators and consumers, and charge a Spotify tax to SOMEBODY (either users who pay, or advertise), to make use of its marketplace. Sound familiar?
Microsoft makes an operating system and gives away a web browser with it. Netscape could make a computer operating system and give away web browsers too. But instead, it wants to JUST give away its web browser, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the operating system to make that possible...
On a related note.... Netscape of course doesn't make the websites either. It is just a middle man...
Sound familiar?
Re: (Score:2)
It is egregious that no one but GM is allowed make GM products. I mean, GM has a total monopoly on making GM products! That's so unfair!!
Re: (Score:2)
What's so special about making hardware? Musicians make software. Spotify maintains servers that hosts files and streams them. Everyone in this scheme has a role. Without software, the hardware is useless. Without music, less people would want to buy a phone. Without musicians, there's no music at all.
There's also the carrier or internet in general. There's the various taxes and radio frequency licenses. There's so many parties involved, that i really wonder why you think Apple is so special and Spotify is
Re: (Score:2)
Musicians make software.
Obviously i ment: Musicians make music. Well, some make software too. Or hardware. Or all of them *shrugs*
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can create a piece of "music" and distribute a million copies of it for negligible cost, many people do with varying degrees of quality. Once the first copy is created, infinite copies can be created and distributed for free.
Anyone can create a piece of software and distribute a million copies of it for negligible cost. many people do with varying degrees of quality. Once the first copy is created, infinite copies can be created and distributed for free.
It is much harder to create and distribute a pi
Re: (Score:3)
Apple makes a phone and sells music services on it.
Spotify could make a phone and sell music services on it too.
No, they could not reasonably make their own phone. Without access to someone else's app store, it would be dead in the water — lack of apps is what killed Windows Phone. Apple and Google are sucking all the air out of the room, and consumers have to be protected from the consequences of that fact. This isn't just about Spotify.
Re:competition (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bit of revisionist history.
Apple makes a phone and launches a store that is the only way for non-enterprise, non-developer customers to load software upon it. Apple invites essentially all comers to the store, which is governed by generally applicable rules. It's 2007.
Spotify launches a music service and an app through the Apple store. It's 2008. Apple sells music services -- through iTunes, which is automatically present on the phone -- that do not include streaming music services.
Apple launches streaming music services -- through the Music app, which is automatically present on the phone -- that includes streaming music services. It's 2015. Spotify has been in this space on this device for 7 years.
Apple's music app is not subject to the same pricing structure -- Apple simply matches the Spotify service fee without the overhead of paying itself 30% -- and is marketed by email to all Apple ID holders, something Spotify itself cannot do.
They were invited in. Then Apple leveraged its dominance in the platform to make special, anticompetitive rules for itself and expand into that line of business. There are terms for bodies of law that govern that. I believe that they include antitrust (U.S.) and competition law (E.U.).
Nope - not remotely familiar. Spotify doesn't impose special rules on the content of music based whether the artist is a Spotify employee (or partner) or not. Spotify doesn't function as a creator and a connector self-interested in promoting itself to the detriment of other creators. Spotify doesn't have a fee structure that requires artists to pay it substantially more than it pays itself to distribute creations through the service.
I'm not convinced by your argument at all. European authorities will not be either.
Re: (Score:2)
The top and bottom of it is, you don't want to be dependent upon someone else's platform incase they decide to later cut you out of the market.
But instead of pushing for and promoting open platforms, companies are happy to be dependent on someone else's platform while the owner of that platform isn't trying to compete with them - and then act all surprised when that platform owner steals the lunch they laid out under their nose. The platform owner is a business too, if they see you making a good profit on a
Re: (Score:2)
But instead, it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.
With great marketshare and power comes great responsibility. The fact of the matter is that no Spotify cannot do the latter precisely because of the advantage of being the market leader afforded to Apple.
It is called antitrust laws. Fortunately in Europe they apply to everyone rather than just looking at the singular cost to an end user like they do in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because that worked really well for Blackberry, Microsoft, Jolla...
I can't fathom how your post was modded insightful.
There's a huge difference between running a music service and building up an entire hardware ecosystem.
Apple spent well over a decade building up iOS before it decided to just jump into music subscription. And you think it's reasonable for Spotify to just jump into the hardware market willy nilly?
The problem is that Apple carved out a monopoly position with it's infrastructure and is
Re: (Score:2)
Apple shall be dictator and arbitrager of any decision concerning Apples bottom line.
That is pretty much the gist of it. If you don't like that, you are free not to buy Apple's products, or use its App Store. Go somewhere else where you can be more successful.
Re: (Score:2)
It is ridiculous for a court to decide what should be included with an OS and what should not be included with an OS.
If someone wants to include web browser capability in an OS, the court should pretty much just fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
What ever happened to the concept of restricting businesses due to unfair competition? At one time TV networks could not sell products. Surely it works the same for the owner of the whole marketplace?
Spotify can chose not to be on the iPhone, or chose to stream via the web and still let you get access. if you look at Spotify, they are a music marketplace; so should they be required to accept any music and pay the same to the artists across the board for every listen?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spotify's investors would not be likely to agree to abandoning the iphone.
I agree, and there are ways for Spotify to provide its service on an iPhone without requiring an app. Access to Apple's user base is clearly desirable given its size and demographics. For me, the broader question is " Should a company be required to give free or low costs access to a user base that exists because of their product?" If the answer is yes, the follow-on is "Should they be required to compensate the all of the product suppliers equally?" This would mean services such as Spotify and Apple Music
Re: (Score:3)
What ever happened to the concept of restricting businesses due to unfair competition? At one time TV networks could not sell products. Surely it works the same for the owner of the whole marketplace?
Those laws only kick in if the behavior is harming the consumer directly. Can a consumer easily get Spotify on other devices? Yes? Then there's no problem.
The converse to your idea would be any fly-by-night smart device manufacturer should be able to *force* Spotify to develop an app for their platform. Otherwise it's unfair, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Art of text (Score:2)
It wouldn't surprise me if the case has some merits, but only legal merits.
Appletax via their system is unavoidable, but in app billing is a large legal grey area unless properly defined and fought for in court.
But i RTFA as they said:
Beyond that, what annoys me is that unless Ek is incapable of writing concrete examples.
'Blocks communication' and ' blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades' isn't anything defined. So this isn't a strong opening for a blog post, its essentially whining via essay.
Re: (Score:3)
I am unaware of the legal parameters of Apple tax, so this question could already be answered, but what about apps that are free to download in the App Store that require you to login with your credentials? Like pandora or slingTv. If Pandora does their own billing externally, Apple can’t demand a cut of that can they? If they can that would be very disturbing, because what’s to keep Apple from demanding a cut of my pay since I use an app for my banking software and I pay my bank to hold my m
Re: (Score:2)
they dont demand a cut but they place other restrictions on you
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know how far Netflix has transitioned their sales, but eventually Apple will not get a penny from Netflix. The app costs zero and Apple keeps 30% of zero. Purchases through the Netflix website, Apple gets zero. The only restriction is that you can't advertise your website through
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. That gives me a thought. A lot of times when I want to authorize a Netflix application I’m presented with the URL and an authentication code. That would be a backdoor way around advertising your website correct?
Re: (Score:3)
This certainly seems like the kind of thing they could go with. It's one thing for Apple to demand a cut when they manage the payment; But denying apps from using any other payment method (or even linking to a web page that offers payment functionality) may be a step too far...
And the EU can fine up to 10% of annual turnover, ~$25 Billion
Re: Art of text (Score:5, Informative)
Not really.
Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it too.
Apple can either be the gateway to ios or it can be the music provider. But being both is anticompetitive.
If apples service can compete with a 1.3 multiplier then ok. But not ok without.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it too.
Apple can either be the gateway to ios or it can be the music provider. But being both is anticompetitive.
I disagree. They are not the only choice for music, nor the largest. They also aren't the largest smartphone OS either. If they controlled the the entire distribution market, perhaps; but they don't and Spotify has choices besides Apple. To use your reasoning Spotify is anticompetitive because it controls the gateway (its app and what goes on it) and is also the music provider.
If apples service can compete with a 1.3 multiplier then ok. But not ok without.
It certainly can. Of the $10 subscription fee, iTune's P&L gets $7 and The App Store's gets $3. Apple corporate gets to combine
Be brave (Score:2)
Re:Be brave (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't seriously think an app business can survive without having their app on iPhones.
Seems they are having trouble on it too. Get enough apps to abandon the platform who will at most lose 20% of their customers whereas apple lose 100% of their 30% cut for nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're getting into game theory, and considering that the iOS market is:
a) easier to develop for
b) overwhelmingly more lucrative per user than android
What do you think the likelyhood is of developers leaving en masse?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No to Apple (Score:2)
I have never bought any Apple hardware or paid for an Apple service. Bunch of assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
You know who's a bunch of assholes? Facebook. I think they've put me into some kind of special new jail, because I can't post comments or status updates, but haven't gotten any notification about being in Fb jail.
Speaking of which, I can no longer submit stories or journal entries here...
There is no 30% tax (Score:3, Insightful)
And there is a very simple way to get around the payment, which Netflix chose to use and which everyone else is free to use: Don't sell through your app and through the app store. Create a website, and handle the purchases yourself. I worked for a company that did that (same price through in-app purchase and through the website, we kept more money from the website), Netflix does it, everyone can do it.
I have an app on the store that I wrote just for fun, and it makes a little bit of money. If I had to sell it myself I wouldn't get a penny. (I hate advertisements, so I refuse to add advertisements). Nice thing about Apple is that they treat me exactly the same as Spotify. So I'd tell Spotify to p*** right off.
Re:There is no 30% tax (Score:4, Interesting)
You didn't read the article.
The problem isn't doing a website and host your own payment platform for your service, but it is that Apple prevents any company from contacting their own customers about payment options that are not linked to Apple.
Even if you create a Free Spotify account, on another platform, use it on your iDevice, then Apple can tell you that you have breached the developer terms of service if you contact them with an email saying they could upgrade to premium on your website.
The margins in this business are thin, and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple made more money from the 30% tax (all expenses accounted for) than Spotify providing the actual service. And that's with Apple providing their own competing service too which isn't limited to those ridiculous rules (and honestly would be surprising if they made a profit too, but that's not an issue for Apple to operate this at loss anyway).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So companies can't spam you to death for upgrading their 'free' service. Sounds great. Spoitfy could do the same as Pandora and Netflix, simply sell it through their own website, why do you want to spam/ad everyone to upgrade? If they see value in your premium service, people will sign up by themselves. If not, stop spamming me.
Re: (Score:3)
We aren’t talking rocket science here— yesterday I went into the Netflix app, noticed I couldn’t change billing info, so I went to their website. If you can’t figure that out then life has bigger challenges.
I am curious if it would be construed as more anti-competitive if large developers got better rates on in-app purchases and subscriptions. 30% is a big hit to large players, but less so for mid sized and small developers.
Re: (Score:2)
We arenâ(TM)t talking rocket science hereâ" yesterday I went into the Netflix app, noticed I couldnâ(TM)t change billing info, so I went to their website. If you canâ(TM)t figure that out then life has bigger challenges.
On one hand, yes, not being able to figure that out is stupid. On the other hand, Apple has built their reputation on coddling stupid people.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't keep 30%, they have to pay credit card fees, carry the cost of gift cards that stores pay less than 100% face value for, and so on. They host your app on the store, and they supply all the in app purchases.
So, Apple is keeping 95% of that 30%, at least.
Re:There is no 30% tax (Score:4, Insightful)
So apparently you missed the part, in the summary no less, that Apple places technical restrictions in your app if you don't go through their payment system?
Apple Music doesn't have to take a 30% hit to run on an iOS. Apple apps get additional benefits and integration that no other competitor is allowed to achieve even if they follow the rules.
This is pure anti-competitive behaviour, pure and simple. They were able to get away with this before when they were too insignificant to be worth bothering with. Apple is now a serious player and shouldn't be allowed to get away with these shenanigans anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
That is pure bullshit from Spotify though. There are no technical restrictions on free or paid apps, I can write an app today that interfaces with the Watch or Health or whatever else Apple API's have available.
What I'm NOT allowed to do and what Spotify wants to do is collect statistics and other tracking information, badger or spam their customers and make it appear as though I accept payments through the app but actually send them to a third party website. There are various consumer protection complaints
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has exactly the same terms for everyone. If you sell your product including in-app purchases through Apple, you get 70% of the official price. Apple doesn't keep 30%, they have to pay credit card fees, carry the cost of gift cards that stores pay less than 100% face value for, and so on. They host your app on the store, and they supply all the in app purchases.
You do a good job of outlining what Apple does with that 30%, but you failed to point out that app developers also don't have the option of doing those things themselves if they don't want to go through Apple. That bit's important too.
There's other things too (Score:2)
It's not just the financial aspects. Apple is hampering the whole experience for competitors. For example, Apple Music has Siri integration. Spotify doesn't, and it probably never will without outside intervention.
Apple is doing everything they can t make the playing field as uneven as they can for competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Pandora has Siri integration.
Apple must die (Score:2, Insightful)
They have become Microsoft back in 1995-8, a true monopolist.
Ironically Microsoft is largely irrelevant.
Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, however all need to be shattered.
Re: (Score:2)
They have become Microsoft back in 1995-8, a true monopolist.
Ironically Microsoft is largely irrelevant.
Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, however all need to be shattered.
Apple? It's Google + Facebook that are the great monopolists. Apple does not hold a monopoly in any market segment.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple? It's Google + Facebook that are the great monopolists. Apple does not hold a monopoly in any market segment.
That is a falsehood, and what's more, it's a particularly tiresome one since it's been debunked so repetitiously. Apple has a monopoly on app installation on iOS devices. No other phone provider in history has made it so difficult (or for the average user, impossible) to install applications acquired from sources other than their app store. They are literally the most egregious offenders of this policy ever to exist in the consumer space. Only IBM has ever had a more offensive policy, back in the early days
Some clarification (Score:2)
Apple requires that Spotify and other digital services pay a 30% tax on purchases made through Apple's payment system, including upgrading from our Free to our Premium service.
I made an account on their webpage, and signed up to pay them via PayPal. I'm sure PayPal is taking a cut. I certainly believe it's nowhere near 30%, but you're not "forced" to use Apple's payment system for the one type of payment transaction you're going to do.
As an alternative, if we choose not to use Apple's payment system, forgoing the charge, Apple then applies a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions on Spotify.
I have an account setup, I download the Spotify App from the App store -- and this is claiming that
Re: (Score:3)
In regards to email, the problem Spotify has is that there is a rule whereby a developer of an iOS app is not allowed to provide information to those users about methods of payment for digital services that don't go through Apple. And this rule apparently means Spotify can't email anyone who has ever used the iOS app if those emails contain information on how to buy anything from Spotify.
Re: (Score:2)
But Apple Watch now can control the Spotify app with effectively the same level of control it gives to Apple Music. Siri can control Spotify, but you can't speak out artists and the like.
So to sum up your argument, it's the same level of control, except that it isn't? Nice one.
doesn't this so called Apple tax (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
a). No, none of the 30% that goes to Apple is used for publishing or performance royalties.
b) Spotify pays higher royalties to labels than radio. The problem is that labels pay out lower royalties to creators for plays on Spotify than on radio, so if you don't own your own label you get paid less.
"monopoly"? (Score:2)
Last I thought about the issue, access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) wasn't a public utility or good with an expectation of fairness of pricing or in modification of terms.
Under what right does one claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to do anything beyond what is regulated in the payment and terms of operation?
Re: (Score:2)
Who determines "should"?
The law.
Re: (Score:3)
Why "should" Apple do any of the things you want?
Because otherwise, they stifle competition.
Who determines "should"?
The People, through their elected representatives.
Last I thought about the issue,
Was never.
access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) wasn't a public utility or good with an expectation of fairness of pricing or in modification of terms.
The App Store is a market. Only free markets benefit The People. Apple is a legal fiction which only exists at the pleasure of The People. Ironically, you can't have a free market without government interference.
Under what right does one claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to do anything beyond what is regulated in the payment and terms of operation?
Under the right of self-governance.
Re: (Score:2)
The People, through their elected representatives.
Which People? Apple is a US-based multinational. Spotify is a Swedish-based multinational. Customers in many other jurisdictions may use Spotify on iOS. What first principles are you using to determine which People's will should prevail, if there is a conflict between companies and the jurisdictions have different rules for how the conflicts should be resolved?
Re: (Score:2)
The People, through their elected representatives.
What first principles are you using to determine which People's will should prevail, if there is a conflict between companies and the jurisdictions have different rules for how the conflicts should be resolved?
That's obvious: The People in the various jurisdictions get to demand that they be treated a certain way, and Apple has the choice of whether or not to do business in each jurisdiction.
EU responds ... (Score:2)
Free app with subscription on website (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Laws are meant to protect us all from predatory behavior.
That you feel the need to belittle this to a 'daddy' situation shows that you are firmly aligned with Apple.
Why not log on and make your comment?
I don't think they take an cut of public transport (Score:3)
I don't think they take an cut of public transport tickets or it's well under 30% as the government has power to set an max fee.
Re: (Score:3)
A business from any country will engage in protectionism. I never had worked a software company that said. Here you go, take this code, we will show you how to use it, and give you training classes, all targeted so you can make a competing product with it.
Now the US has a problem as there is a vocal group of people who see any sort of corporate regulation as "OMG COMMUNISM!111!!!!!" which in general has made the amount of regulation in US Based companies low, allowing for a lot of bad behaviors.
Re: (Score:2)
A business from any country will engage in protectionism. I never had worked a software company that said. Here you go, take this code, we will show you how to use it, and give you training classes, all targeted so you can make a competing product with it.
Amazon did this, when they allowed third party sellers to compete with Amazon n the main amazon.com store pages. Of course, the EU wants to punish them for that now.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually I am a moderate, with right leaning tenancies. However, there is a difference between excessive regulations, and needed ones. The lesa fair economy creates a high volatility in the market, big highs, and big lows. When we are in a big high, we do not want to find ways to slow down, when we are down, we are trying to rush to bring things back up.
Yes the United States is still an innovation center, with it combination of (dare I say Socialist like protections) laws that promote development, like
Re: (Score:3)
The lesa fair economy
"Laissez-faire": literally "let do", but idiomatically "hands off".
And, yes, laissez-faire capitalism is silly, and "no regulations at all" is not a principle of capitalism.
Re: What do you expect from an American company (Score:2)
surely a prerequisite of being an "American company" is that you have some money in America?
Apple dont have any money in in America.
The closest they come to having money in America is setting aside a small amount to pay "geniuses" to tell customers their otherwise perfectly working hardware needs completely replacing.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how it work. When it's decided a crime you didn't get away.
Bill Gates and Microsoft did.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is it sarcasm, its wrong and stupid. Car manufacturers don't make all the parts for their cars.
No, but they do have arguably anticompetitive agreements in place with the suppliers that prohibit their selling the parts directly for years after their introduction. And they also have abusive pricing on service documentation, which should be made available for the price of copying and distribution, since they have to produce those materials for their own purposes no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is it sarcasm, its wrong and stupid. Car manufacturers don't make all the parts for their cars. And aside from the Benz Patentmotorwagen probably never have. Cars have many parts suppliers behind them, Delco, Bosch and Denso to name a few off the top of my head.
Apple doesn't make parts for its phones. All that shit comes from some 3rd party manufacturer. Phones have many parts suppliers behind them too.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, sounds like cars aren't being 'fully m
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they can pretend safety features require a subscription paid per gallon, and put the car in limp mode as a 'safety precaution' because the safety features are disabled.
Apple is always in limp mode. Hard things are dangerous, so they only permit rounded surfaces.