Apple Faces Extra EU Antitrust Charge in Music Streaming Probe (reuters.com) 14
Apple faces an additional EU antitrust charge in the coming weeks in an investigation triggered by a complaint from Spotify, Reuters reported Monday, citing a person familiar with the matter said, a sign that EU enforcers are strengthening their case against the U.S. company. From a report: The European Commission last year accused the iPhone maker of distorting competition in the music streaming market via restrictive rules for its App Store that force developers to use its own in-app payment system and prevent them from informing users of other purchasing options. Such requirements have also come under scrutiny in countries including the United States and Britain. Extra charges set out in a so-called supplementary statement of objections are usually issued to companies when the EU competition enforcer has gathered new evidence or has modified some elements to boost its case.
I wonder (Score:2)
If you can become a dominant player in the industry (or any industry, pick your fav) without playing dirty and dealing crooked.
Probably not, so the followup question is: does the lure of money cause the corruption, or are the rules simply written that corruption is the only way to become dominant?
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
> does the lure of money cause the corruption, or are the rules simply written that corruption is the only way to become dominant?
Basically both. It is a loop.
The rules are such that as long as you do not get caught at anything too big, being corrupt is the way to go. And increasingly as the lure of money causes more and more corruption, you can get caught at bigger and bigger things and still come ahead.
That being said: There are a few strange signs that it might be partially changing in Europe, not fully mind you as the corruption has spread too far, but partially.
What I mean with the partial thing is that in Europe there has been a trend now to start fighting Tax havens, push that global minimum tax, start fining companies who do bad stuff a % of their global income instead of a fixed laughably low sum and so on.
It might well be too little too late, but say 15-20 year ago there did not seem to even be any such attempts, so there is atleast a new try currently.
Spotify (Score:3)
Spotify is the dominant play at ~30 % and double Apple, Amazon, etc. The do not allow alternatives to advertise on their platform no musicians to offer access via other streaming service so their own websites. It would seem to me that is a clear cut example of using market position at the detriment of other entrants as well.
And if you read this far without a knee jerk rebuttal, yes I am setting up a bit of a strawman. Companies should be allowed to set the terms for their storefront. Spotify is free to advertise outside their Apple app, run voice ads giving their url, etc. They are even free to forgo the iPhone. This is just a money grab from one company's pocket to the other. Spotify raised their price on the App Store, IIRC, rather than cutting outside subscription fees, to create a narrative.
Apple will find other ways to make up for lost revenue, which I fear will hurt small developers and services more than the big ones. Perhaps a per download charge? Or monthly access charge for apps that offer subscriptions or 3rd part payments? I doubt they will roll over and simply give up revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure about Spotify's rules, but if they are what you describe then Spotify is abusing their market power as well.
However, that does not, at all, make Apple's behavior ok. Spotify should just get the same treatment from the EU as Apple.
Apple is using it's dominant position in one market (iPhone, iOS) to squeeze extra revenue out of the products others make in another market (Apps).
To me, this is a very clear example of abuse of market domination (and no, the possibility of switching to Android doesn't ma
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the App Store is NOT a store, because Apple do not buy the apps from developers and resell them. Spotify are selling their app and subscriptions directly to customers. Apple has just made themselves the go to for handling the financials and download and are asking a premium for that. Even worse, Apple do not add ANY value to subscriptions, and still want a cut of those sales.
It's a consignment model, a not uncommon way to sell goods. Either way, a store marks up any product it sells, which is what Apple does. I gree teh question is is Apple unfairly using its position with teh iPhone to sell apps? It all depends on how a market is ultimately determined.
Re: (Score:2)
It also doesn't help that Spotify keeps using their footgun on themselves to lose subscribers.
They want a narrative of "We're losing subscribers to Apple" and yet they're purposefully not offering features users want.
I mean, AirPlay support was a huge one for Spotify - they absolutely refused to support it until the narrative turned from "Apple is anti-competitive!" to "Spotify is chasing customers to competitors".
Next well, Neil Young and others dropping Spotify. Sure, Joe Rogan may have their fans and bri
Re: Spotify (Score:2)
well for music apps apple taking 30% is in sane (Score:2)
well for music apps apple taking 30% is in sane does apple keep 30% of each iTunes sale??? I think not. So apple can push there own music sub system and make the fees high to keep other out.
Re: (Score:2)
well for music apps apple taking 30% is in sane does apple keep 30% of each iTunes sale??? I think not. So apple can push there own music sub system and make the fees high to keep other out.
This is from 2013
Apps: Apple's commission is 30%. Music: For most major record artists Apple keeps 34 of a 99 song. The remainder is mostly kept by the record companies. The recording artist gets what little is left (about 10).
Some recent articles also mentioned a 30% cut for Apple, with the rest mainly going to the label.
Re: Spotify (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious. Are they preventing them from saying "buy me from here at a discount"?
I'm pretty sure Spotify doesn't allow artists to advertise the availability of their music on other streaming sites or from their website.
Spotify the only way the artist can reach end users?
No, but also the iPhone is not the only way to reach users, it's not even the largest platform in the EU.
If you're going to draw similarities between the two - even for a straw man, then you gotta match up! The answer to most of those questions is No. Therefore is doesn't matter - they are not anticompetitive.
If you believe the answer is No, then the Apple's actions are also not anti-competitive because they have similar restrictions for advertising outside availability as Spotify, anyone is free to use other platforms to reach end users, or even the web on the iPhone.
If the artist wanted a different advertiser, different terms/contact, they are completely free to do so.
As ar
That's like paying for porn (Score:2)
It's the 21. century, come on, who pays for music anymore.
What Apple says when... (Score:3)
...they give out people's private information to LE and authoritarian regimes:
"We obey the laws of the countries in which we operate."
...when they get fined or some other event that doesn't go their way:
"It's political crap!" [theguardian.com]
Re: Dumps Online Shop - Best dumps Website - Good (Score:1)