Spotify Joins Media Firms To Urge EU Action Against Apple's 'Unfair' Practices (reuters.com) 35
Music streaming service Spotify, along with other media firms such as Deezer, urged the European Commission to take action against Apple for anticompetitive and unfair practices, in a joint industry letter on Wednesday. From a report: The letter, addressed to the European Union antitrust regulator's Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, demanded the Commission to act fast for the welfare of European consumers. Spotify has for years accused Apple of abusing its market position using its App Store rules to stifle competition. It has previously submitted antitrust complaints against Apple in various countries, alleging the 30% charge Apple requires developers to pay on its App Store has forced Spotify to "artificially inflate" its own prices. "We are writing to you to call for swift and decisive action by the European Commission against anticompetitive and unfair practices by certain global digital gatekeepers, and Apple in particular," read the letter, which was signed by chief executives of media firms Schibsted, Proton and Basecamp.
Does Apple get my money? (Score:3)
If I sign up for Spotify directly and then start using it on an iPhone do Apple get any of my money?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Does Apple get my money? (Score:5, Interesting)
If Apple was a monopoly, I would be totally in favor of this. But Apple is about 27% of the market. Google is the rest. No matter how you look at it, Apple simply isn't a monopoly. They just sell products that people really like and thus make lots of money at it. So infuriating.
This is about companies that want more money, using politics and legalism to try and dip into someone else's pocket. It's a time-honored strategy. But the claims of some sort of higher purpose are complete horse manure.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that Apple is making its own options cheaper then those of the competition. Apple does have a monopoly: the "app store" is the only way to install software on iOS devices. If they require you to give them 30% of your money, because otherwise you will get kicked from their mobile platform, and won't be able to make any money of people using said platform. Yeah... that's still "only" 27,6%, how many devices is that again (hint: it's almost two BILLION)?
So, yes, Spotify does have a point. Apple
Re: (Score:1)
Define monopoly.
We are talking about the monopoly of software distribution on Apple hardware. Hardware manufacture and software distribution are two different things. There is no reason to oblige a consumer to purchase infrastructure services from a single provider after the purchase of Apple hardware. The effect is similar to product tying, which is illegal.
Yes how dare Apple charge you for using their infrastructure
The whole point is that we do not have a choice to use another infrastructure, while there is no technical reason for such limitation. Which many understand as an abus
Re: (Score:3)
We are talking about the monopoly of software distribution on Apple hardware.
To be clear you are talking about software made by Apple tools for use only on Apple products and distributed only by Apple. We are not talking about software made by Spotify for any other platform like PC, Android, Playstation, etc.
There is no reason to oblige a consumer to purchase infrastructure services from a single provider after the purchase of Apple hardware.
No reason or no reason you like. Can you buy any firmware you want for your microwave or car or exercise watch?
The effect is similar to product tying, which is illegal.
Except that is not the definition [justice.gov] of "tying". That is your definition.
A tying arrangement occurs when, through a contractual or technological requirement, a seller conditions the sale or lease of one product or service on the customer's agreement to take a second product or service
Tying would be you are required to buy Apple software when you buy Apple hardware. You are not req
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Can you buy any firmware you want for your microwave or car or exercise watch?
No because in this case because it the microwave firmware does not cause an Unfair Advantage as compared to other manufacturers of microwave hardware or firmware. In the case of such small items, hardware and software are considered "indissociable".
However, you can buy your own operating system for a PC and get reimbursed from your unused Microsoft licence (at least in EU), because it is understood that a computer is a general purpose platform where a fraction of the consumers find an advantage in installin
Re: (Score:3)
No because in this case because it the microwave firmware does not cause an Unfair Advantage as compared to other manufacturers of microwave hardware or firmware.
Please describe the "unfair advantate" as it seems this is more of you whining that "you don't like it". Also if anything, Apple limiting what software can be installed is an advantage for Android as Google can advertise they have multiple stores and means to acquire software.
In the case of such small items, hardware and software are considered "indissociable".
Please cite your authority when you say it is "indissociable". Is there a legal ruling or are you just making things up?
However, you can buy your own operating system for a PC and get reimbursed from your unused Microsoft licence (at least in EU), because it is understood that a computer is a general purpose platform where a fraction of the consumers find an advantage in installing something else, and while pre-installing Windows is ok because it provides a useful machine, obliging to keep it causes an Unfair Advantage as opposed to OS competitors.
1)A PC is not a smart phone and a smart phone is not a general purpose computer. Never has been. By your logic, you
Re: (Score:2)
Please describe the "unfair advantate" as it seems this is more of you whining that "you don't like it".
The existence of google as competition to apple in the hardware or OS market are entirely different topics. The complaint here does not depend on competition to Apple in the market of hardware because these markets are separate. When you have purchased an Apple hardware, then you cannot install competitor software distribution. The Apple-Hardware-OS division is giving an unfair advantage to the Apple-Infarstructure division as opposed to external companies providing Infrastructure services for a range of ha
Re: (Score:2)
The existence of google as competition to apple in the hardware or OS market are entirely different topics. The complaint here does not depend on competition to Apple in the market of hardware because these markets are separate.
Er what? If you complain Apple has an "unfair advantage". Advantage requires a comparison to something else. Apple has an unfair advantage to _____. Please fill in the blank as your statement makes no sense otherwise.
When you have purchased an Apple hardware, then you cannot install competitor software distribution
And? Please cite the authority where this is illegal. Also please tell me why you didn't protest Nokia, Motorola, etc. as they did the exact same thing when they had their own ecosystem. And that is just in the smart phone market. Game consoles like the Xbox S has no other software distributio
Re: Does Apple get my money? (Score:1)
Apple does induce you to upgrade iOS, and a succession of such upgrades render your iDevice effectively unusable.
The inducement, coupled with lack of rollback for the upgrades, make is essential for competition to exist. Even if the competition simply is older iOS versions.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple does induce you to upgrade iOS, and a succession of such upgrades render your iDevice effectively unusable. The inducement, coupled with lack of rollback for the upgrades, make is essential for competition to exist. Even if the competition simply is older iOS versions.
You should sue Apple for this then if you feel the harm is significant. From what I know, iOS runs fine on older iPhones. I believe as of last year, 6 year old phones will still run fine on iOS 15 from friends and family.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple has a monopoly on Apple products. This type of monopoly is legal.
Every type of monopoly is legal. You clearly don't understand what is at issue at all if you think monopolies are illegal. Not even slightly.
When it comes to a monopoly on smartphones, Android owners would instantly tell you how small a market Apple has especially worldwide.
The size of their market worldwide is irrelevant to a case in the EU, where they have over 30%. The size of their market in the EU is only relevant in that it amounts to a whole bunch of people, so there is an obvious interest in regulation.
how dare Apple charge you for using their infrastructure if you make money on their infrastructure.
The issue is forcing you to use their infrastructure to reach the customers who have their devices. The EU believes that to be an
Re: (Score:3)
Every type of monopoly is legal. You clearly don't understand what is at issue at all if you think monopolies are illegal. Not even slightly.
Not every monopoly is legal. You should really brush up on antritrust law [classlawgroup.com] as you don't seem to know the difference between legal and illegal monopolies.
The size of their market worldwide is irrelevant to a case in the EU, where they have over 30%. The size of their market in the EU is only relevant in that it amounts to a whole bunch of people, so there is an obvious interest in regulation.
The issue is forcing you to use their infrastructure to reach the customers who have their devices.
And? Please cite EU case law when this has been deemed illegal.
The EU believes that to be anticompetitive, which does not and never has required a monopoly of any kind.
It is so anticompetitive that the EU immediately ordered that Apple dissolve their store when Apple proposed it in 2007. OR you do not understand what is anticompetitive in the EU.
However, Apple clearly does have a monopoly over access to users of iOS devices, and it doesn't matter that it's not a monopoly over all smartphones. There are enough members of the affected class to be relevant.
Please cite the EU law that deems this to be illegal.
Re:Does Apple get my money? (Score:4, Interesting)
> lower their app store tax considerably.
It's not a tax. No corporation can levy a tax. That is exclusively the purview of governments. Of course, you knew that; and were just making things up to cast aspersions via emotional points rather than the actual reality.
What the 30% is, is just a commission. Can you name ANY store that allows third parties access 100% for free with nothing in return? I'm guessing not. And Spotify's and Epic's whinging notwithstanding, 30% is pretty much standard across the board... Steam, PSN, xBox, Nintendo, Google, Amazon and Apple... they all charge 30% by default. Some of them give breaks for new, low-volume developers. Others drop the percentage if you do a lot of volume. But the standard rate is 30%. And when you get into streaming platforms, it just goes up from there, with Twitch, for example, taking a 50% commission.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
https://www.theverge.com/21445... [theverge.com]
All this article... and your own lie wrt/ taxes vs. commissions... amounts to is just more of the same "Anything and everything apple does is evil/incompetent/monopolistic/doomed/lame/dominant/beleagured." blather that you lot have been going on about since the '90s.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
1. I understand very well that most people here understand "tax" to mean "forced commission", when it concerns a company.
2. You probably never heard of f-droid [f-droid.org]? It's a store for android, which is completely free. It also allows you to add additional repositories as you wish. But hey, apparently f-droid doesn't exist, right?
3. If a company doesn't have a monopoly, there's no way in hell they'll get away with asking such a steep "tax". If Apple didn't have a monopoly, they would be hemorrhaging app developers
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple was a monopoly, I would be totally in favor of this. But Apple is about 27% of the market.
1) Being a monopoly has never been a requirement to be punished for antitrust, it's not even illegal. Abusing a monopoly is.
2) Apple has over 30% of the market, not that it matters.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Their "users" deserve what they signed up for. They have choices and I highly encourage them to check out those choices but Iphone users are either dumb as rocks or like their fashion accessory.
They literally like the abuse. They signed up for the abuse. Let them enjoy it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can have monopoly power, without being the only supplier of a general item, if you can control a part market.
Car analogy: If a replacement car part that costs the manufacturer $1 to make but they charge $1,000 and you cannot buy it from anyone else then they are applying monopoly power on you because if there was competition then the cost should be much lower. Sure there maybe other car manufacturers out there but the cost of switching cars is much higher so you are forced pay the $1000.
Re: (Score:2)
Car analogy: If a replacement car part that costs the manufacturer $1 to make but they charge $1,000 and you cannot buy it from anyone else then they are applying monopoly power on you because if there was competition then the cost should be much lower. Sure there maybe other car manufacturers out there but the cost of switching cars is much higher so you are forced pay the $1000.
This is a terrible analogy as 1) people can change phones easily. 2) people can switch cars due to a price of $1000. I have done it before when the cost of fixing my car was more than my car. So I had to look for a new car. I literally had a mechanic tell me it was not worth the money for me to pay him to fix my car.
Re: (Score:1)
But Apple is about 27% of the market.
It's more than 35% in Europe. And what matters is monopoly power. Apple most definitely has it.
Re: (Score:2)
They do not, as you are not using Apple as the payment processor.
Spotify the champions of fairness? That is rich. (Score:2)
The EU needs to stop meddling (Score:2)
Give us back the Lightning connector, you tyrants!
'unfair'? (Score:4, Informative)
Considering Spotify's long history of past controversies, [wikipedia.org] I have some difficulty accepting the idea that they might somehow now actually comprehend what is and what is not "unfair."
Kind'a sounds a lot like they're just saying, "What is fair to me is by no means also fair to thee..." which is of course exactly the opposite of the definition of "fair."
fight! fight! (Score:2)