Apple Defies EU Over Antitrust Charges in Spotify Probe

Apple is set for a showdown with European Union antitrust regulators, insisting it doesn't need to make any more changes to its App Store after it was hit by formal charges over its treatment of music streaming rivals such as Spotify. From a report: The iPhone maker will argue at a hearing in Brussels on Friday that the EU wrongly accused it of illegal curbs on the likes of Spotify that prevent developers from steering users away from the App Store. Apple will say it's already addressed any possible competition concerns over the past two years with changes that create a fair balance between the interests of Apple and app developers, according to a person familiar with the US firm's thinking, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Apple was slapped with a revised charged sheet by the EU in February, which showed the commission had narrowed its probe, but continued to focus "on the contractual restrictions that Apple imposed on app developers which prevent them from informing iPhone and iPad users of alternative music subscription options." Spotify says that Apple's anti-steering rules prohibit it and other developers "from telling consumers about any deals or promotions through their own apps."

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

[Bruce66423]

Let's hope that ridiculously profitable monopolist Apple gets taken down a peg or $10bn

Re:

[Applehu Akbar]

If I were Apple I would buy one of the small EU member states in the Balkans, say Slovenia, thus gaining voting power in Brussels.

"Preliminary findings"

[Pinky's Brain]

When the EU finally is ready to lay down the law, some of the infantile lawyers Apple seems to employ might try to defy it with "smart" legal maneuvers while the Apple fanboys clap ... after which they will get hit even harder, while the Apple fanboys cry. That's what happened in the Netherlands.

All this is propaganda in preparation for a hearing though, they're not defying anything yet.

Re:"Preliminary findings"

[gweihir]

All this is propaganda in preparation for a hearing though, they're not defying anything yet.

Indeed. They do misunderstand that prosecutors and regulators in the EU typically do not plan on political office later and are judges are generally not political appointees.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

Yeah. The problem with Spotify is Spotify themselves for the most part.

They had a point, 5 years ago. Then they squandered that point by failing to support features that customers wanted - something their competitor had. They squandered it again by their content which got a lot of subscribers cancelling and jumping to their competition again.

At some point, Apple just has to say they fixed the issues and just because you were #1, you aren't guaranteed to stay there because well, competition. At some point th

Apple made their own product cost more

[Anonymous Cward]

One small change to pricing fixed the alleged competition issue. Consumers have the ability to get the same music for a cheaper price by using Spotify. But many people willingly choose not to, whether due to the lack of lossless support or because other family members already have a family plan on a different platform or whatever. This would be like Spotify suing Amazon for bundling music with Prime, despite the fact Spotify offers a free tier. Common sense applies.

Re: "Preliminary findings"

[SleepingEye]

I wonder if the problem was that spotify was losing 30% of its revenue, so it couldn't Afford to continue providing its services to the same degree

Ciminal claims to not be criminal

[gweihir]

What else is new. If they are guilty, they have no chance here, regardless of how important they think they are. To try is legitimate though.

so you're calling for this, right?

[Petr Blazek]

"The EU needs to take some action. Other countries actually do this and companies toe the line, such as in China. Piss China off, and company officers will disappear into organ banks"

Facing this, we should stick with the EU's impotence...

About time

[Anubis IV]

I actually like the walled garden and don't want to see iOS opened up to third-party app stores, but the notion that Apple can gag developers to prevent them from telling users where they can sign up for service outside the app or keep them from making users aware of better pricing that exists elsewhere is unconscionable and, at least in my opinion, bald-faced, anti-competitive behavior. They're literally telling developers that they aren't allowed to tell users about competition within the confines of the developer's own app.

There's a reasonable argument to be made that they shouldn't be allowed to do so in the App Store itself (e.g. it wouldn't make sense for Best Buy to put products on shelves that advertise better deals at Walmart), but within their own product? No argument.

Re:

[Pinky's Brain]

EU's market, EU's rules. Until they build their robot army it ain't Apple's world.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's not EU's market, is it? The EU didn't create the app store. The EU don't maintain the app store. The EU just wants to profit from it by way of racketeering - "that's a nice app store you've got there, be a shame if anything happened to it."

Re:

[Pinky's Brain]

Why are you suddenly turning it into a moral argument? Might makes right suited you when talking about Apple.

Re:

[Growlley]

it's our market - our rules - you don't have have to sell here ,Apple can always withdraw and see if there is enough public pressure on the politicans to force a change. But hey leaving a nickel on the table hurts.

Re:

[Anubis IV]

I agree that devs who agree to play by the rules should play by the rules for now. At the same time, I'm asserting that the rules are unconscionable and should be torn down by regulatory bodies. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Re: About time

[SleepingEye]

You think that anything you do or make on a idevice is yours? That's cute!

Re:

[Anubis IV]

You seem confused about what others think.

Apples 30% tax on phone software needs to go

[SmaryJerry]

It's unbelievable that it is stood the test of scrutiny until now, I guess you can hire pretty good attorneys and influence politicians when you are worth more than a trillion dollars. Why can literally every other store get away with charging reasonable fees for listing software, but for some reason within Apple the fee costs 1000% more than everywhere else? If protecting against software at the purchase phase was such a problem then entire internet's sales framework would not work.

fine em a 100 billion

[Growlley]

and then another 100 billion just because they can,