European Commission Confirms Apple's Anti-Competitive Behavior Is Illegal and Harms Consumers (spotify.com) 87
The EU Commission on Monday fined Apple about $2 billion for stifling competition from rival music streaming services. In a blog post, Spotify writes:
Apple's rules muzzled Spotify and other music streaming services from sharing with our users directly in our app about various benefits -- denying us the ability to communicate with them about how to upgrade and the price of subscriptions, promotions, discounts, or numerous other perks. Of course, Apple Music, a competitor to these apps, is not barred from the same behaviour. By requiring Apple to stop its illegal conduct in the EU, the EC is putting consumers first. It is a basic concept of free markets -- customers should know what options they have, and customers, not Apple, should decide what to buy, and where, when and how.
While we appreciate the EC addressing this important case, we also know that the details matter. Apple has routinely defied laws and court decisions in other markets. So we're looking forward to the next steps that will hopefully clearly and conclusively address Apple's long-standing unfair practices.
From the beginning, the foundational belief of the internet is that it should be a fair and open ecosystem. That belief has fueled growth, innovation and discovery around the world. Today the leading way people access the internet is via their mobile phones. So why should the same principles not apply? And while we are pleased that this case delivers some justice, it does not solve Apple's bad behaviour towards developers beyond music streaming in other markets around the world. Our work will not be done until we succeed in securing a truly fair digital marketplace everywhere and our commitment to helping to make this a reality remains unwavering. Further reading: Apple's response.
While we appreciate the EC addressing this important case, we also know that the details matter. Apple has routinely defied laws and court decisions in other markets. So we're looking forward to the next steps that will hopefully clearly and conclusively address Apple's long-standing unfair practices.
From the beginning, the foundational belief of the internet is that it should be a fair and open ecosystem. That belief has fueled growth, innovation and discovery around the world. Today the leading way people access the internet is via their mobile phones. So why should the same principles not apply? And while we are pleased that this case delivers some justice, it does not solve Apple's bad behaviour towards developers beyond music streaming in other markets around the world. Our work will not be done until we succeed in securing a truly fair digital marketplace everywhere and our commitment to helping to make this a reality remains unwavering. Further reading: Apple's response.
Re:If I was Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Can they go away faster?
Of course EU is going to fine them over and over, hopefully the fines would be increasing as well. As long as they break the EU law over and over, they should be fined over and over until breaking the law stops being profitable.
Re:If I was Apple (Score:5, Informative)
After a few fines, the EU can forbid them to be active in the EU market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If I was Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course EU is going to fine them over and over
Yes that happens when you keep breaking laws in a functioning society. Remember what a fine is: a completely avoidable voluntary tax made by your not obey rules published for you in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If I was Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why I love the europeans. They do not fuck about when it comes to slap multinationals with the silly-money fines when they do bullshit.
I hope their apples app store department is paying close attention, because they are next if they dont get smart about the nonsense they are trying to pull with their malicious compliance towards the sideloading issue.
Re:If I was Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
If I was concerned I'd buy a droid.
Do try to understand, and I know this will be hard: it's not about you.
The EU thinks Apple is large enough to have a distorting effect on the market and using that distortion for profit. Your personal choices are completely irrelevant.
Re:If I was Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Re: If I was Apple (Score:3)
Apple? Core?
Bravo for being on topic as well
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If I was Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
"Dear Leader" being the representatives of the nation, not a dictator. The difference is stark and meaningful.
Apple bans categories of applications (Score:5, Informative)
When is the last time you bought one? I've had iPhone 2,4,6,12 and a few iPads along the way. You?
I have owned three Mac computers: a Macintosh Classic, a Performa 5230, and a late 2009 Mac mini. My roommate received an iPhone SE as a gift and replaced it with a third-generation iPhone SE once its battery stopped holding an adequate charge.
If you're not an Apple user why do you care?
Unlike me, many of my audience are Apple users, as are many of Spotify's customers.
Exactly which market is being disturbed and in what way?
In the case of the featured article, the market for subscription music streaming is being disturbed by Apple forbidding Spotify to disclose the features and price of its subscription service to prospective customers.
What is the real world benefit to Apple users to have third party app stores?
The real-world benefit to iOS users is availability to stream works that happen to be on a streaming service other than Apple's own. Some albums are on Pandora, Spotify, Tidal, or some other service, and not on Apple Music. The typical revenue split for services like this is 30 percent for the streaming platform and 70 percent for the artist and their record label. Given Apple's requirement to use its in-app purchase system with a 30 percent fee in order to be listed on its App Store, this would leave 0 percent of revenue for any streaming platform other than Apple Music.
Another real-world benefit to iOS users is availability of applications in categories that Apple has forbidden on its App Store. Circa June 2009, one former example of a class of programs unavailable to Apple users was rereleases of Commodore 64 games on iPhone by the games' publisher, which Apple banned [slashdot.org] solely because the user could reboot the emulated Commodore 64 computer to ROM BASIC and then key in a program not approved by Apple. This ban lasted from June through September of 2009, when the developer worked around the ban by specifically blocking the use of the ROM BASIC prompt [slashdot.org]. From April to September 2010, Apple was enforcing a ban on transpiling applications written in other programming languages [engadget.com] to Objective-C or C++, which made ports of games using Lua or Unity unavailable to iOS users until Apple revoked the ban [engadget.com]. Programming languages themselves remained a banned category until the release of Swift Playgrounds in September 2016.
That's not Apple's only category ban of note. One example was strategy games having the Confederate States of America as a faction [slashdot.org]. It took until June 2019 for Apple to even let developers give their users a free trial, which Apple had banned until then [theverge.com]. Another was (and to my knowledge still is) Wi-Fi mapping tools [slashdot.org] because Apple refuses to provide programs with a way to prompt users to opt into the necessary functionality.
Re: (Score:2)
many of my audience are Apple users, as are many of Spotify's customers.
So where exactly is Spotify's problem? A monopolist who can't get enough? This is who you are cheering for? And then denigrate Apple users? Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike me, many of my audience are Apple users, as are many of Spotify's customers.
And then denigrate Apple users?
That was never my intent. My intent was that even if I personally am not an Apple user, I have a good reason to cater to the needs of Apple users, in particular because they make up much of my audience.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They can think that. It's their right.
It is indeed.
I am the iPhone market.
Well you have am massively inflated sense of your own importance, that's for sure.
Exactly which market is being disturbed and in what way?
If you haven't read the complaint or any detailed news stories then why on earth do you think you have enough information to be commenting?
Re: (Score:2)
He's also way smarter than you.
Re:If I was Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude. I've been an IOS coder since *before* the SDK came out. (And before that a Nokia coder. God those where dark dark days). I get it. You got a big A stamped on your forehead. So do I. Hell I even had Steve Jobs personally intervene once to save my old company. I have loyalty to apple.
But as a Developer its infuriating how much apple will thwart any attempt at novel business models because you might accidentally compete with them. They are constantly abusing their monopoly to leverage themselves into everybody elses shit, and that is actually illegal. Just because you and I might enjoy apple products doesnt mean we cant critically appraise that company and realise the shocking truth that just because we might love apple, does not mean apple loves us.
So yes I support the europeans smacking their ass for trying to suppress innovation and competition. And so should you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe they should just hire some product managers and designers and tell Apple exactly what their phones should do and look like.
You should see what NHTSA tells your car maker about what your car should (and should not) do. Plus those damn building codes. How can anyone design anything these days?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they should just hire some product managers and designers and tell Apple exactly what their phones should do and look like.
You should see what NHTSA tells your car maker about what your car should (and should not) do. Plus those damn building codes. How can anyone design anything these days?
As soon as your iPhone can Kill you, I'll agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you pick the Droid over all the other Android phones?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah right, you believe it.
In Europe are indeed people believing in the closed garden but they are a (sizable) minority.
These people make for a nice profit for Apple and that's fine, not so fine is Apple's insistence to also taxing companies that want to provide services to the users of the phones.
About EULA's, why read them when there are laws?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> The EU is obviously going to just keep charging them billions of dollars for the same made up crap, over and over.
Yep, until they comply. That's how the Europeans roll.
What doesn't happen is a 'bung' from Apple to one or two well placed people/politicians/regulators that suddenly makes the whole thing go away. What also doesn't happen is "malicious compliance" - well, it does, but a fine or two later it gets sorted out. It's one of the many reasons we all have USB-C chargers rather than umpteen differe
Re: (Score:2)
Only that this is not made up. The problem here is that _you_ are stupid.
Obviously, Apple cannot pull out of the EU market without massively damaging its business.
Re: (Score:2)
Only that this is not made up. The problem here is that _you_ are stupid.
Obviously, Apple cannot pull out of the EU market without massively damaging its business.
7% of Apple's Gross Income is what the entire EU brings them.
Hardly devastating.
Re: If I was Apple (Score:1)
"Massively damaging" and "devastating" are both subjective. I'd imagine many would consider 7% to be an alarming sudden drop, especially if it is on-going and/or you're a share holder.
Re: (Score:2)
"Massively damaging" and "devastating" are both subjective. I'd imagine many would consider 7% to be an alarming sudden drop, especially if it is on-going and/or you're a share holder.
I didn't say it would be welcome news in the Apple Boardroom; but the EU is just getting stupid with their anti-free-market measures disguised as anti-protective feel-good legislation.
Did you read Apple's Response at the end of TFS? They raise some very good points, IMHO.
Ignorant (possibly inflammatory) question (Score:3)
Has the EU found any companies headquartered in the EU doing similar stuff?
Re: (Score:3)
For anti-trust and similar reasons, yes.
Banks, one example, lots more if you search, https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Pharmaceutical companies, same about searching, though there are so many American pharma companies getting fined in America, it is harder to find the European ones, an example, https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Automobiles, https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
I've seen others in the news. Note that fines are limited to 10% of global market earnings or such so the really big companies pay more an
Re: (Score:2)
When people are affected by anti-competitive behavior, the fines levied should not be going to the EU, the money should be given to the people affected. This is not what the EU does. What they do is e
Re: (Score:3)
If you were Apple you would pull out of your second largest market?
That's why you're not Apple.
Re: (Score:1)
If you were Apple you would pull out of your second largest market?
That's why you're not Apple.
Apple pulling out, would also send a message; that American companies are not beholden to every politician and leader’s whim, in every country. Not like they don’t have the cash reserves to play chicken for a while, see who really wants to “win” that fight. Apple products and associated services generate a metric fuckton of tax revenue, so at the end of the day who’s biting the wrong hand here?
One could also argue that Apple has no responsibly or obligation to market and adve
Re: If I was Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple pulling out, would also send a message; that American companies are not beholden to every politician and leaderâ(TM)s whim, in every country
No, it would send a message to Google that the European market is now wide open for them to profit from. Also, Dell, Lenovo, Asus and so on, and Nexflix, Disney and Amazon, because unless they pull out completely they they sill have to play by the rules.
Not like they donâ(TM)t have the cash reserves to play chicken for a while, see who really wants to
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Because previously Google was in the EU on a charity basis.
Re:If I was Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
What a moronic and ignorant statement. No one is saying that Apple should themselves market or advertise for the benefit of the competition.
The point is that Apple is abusing its position as the owner and controller of the App-store to favour its subsidiary service Apple Music, while preventing competitors of Apple Music like Spotify from advertising for their own services. And this is just a derivative of a chain of abuses.
Abuse App-store ownership to favour Apple Music over Spotify.
Fine...just don't use the App-store. Oh wait, Apple also abuses iOS ownership to lock in consumers on the App Store. No sideloading, no other app repos on iOS, remember?
Fine Ijust don't use iOS. Aha...Apple abuses hardware manufacturer status to lock in people to iOS. No other OS allowed. Remember ?
This has nothing to do with "American" companies. This is about how ANY company should be behaving in the European market. And this is a damn good slap for Apple. They haven't just been naughty. They are blatantly and willingly evil and what they are doing is plain market manipulation and lockdown which is the opposite of free market.
Re: (Score:1)
What a moronic and ignorant statement. No one is saying that Apple should themselves market or advertise for the benefit of the competition.
Careful, because I think you just did.
The point is that Apple is abusing its position as the owner and controller of the App-store to favour its subsidiary service Apple Music, while preventing competitors of Apple Music like Spotify from advertising for their own services.
In other words, you ARE saying that not only is Apple obligated to allow the competition to directly live and compete within it’s own App Store, AND you are saying that they are in fact responsible for directly supporting Spotify’s advertising.
Sure, they may in fact be guilty of other anti-competitive practices but that doesn’t really sound like one of them. Spotify is more than welcome to exclusively make themselves available in every App Store excep
Re: (Score:2)
House Rules. (Score:2)
Remember going to that one kids house who had the really strict parents when you were a kid? Take your shoes off. No eating or drinking on the good rug. Turn off the light when you’re done. Yes Sir, No Ma’am.
Now let me summarize Apples stance; Their house, their rules. Don’t like it? Leave and go build your own damn house.
No one has strict parents anymore. It’s why both respect and house rules, are dying.
Re: (Score:3)
No one thinks about the value of a free market anymore. It's walled gardens everywhere and people complain only when it's too late...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: House Rules. (Score:2)
"Remember going to that one kids house who had the really strict parents when you were a kid?"
They owned the house. A more apt and less boot-licking comparison would be if the builder of a house could dictate who was allowed inside of it to the buyer.
Re:If I was Apple (Score:4, Informative)
The point is that Apple is abusing its position as the owner and controller of the App-store to favour its subsidiary service Apple Music, while preventing competitors of Apple Music like Spotify from advertising for their own services.
In other words, you ARE saying that not only is Apple obligated to allow the competition to directly live and compete within it’s own App Store, AND you are saying that they are in fact responsible for directly supporting Spotify’s advertising.
Yes. The moment Apple allowed third parties to make apps available on their platform, it became subject to laws intended to prevent companies from unreasonably leveraging their market power in one area to gain substantial control over a different market. By choosing to compete against those third-party apps, they put themselves in a position to be subject to antitrust scrutiny to ensure that they are competing fairly.
The thing is, Apple can use the payment system of their choice for Apple Music, but because of Apple's rules, Spotify cannot easily use the payment system of their choice for Spotify. And Apple charges a ludicrous commission on third-party payments, but does not take similar money out of payments made for their competing service (or if they do, the money is still going back to the same company, making it little more than balance sheet sleight of hand).
If Apple wants to publicly promise that 28% of every Apple Music subscription will be donated to charitable organizations for music and art education or performance so that they're they're competing on a level playing field, that might be fine (though it would have to be carefully scrutinized to make sure they aren't reducing their usual charitable giving in the process), but as long as they aren't competing on a level playing field — as long as Apple is basically just paying 2% to the credit card companies for the transaction while Spotify is paying 2% to the credit card company and 28% to Apple — Apple is abusing its market power to severely distort the market in the area of online music streaming. It really isn't even a grey area at that point.
The advertising thing is a red herring. How many people do you think first learn about Spotify by choosing a music category in the iOS App Store and clicking Spotify? Zero? Nearly zero? As an iOS user since 2007, I can count the number of times I've browsed an App Store category on one hand. This isn't about advertising. This is about Apple deliberately creating a non-level playing field, giving Spotify only two choices:
I hope you can see why either option is problematic.
Re: (Score:2)
The side that was ruled as anti competitive is more problematic after the decision.
No idea what you're saying here. The two options were the choices Apple gave Spotify before the decision. After the decision, Apple is being forced to allow Spotify to link to their website from the app so that users can buy subscriptions without going through Apple, which completely fixes the unfair competition problem.
Creating problems, with problems. (Score:2)
The side that was ruled as anti competitive is more problematic after the decision.
Apple is being forced to allow Spotify to link to their website from the app so that users can buy subscriptions without going through Apple, which completely fixes the unfair competition problem.
Because providing consumers with a link in order to process a financial payment, has never been found to be used as a weapon against said brain-dead consumers?
Gotta love how we praise this “completely fixed” problem, as if we didn’t just open the door to another one.
Re: (Score:2)
The side that was ruled as anti competitive is more problematic after the decision.
Apple is being forced to allow Spotify to link to their website from the app so that users can buy subscriptions without going through Apple, which completely fixes the unfair competition problem.
Because providing consumers with a link in order to process a financial payment, has never been found to be used as a weapon against said brain-dead consumers?
You're right. An app having a link to an outside payment system has never been used as a weapon against iOS app users. :-D
But seriously, losing a credit card number is no big deal. If somebody scams you, you just report the card stolen, tell your credit card company that you didn't make those unexpected transactions (they probably already flagged them anyway), and the problem goes away.
Gotta love how we praise this “completely fixed” problem, as if we didn’t just open the door to another one.
You mean an ever-so-slightly-higher percentage of the credit card company's fees going to paying fraudulent charges? Yea
Re: (Score:2)
Apple pulling out, would also send a message
Yes. It would send a message to their stockholders and board of directors that it's time for Cook to go. He would be very quickly replaced (forgoing $90bn revenue because of a $2bn fine for breaking the law would be fucking retarded - technical term - and would be a good sign that your CEO had a stroke and is no longer a functioning person).
In the meantime the EU doesn't care. Laws are laws. Companies *are* beholden to them. That's the fucking point.
One could also argue that Apple has no responsibly or obligation to market and advertise for the benefit of the competition, which sounds like the jist of the complaints here.
No. Not at all. Not even in the slightest. Did you even re
Re: (Score:2)
Apple pulling out, would also send a message; that American companies are not beholden to every politician and leader’s whim, in every country. Not like they don’t have the cash reserves to play chicken for a while, see who really wants to “win” that fight.
Apple has a dedicated (censored) App Store for China. The time to play chicken has long since passed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you're not Apple.
Indeed. The folks at Apple may be assholes, but they understand business.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple probably couldn't just pull out anyway.
Apple has a lot of subsidiaries and assets in the EU, not to mention its parent company which is based in Ireland and The Netherlands for tax purposes.
If they did try to pull out, they would still have a responsibility to all their EU customers, for the reasonable lifetime of their devices. That means on-going software support and updates, servicing, accessory and spare part availability. It would take them a decade to remove themselves, or they would face legal
Re: (Score:2)
I would just pull out of this market.
Yes, that's because you're fucking stupid. Apple made $90bn in revenue in the EU alone last year. If you pull out because of a $2bn fine, expect your board of directors to summarily fire you and your shareholders to sue you to lose your golden parachute due to your incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
If increased fines do not affect stock price... (Score:2)
apple may be past the point of less rules & ne (Score:2)
apple may be past the point of less rules & needs to do full side loading with NO FESS AND NO REVIEWS of app install files.
2B$ is that a day? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EU laws allow fines to increase for repeat infringement. $2bn may not seem like much but unlike the USA companies actually take notice of these fines.
Needs to be larger (Score:5, Informative)
Apple preventing Spotify from advertising their lower prices is just part of the way Apple attempts to push you over to Apple Music. I seem to recall a recent story about how Apple essentially forces you to buy iCloud storage space [slashdot.org]. Well, they also bundle that with Apple Music. Oh, you're out of space on iCloud? (You will be, since Apple has never increased the available space since launch, just added new and more expensive tiers.) Well, for a small monthly fee, you can get enough space to back up your phone and Apple Music.
Oh, you don't want to pay for iCloud? Well, I'll just constantly remind you that you're out of iCloud storage space until you relent just to shut up the messages.
That in addition to things always launching in Apple Music without any way to change it. Connect your iPhone to a Bluetooth speaker and Apple Music will launch. Press the "play" button on said speaker (or Bluetooth keyboard or the like) and Apple Music will launch. Connect to a car, and Apple Music will launch. Doesn't matter if you're doing something else at the time, even if it's using Apple's own Podcast app, iOS will always launch Apple Music and interrupt it.
Apple is an illegal monopoly and should be treated as such. They're also a trillion dollar company. A $2 billion fine is nothing. It needs to be much, much higher.
Re:Needs to be larger (Score:4, Interesting)
That fine can be repeated if the non-compliance continues. Eventually, Apple can be prohibited from selling its products in the EU. If they violate that, international arrest warrants come into play.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have some mental problems. Seek help.
Re: Needs to be larger (Score:2)
I always assume these types of replies must be Russian bots as surely no one is that deranged.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. On the other hand, I have experienced people that deranged on Usenet, and I am pretty sure there were no Russian (or other) bots back when. Some people are just, yes, that deranged.
That said, Russia has ample motive and a lot of opportunity to specifically compromise the US. Getting "their" president (a known deranged nil wit criminal) elected in the US, for example, will do tons of damage. Hence they are pushing for it, and all the useful idiots are eating it up. I also sometimes wonder whether t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Connect to a car, and Apple Music will launch. Doesn't matter if you're doing something else at the time, even if it's using Apple's own Podcast app, iOS will always launch Apple Music and interrupt it.
My iPhone does not do this. I get in the car and the podcast app picks up exactly where it left off.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah a voluntary tax. That what fines are, they are companies giving a 100% voluntary gift to a government for not following some fairly simple to follow rules.
It's not consumer friendly either way (Score:2)
They're literally doing the 'for the children' argument.
"We can't advertise our promotions to the users!, it's unfair apple behavior, we need their marketing and be able to advertise to them more, uh..for the consumers!"
No, you both suck. Apple isn't playing fair, but what you want certainly isn't for the consumers, either.
their house, their rules (Score:2)
The FT take on this (Score:2)