3 ms·

In your own example, you have the option to buy Spotify through other, readily-available distribution channels. That’s evidence against a claim that Apple is ab

In your own example, you have the option to buy Spotify through other, readily-available distribution channels. That’s evidence against a claim that Apple is abusing its position in an anticompetitive manner. The test for monopoly isn’t what’s best for consumers; it’s whether a dominant player is abusing its position to restrain competition.

slantyyz 8y ago
I think what you're saying is true for probably 99% of apps on the App Store. In Spotify's particular case, however, Apple owns the marketplace (App Store) as well as a giant competitor in iTunes/Apple Music (and if I'm not mistaken - I'm not an iOS user- Apple Music is pre-installed on every iOS device).
- danaris 8y ago
  The music app is preinstalled. It happens to be the method you use to access the Apple Music service (and yes, Apple has been pushing that service increasingly, to my mild personal irritation). However, it's also the method you use to access music you own that is on the iPhone, whether you've synced it from your computer or purchased it through the iTunes Store. Now, maybe I'm just a dinosaur for wanting mainly to listen to music I own rather than streaming services all the time, but I don't think you can just claim that use case doesn't exist or matter.
  - slantyyz 8y ago
    I'm not saying that use case doesn't matter, but one could make the argument that the deep integration between Apple Music/iTunes into the Music app combined with a 30% premium on competitors selling music subscriptions in an app could be a non-level playing field. Having said all of that, I think that because iOS is Apple's platform, and they should basically be able to do whatever they want with it.
- nihonde 8y ago
  A key element in proving anticompetitive claims is defining the market. Even If the market is defined narrowly as “music on ios”, alternatives to Apple Music exist. But that’s not taking into account the option to buy a non-iOS device. If you expand the market to include other os’s, Apple isn’t even dominant. Back when MS got dinged for bundling Explorer, they were dominant in the broadly-drawn PC os market, across all devices and os’s.

slantyyz 8y ago

I think what you're saying is true for probably 99% of apps on the App Store. In Spotify's particular case, however, Apple owns the marketplace (App Store) as well as a giant competitor in iTunes/Apple Music (and if I'm not mistaken - I'm not an iOS user- Apple Music is pre-installed on every iOS device).

danaris 8y ago
The music app is preinstalled. It happens to be the method you use to access the Apple Music service (and yes, Apple has been pushing that service increasingly, to my mild personal irritation). However, it's also the method you use to access music you own that is on the iPhone, whether you've synced it from your computer or purchased it through the iTunes Store. Now, maybe I'm just a dinosaur for wanting mainly to listen to music I own rather than streaming services all the time, but I don't think you can just claim that use case doesn't exist or matter.
- slantyyz 8y ago
  I'm not saying that use case doesn't matter, but one could make the argument that the deep integration between Apple Music/iTunes into the Music app combined with a 30% premium on competitors selling music subscriptions in an app could be a non-level playing field. Having said all of that, I think that because iOS is Apple's platform, and they should basically be able to do whatever they want with it.
nihonde 8y ago
A key element in proving anticompetitive claims is defining the market. Even If the market is defined narrowly as “music on ios”, alternatives to Apple Music exist. But that’s not taking into account the option to buy a non-iOS device. If you expand the market to include other os’s, Apple isn’t even dominant. Back when MS got dinged for bundling Explorer, they were dominant in the broadly-drawn PC os market, across all devices and os’s.