3 ms·

Spotify’s EU antitrust complaint could be a serious threat to Apple

17 points by fauigerzigerk 8y ago

freedomben 8y ago
I'm skeptical that fruitful discussion will ensue here, given that previous threads about this topic have mostly devolved into whether Apple has a monopoly or not. I won't go there. Instead of debating that, as an American who has seen the US deal with monopolistic stuff (Microsoft) but never watched the EU do similar, how does the EU typically look at things like this? Are there any precedents of similar cases where the EU has either explicitly not taken action, or has intervened? The article mentions that the EU is likely more receptive to the complaint than US courts would be, but (unless I missed it) doesn't really back that up with precedent (perhaps because there isn't any yet?)
- lm28469 8y ago
  There is a list + details on that website: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/business/dealbook/eu-antitrust-tech-stocks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/business/dealbook/eu-anti...
- fauigerzigerk 8y ago
  The competition commission pursues a lot of cases but most of them are not discussed in the media that much: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/statistics.html http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/statistics.html There are some recent cases that are getting public attention because they are directed against large US conglomerates. For instance: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Google on Android operating system and applications: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm European Union vs. Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google Microsoft Corp. v. Commission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission Commission fines Mastercard €570 million for obstructing merchants' access to cross-border card payment services: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-582_en.pdf http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-582_en.pdf
writepub 8y ago
Apple's predatory behavior is a serious threat to competition! Hence the complaint! > Apple only controls 20 to 25 percent of the European smartphone market But controls 70% of revenues and profits generated from apps. People LOVE talking at cross and mis-characterizing Apple's monopoly status. The market in question is NOT smartphone sales, but apps! For instance, in-car accessories, though requiring compliance from the car manufacturer, cannot be blocked by the manufacturer. I should be allowed to use Bose speakers in my car without seeking Toyota's blessing, given how I OWN the car after paying full price. What apps I run on my iPhone is not something I want Apple to control. And I certainly do not want Apple artificially inflating the cost of my favorite apps with anti-competitive behavior!! BTW, Apple is also in litigation in the US [1] on related matters. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-apple-vs-pepper-antitrust-lawsuit-standing-explainer https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-ap...
- freedomben 8y ago
  > What kind of hit-piece is this? Who did you interpret was getting hit by this "hit-piece"? It seemed to mostly just summarize Spotify's argument, which leads me to think you are defending Apple saying it's a hit-piece against them, but the rest of your comment would be a total non-sequitur then.
  - writepub 8y ago
    Agreed - On initial reading, I felt the article was trying to make excuses for Apple's claims, but I realize it was merely summarizing US vs EU rules. Edited it
acd 8y ago
The core here is that the app stores of phone vendors devices bypasses competition laws by being a form of monopoly where the device vendor dictates the terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law "Abuse of dominance" "(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;" https://www.timetoplayfair.com/facts/ https://www.timetoplayfair.com/facts/ " Does Uber pay it? No. Deliveroo? No. Does Apple Music pay it? No." "(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;" 30% commission to Apple is a form of price fixing. A lawyer could argue that is anti competitive. "Price discrimination[55] Arbitrarily charging some market participants higher prices that are unconnected to the actual costs of supplying the goods or services." "(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;" It sounded by Spotify that for example Uber had been given a different deal. "Second, Article 102 of the Treaty prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the prejudice of consumers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890 "price discrimination between different purchasers, if such discrimination tends to create a monopoly" "A Section 2 monopolization violation has two elements:[16] (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident." One could argue that the app store is a form of monopoly where Apple dictates who gets to sell and who dont and at what commission level.

17 points by fauigerzigerk 8y ago

I'm skeptical that fruitful discussion will ensue here, given that previous threads about this topic have mostly devolved into whether Apple has a monopoly or not. I won't go there. Instead of debating that, as an American who has seen the US deal with monopolistic stuff (Microsoft) but never watched the EU do similar, how does the EU typically look at things like this? Are there any precedents of similar cases where the EU has either explicitly not taken action, or has intervened? The article mentions that the EU is likely more receptive to the complaint than US courts would be, but (unless I missed it) doesn't really back that up with precedent (perhaps because there isn't any yet?)

lm28469 8y ago
There is a list + details on that website: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/business/dealbook/eu-antitrust-tech-stocks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/business/dealbook/eu-anti...
fauigerzigerk 8y ago
The competition commission pursues a lot of cases but most of them are not discussed in the media that much: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/statistics.html http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/statistics.html There are some recent cases that are getting public attention because they are directed against large US conglomerates. For instance: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Google on Android operating system and applications: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm European Union vs. Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google Microsoft Corp. v. Commission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission Commission fines Mastercard €570 million for obstructing merchants' access to cross-border card payment services: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-582_en.pdf http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-582_en.pdf

writepub 8y ago

Apple's predatory behavior is a serious threat to competition! Hence the complaint! > Apple only controls 20 to 25 percent of the European smartphone market But controls 70% of revenues and profits generated from apps. People LOVE talking at cross and mis-characterizing Apple's monopoly status. The market in question is NOT smartphone sales, but apps! For instance, in-car accessories, though requiring compliance from the car manufacturer, cannot be blocked by the manufacturer. I should be allowed to use Bose speakers in my car without seeking Toyota's blessing, given how I OWN the car after paying full price. What apps I run on my iPhone is not something I want Apple to control. And I certainly do not want Apple artificially inflating the cost of my favorite apps with anti-competitive behavior!! BTW, Apple is also in litigation in the US [1] on related matters. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-apple-vs-pepper-antitrust-lawsuit-standing-explainer https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-ap...

freedomben 8y ago
> What kind of hit-piece is this? Who did you interpret was getting hit by this "hit-piece"? It seemed to mostly just summarize Spotify's argument, which leads me to think you are defending Apple saying it's a hit-piece against them, but the rest of your comment would be a total non-sequitur then.
- writepub 8y ago
  Agreed - On initial reading, I felt the article was trying to make excuses for Apple's claims, but I realize it was merely summarizing US vs EU rules. Edited it

acd 8y ago

The core here is that the app stores of phone vendors devices bypasses competition laws by being a form of monopoly where the device vendor dictates the terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law "Abuse of dominance" "(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;" https://www.timetoplayfair.com/facts/ https://www.timetoplayfair.com/facts/ " Does Uber pay it? No. Deliveroo? No. Does Apple Music pay it? No." "(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;" 30% commission to Apple is a form of price fixing. A lawyer could argue that is anti competitive. "Price discrimination[55] Arbitrarily charging some market participants higher prices that are unconnected to the actual costs of supplying the goods or services." "(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;" It sounded by Spotify that for example Uber had been given a different deal. "Second, Article 102 of the Treaty prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the prejudice of consumers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890 "price discrimination between different purchasers, if such discrimination tends to create a monopoly" "A Section 2 monopolization violation has two elements:[16] (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident." One could argue that the app store is a form of monopoly where Apple dictates who gets to sell and who dont and at what commission level.