7 ms·

" There's no public right to have a music app be charged a certain amount that's called "fair". Spotify could charge nothing to consumers, and be charged nothin

" There's no public right to have a music app be charged a certain amount that's called "fair". Spotify could charge nothing to consumers, and be charged nothing by Apple. It's their choice. It's Apple's choice." Competition laws place limitations on what a business can do. They're not free to sell or price entirely as they please. In this case Spotify are arguing that Apple is using its dominance of the smartphone market to give an unfair advantage to its own music store. Whether or not this is true is up to the courts to decide, but it's not a frivilous case; there's a real risk to Apple that they lose.

supernova87a 8y ago
Well, that is a separate and good point, and very much a political one. And you can never tell with the EU. As I said in a comment far below here, it's a funny thing, how to define anticompetitive and monopoly practices, depending on how you frame the scope of the market. See Peter Thiel's book for a chapter on this. You could say that Apple has a monopoly over developers building apps and providing their services to people using iPhones. Someone else looking at it could say that Spotify has a multitude of ways to provide its content to customers -- web, it's own Windows + Mac desktop apps, Android, etc. Which way is a regulator supposed to look at it? The point about Apple Music is also interesting. Actually Apple Music (the streaming version) I believe came after Spotify. Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. Apple Music was actually the newer entrant in that case.
- oarsinsync 8y ago
  > Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. Apple Music was actually the newer entrant in that case. A bit of apples to oranges comparison, but Internet Explorer was also the newer entrant in a previous case.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  I am very hard-pressed to believe iOS has a monopoly by most arguments. Market share argument: Android has 71% market share in the EU, as of February 2019 - compared to iOS's 21%. [1] Ease of customer switching argument: If Apple pressed too much in a way that harmed consumers, there are many other cheaper alternative Android phones vs. iOS to which they can easily port their number over (say what you want about ISPs and Telecoms, I find this to be pretty easy in the US - unless you signed an unreasonably stifling contract. Admittedly I'm unsure how difficult this would be in most of the EU.) Supply-Side Price elasticity argument: In theory, if the 30% cut was too high, developers wouldn't want to develop on the iOS platform, and would instead focus resources on developing on Android; the specific cut would be at an equilibrium point that enough developers would find profitable, and would still provide choice in the app marketplace for customers. [1] http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe
  - jeremydeanlakey 8y ago
    Your argument relies on combining the markets for iOS and Android apps into a single market. These are separate markets because you can't put an Android app on iPhone or an iOS app on Android. If iOS had 100% share, you probably wouldn't say it doesn't have a monopoly on apps because you can just use desktop apps instead. I also wouldn't say Comcast doesn't have a monopoly because they only have xx% share and you can move to a different state or country and get another provider. Or use your phone for internet instead. > Ease of customer switching argument This is confusing the consumer market for smartphones and the markets for distribution of smartphone app. > Supply-Side Price elasticity argument Yeah, if any monopoly's cut is too high, you can exit the market. This is not an argument that the monopoly is not a monopoly. This only means there is a limit to the monopoly's power.
    - nihonde 8y ago
      Defining markets is what competition law is all about. There will be enormous resources thrown at both sides of this argument. I think odds are in favor of Apple. They’ll will win on the basis that the market is mobile devices generally.
- dzhiurgis 8y ago
  Does Apple Music has to go thru app review process, is forbiden from private api use and overall started with 30% handicap?
- weavejester 8y ago
  "Actually Apple Music (the streaming version) I believe came after Spotify. Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. What? No, they're not just about protecting new entrants, and if you think about it for five seconds it should be obvious why. Microsoft lost it's 1998 antitrust case, despite Internet Explorer being released after Netscape.
ppeetteerr 8y ago
I keep hearing this but it doesn't make it true: Apple does not have dominance in the smartphone market. It barely reaches 20% of the smartphone market in the EU.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  It's not about how much dominance it has. It treats its own music platform differently (not subject to Apple Store fees) than any other music platform. Like Microsoft bundling/treating IE differently to any other browser on its platform.
  - detaro 8y ago
    Lots of regulations in that area are tied to market influence. The Microsoft case was about Microsoft pushing IE through their dominance in PC sales.
    - Benjammer 8y ago
      It feels like 99% of people are skipping over this necessary condition of Apple being a "dominant undertaking," as defined by EU law, which seems very tenuous at best, no matter how you try to frame the relevant market.
- lwansbrough 8y ago
  Not sure why you’d use the EU as the market indicator. They dominate North America, which is where the biggest market is. In the EU, they are the second largest behind Samsung but it’s close and they change spots from time to time.
  - detaro 8y ago
    Because Spotify has filed a complaint with the EU about Apple's behavior, which is why we're talking about all this right now.
- Benjammer 8y ago
sbuk 8y ago
> "In this case Spotify are arguing that Apple is using its dominance of the smartphone market to give an unfair advantage to its own music store." You forgot to add context; by charging 30% on IAPs. The fact is Spotify don't need to use IAPs for subscriptions. Apple even mentioned this in TFA.
- teddyfrozevelt 8y ago
  But Spotify can’t even tell users how to upgrade to premium according to Apple’s rules. The best they can say is “You can’t upgrade to Premium in the app. We know, it’s not ideal.”
  - sbuk 8y ago
    If that is their argument, then it's pretty weak IMO.
    - teddyfrozevelt 8y ago
      They’ve listed all their arguments on their site www.timetoplayfair.com, although I wish some where more technically in-depth.
      - Benjammer 8y ago
        >I wish some where more technically in-depth Or even just any legal depth. It's all just PR fluff speak.
      - sbuk 8y ago
        www.timetoplayfair.com?! I have no sympathy for Spotify WRT "playing fair". Match Apple, or even better Google when it comes to paying artists, then we'll talk. They even discuss, as market leader, offering predatory pricing! The rest, as evidenced by Apple's response is seemingly misrepresenting the facts. To be fair, Spotify's marketing team have taken this straight out of the Steven P. Jobs play book; pick a fight. Personally, I use Amazon Music because I get it as part of Amazon Prime. It has most of the music I want to listen to, but not all. I was considering Spotify, but with nonsense like this, this is one potential customer that they have lost.
zaptheimpaler 8y ago
Apple isn't doing anything to Spotify that they don't do to all apps - both the app store rejections and the fees. It seems wrong to call that anti-competitive in favor of Apple Music.
- burke 8y ago
  But it isn't necessarily wrong to call that anti-competitive in favour of Apple in general.
- pritambaral 8y ago
  But they are doing something to Spotify (and all other music streaming apps) that they don't do to their own app.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    Ethically I think you might have a point but having a different set of rules for 1st and 3rd party applications isn't a super new idea.

supernova87a 8y ago

Well, that is a separate and good point, and very much a political one. And you can never tell with the EU. As I said in a comment far below here, it's a funny thing, how to define anticompetitive and monopoly practices, depending on how you frame the scope of the market. See Peter Thiel's book for a chapter on this. You could say that Apple has a monopoly over developers building apps and providing their services to people using iPhones. Someone else looking at it could say that Spotify has a multitude of ways to provide its content to customers -- web, it's own Windows + Mac desktop apps, Android, etc. Which way is a regulator supposed to look at it? The point about Apple Music is also interesting. Actually Apple Music (the streaming version) I believe came after Spotify. Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. Apple Music was actually the newer entrant in that case.

oarsinsync 8y ago
> Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. Apple Music was actually the newer entrant in that case. A bit of apples to oranges comparison, but Internet Explorer was also the newer entrant in a previous case.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
s3r3nity 8y ago
I am very hard-pressed to believe iOS has a monopoly by most arguments. Market share argument: Android has 71% market share in the EU, as of February 2019 - compared to iOS's 21%. [1] Ease of customer switching argument: If Apple pressed too much in a way that harmed consumers, there are many other cheaper alternative Android phones vs. iOS to which they can easily port their number over (say what you want about ISPs and Telecoms, I find this to be pretty easy in the US - unless you signed an unreasonably stifling contract. Admittedly I'm unsure how difficult this would be in most of the EU.) Supply-Side Price elasticity argument: In theory, if the 30% cut was too high, developers wouldn't want to develop on the iOS platform, and would instead focus resources on developing on Android; the specific cut would be at an equilibrium point that enough developers would find profitable, and would still provide choice in the app marketplace for customers. [1] http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe
- jeremydeanlakey 8y ago
  Your argument relies on combining the markets for iOS and Android apps into a single market. These are separate markets because you can't put an Android app on iPhone or an iOS app on Android. If iOS had 100% share, you probably wouldn't say it doesn't have a monopoly on apps because you can just use desktop apps instead. I also wouldn't say Comcast doesn't have a monopoly because they only have xx% share and you can move to a different state or country and get another provider. Or use your phone for internet instead. > Ease of customer switching argument This is confusing the consumer market for smartphones and the markets for distribution of smartphone app. > Supply-Side Price elasticity argument Yeah, if any monopoly's cut is too high, you can exit the market. This is not an argument that the monopoly is not a monopoly. This only means there is a limit to the monopoly's power.
  - nihonde 8y ago
    Defining markets is what competition law is all about. There will be enormous resources thrown at both sides of this argument. I think odds are in favor of Apple. They’ll will win on the basis that the market is mobile devices generally.
dzhiurgis 8y ago
Does Apple Music has to go thru app review process, is forbiden from private api use and overall started with 30% handicap?
weavejester 8y ago
"Actually Apple Music (the streaming version) I believe came after Spotify. Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. What? No, they're not just about protecting new entrants, and if you think about it for five seconds it should be obvious why. Microsoft lost it's 1998 antitrust case, despite Internet Explorer being released after Netscape.

ppeetteerr 8y ago

I keep hearing this but it doesn't make it true: Apple does not have dominance in the smartphone market. It barely reaches 20% of the smartphone market in the EU.

FireBeyond 8y ago
It's not about how much dominance it has. It treats its own music platform differently (not subject to Apple Store fees) than any other music platform. Like Microsoft bundling/treating IE differently to any other browser on its platform.
- detaro 8y ago
  Lots of regulations in that area are tied to market influence. The Microsoft case was about Microsoft pushing IE through their dominance in PC sales.
  - Benjammer 8y ago
    It feels like 99% of people are skipping over this necessary condition of Apple being a "dominant undertaking," as defined by EU law, which seems very tenuous at best, no matter how you try to frame the relevant market.
lwansbrough 8y ago
Not sure why you’d use the EU as the market indicator. They dominate North America, which is where the biggest market is. In the EU, they are the second largest behind Samsung but it’s close and they change spots from time to time.
- detaro 8y ago
  Because Spotify has filed a complaint with the EU about Apple's behavior, which is why we're talking about all this right now.
Benjammer 8y ago

sbuk 8y ago

> "In this case Spotify are arguing that Apple is using its dominance of the smartphone market to give an unfair advantage to its own music store." You forgot to add context; by charging 30% on IAPs. The fact is Spotify don't need to use IAPs for subscriptions. Apple even mentioned this in TFA.

teddyfrozevelt 8y ago
But Spotify can’t even tell users how to upgrade to premium according to Apple’s rules. The best they can say is “You can’t upgrade to Premium in the app. We know, it’s not ideal.”
- sbuk 8y ago
  If that is their argument, then it's pretty weak IMO.
  - teddyfrozevelt 8y ago
    They’ve listed all their arguments on their site www.timetoplayfair.com, although I wish some where more technically in-depth.
    - Benjammer 8y ago
      >I wish some where more technically in-depth Or even just any legal depth. It's all just PR fluff speak.
    - sbuk 8y ago
      www.timetoplayfair.com?! I have no sympathy for Spotify WRT "playing fair". Match Apple, or even better Google when it comes to paying artists, then we'll talk. They even discuss, as market leader, offering predatory pricing! The rest, as evidenced by Apple's response is seemingly misrepresenting the facts. To be fair, Spotify's marketing team have taken this straight out of the Steven P. Jobs play book; pick a fight. Personally, I use Amazon Music because I get it as part of Amazon Prime. It has most of the music I want to listen to, but not all. I was considering Spotify, but with nonsense like this, this is one potential customer that they have lost.

zaptheimpaler 8y ago

Apple isn't doing anything to Spotify that they don't do to all apps - both the app store rejections and the fees. It seems wrong to call that anti-competitive in favor of Apple Music.

burke 8y ago
But it isn't necessarily wrong to call that anti-competitive in favour of Apple in general.
pritambaral 8y ago
But they are doing something to Spotify (and all other music streaming apps) that they don't do to their own app.
- Spivak 8y ago
  Ethically I think you might have a point but having a different set of rules for 1st and 3rd party applications isn't a super new idea.