12 ms·

Should add, the ruling is not really about the validity of the 30% fee. What EU seems to argue is this: 1. Apple is in phone business, Spotify music. So far

by zibzab 6y ago

Should add, the ruling is not really about the validity of the 30% fee. What EU seems to argue is this: 1. Apple is in phone business, Spotify music. So far so good... 2. Then apple wants to get into the music business too. Now they have an unfair advantage since Spotify must pay 30% to apple while apple music "pays" 0%. So apple use their dominance in one area (phones) to get an advantage in a totally different area (music), which is a textbook violation.

dustinmoris 6y ago
I agree with this principle but in this specific case it’s not true because Apple started their music business long before the iPhone and Spotify existed. In fact they started with the iPod and their music business with the iPod is what lead them to invent the iPhone and the AppStore. It’s rich from other music businesses like Spotify to want to benefit from all of the R&D and innovation cost from Apple and the market they created whilst dismissing that in fact they entered the music market with the goal to eat shares from Apple and not the other way around.
- teknopaul 6y ago
  starting first does not mean you are not abusing your monopoly. Another way of looking at this is that a 30% margin is preventing a lot of businesses from happening until Apple do it. The 30% is less of a concern that the fact that they can shut you down on a whim.
  - dustinmoris 6y ago
    It’s hardly abuse if Apple was the first to invent an iPod and iTunes and the online music business and then evolved their own products around their own offerings. They decided to let others into their own platform to enrich it, not to crush them. Spotify entered knowing that Apple already had a competing product. Why did they enter and start competing if they thought it was an unfair competition from the start? I find it hard to believe given the history of events. If it was in any way different then perhaps I could understand but to me it feels that Spotify just decided that now is the time to look for avenues to increase their profits and see the AppStore as the first opportunity to attack after never having had a problem before. Only a fool would start a business in a platform which tries to crush them so clearly that was never the case. EDIT (cannot reply): So if Apple would basically not have an AppStore for third parties and only distribute their own apps then it would be fair. If Apple was to not allow other Music apps on their AppStore then it would be fair. But when Apple allows others to distribute a competing product to Apple on Apple’s own platform for a fee then it is considered unfair? I honestly don’t understand this logic.
    - simion314 6y ago
      It is not about who is first, is about fair competition, If Apple is the best then they should not be afraid to compete fair, let other web browsers exist, let alternative stores exist, let free apps show a Patreon link, let apps show the user the information that they have the choice to buy outside the store (defend this please, this information can harm the user somehow or it harms the pockets of some rich guy)
      - f6v 6y ago
        I don’t think EU cares about fair competition, rather being petty about not having their own FAANG.
        simion314 6y ago
        But you could be wrong right? Maybe we should analyze if there is actual any merit for the complaints on Apple or about the tracking on the web instead of inventing some conspiracy. I would show you the example with Microsoft or Intel, this companies were found guilty and all the US nerds did not complain that EU is anti-american.(they were found guilty in US too)
        yunohn 6y ago
        You know what? The funny thing is that all of FAANG has their international HQs in the EU (Dublin, Ireland) for tax evasion purposes. I’d argue they are more reliant on the EU then.
        jquery 6y ago
        Nobody thinks of FAANG as EU creations. Even if Nintendo is headquartered in the USA, it’s still considered Japanese. IKEA is Swedish and so on. Where the companies were founded seems to play the largest role in their national identities.
        yunohn 6y ago
        I was making a comment more about how the socialist EU can offer better corporate taxes than the more "capitalist" country (USA).
  - bennysomething 6y ago
    30 percent fee is not a 30 percent margin. You are factoring in any costs of running and developing the service.
    - weego 6y ago
      That argument leads to the logical conclusion that Apple needs to be broken up so their music subsidiary have to pay their app store subsidiary the same 30% as Spotify do. Still not a logical defense.
      - bennysomething 6y ago
        How is that a logical conclusion? It's just one conclusion.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Apple doesn’t get a cut of their advertising revenue, and according to Apple was only paid 15% on subscriptions. With credit card processing fees and other associated costs it’s far from 100% profit.
- iso1631 6y ago
  Of course Apple's music business was a whole separate legal minefield for decades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    They bought out the name rights 8 years after iTunes launched. That payment was $500 million, but they were printing money from iPod+iTunes at that point (revenues of $9.5 billion in 2006, $10.5 billion in 2007). I'd call it an ongoing headache more than a minefield.
- danielscrubs 6y ago
  When they started have no bearing. It’s using their power in one market to strongarm others in another. It’s not about what is fair, it’s about making sure the market is healthy.
slver 6y ago
So then if Apple Music internally pays 30% to App Store, we're all good by this definition.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  In theory and superficially that makes sense, but they are the same company so it wouldn't make a difference in the end. It's not like Spotify can pay itself that 30%.
  - villasv 6y ago
    > it wouldn't make a difference in the end Yes it would.
- konschubert 6y ago
  I am sure they are doing that already. And I don't think that's the law works.
  - slver 6y ago
    It's often how law works. For example companies often create subsidiaries in order to limit liability of the parent company.
    - konschubert 6y ago
      You have a point.
- falcor84 6y ago
  I think the problem is with 'internally'. As I understand it, the antitrust regulations could force Apple to spin Apple Music out.
  - slver 6y ago
    Let's take a step and ponder wouldn't you find it bizarre to have this sequence of events: 1. Apple creates iPod, and iTunes serves as its music store. 2. Apple creates iPhone, which has an iPod app. 3. Apple introduces App Store so other apps can be used on the iPhone. 4. iPod (Apple Music) competitors emerge. 5. EU says "that's it, Apple can't have iPod anymore on the phone unless iPod (Apple Music) becomes a separate company". No one (successfully) sued Apple for anti-competitive practices on iPod. Ergo if the iPhone never had an App Store, they'd be allowed to have 100% of the revenue of iTunes, and ban competitors out completely. By opening the iPhone platform to third parties, EU sees them as another type of entity completely. In effect the EU penalizes the creation of market places, because once you're market place, you lose control over your own products to the government.
breakfastduck 6y ago
Apple have been in the music business much longer than Spotify.
- pityJuke 6y ago
  I guess he meant music streaming?
- frereubu 6y ago
  I'm not sure that's relevant is it?
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Yes, considering apple have been in the music business longer than App Stores have even existed.
    - manicdee 6y ago
      Is Apple charging 30% on all Spotify transactions through their phone/tablet App Store giving them an economic advantage for their own Music store? It’s irrelevant for the example whether Apple was already in that space.
    - frereubu 6y ago
      I don't think that can be right. On the surface you're suggesting that if a company worked in a particular area before another company then the first company is entitled to use anti-competitive practices, which clearly isn't true.
      - whomst 6y ago
        I think the main point the (grand?) parent is saying is that "Apple is in the phone business" isn't a reasonable description of Apple. I agree that Apple hosting itself on its own platform is an abuse of market position (especially for something as peripheral as music), but to claim that music/audio isn't a/hasn't been core part of Apple's business model is ridiculous.
randomluck040 6y ago
Isn’t leveraging the market share with the iPhone/iPad for a lot of other things (Arcade, AirTag, ApplePencil, …) in the same category?
- pornel 6y ago
  Which is why Epic and Tile are complaining too.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
SllX 6y ago
Original article didn’t make that case, or present this side of the EU’s argument. If that were the EU Commission’s line of thought, it would be wrong on the basis of its presuppositions alone by trying to categorize these two companies into what businesses they are in and screwing up the timeline. Apple has been in the music business longer than the iPhone has existed, even in prototype form, and longer than Spotify or Beats Electronics existed (whose Beats Music service is the direct predecessor of the subscription component of Apple Music).
- GlobalFrog 6y ago
  As said elsewhere, who was there first is not relevant, whereas having prefered treatment because of your monopoly at any stage is. Some are mentioning the App Store being the root of the monopoly, and that is probably true. But speaking from a legal EU point of view, especially as the EU is stating their case in the streaming music area only, wouldn't the simplest way for Apple to get away with it be to externalize 'enough' Apple Music and to have them pay the same fees as Spotify? Therefore, the only way to restrict anticompetitive practices here would be as others like Epic are doing: by proving the monopoly in enough different domains covered by the App Store? Would the antitrust laws in the US similar, that is proving monopoly has to be done by domain, or would a more global view be possible there?
  - SllX 6y ago
    > As said elsewhere, who was there first is not relevant You want to go back and re-read the comment I directly replied to where bullet point 1 was the EU (hypothetically at this point) making determinations about who was in what market and laid the foundations for bullet point 2 based on its own flawed presupposition and then tell me that the timeline is irrelevant? I didn’t point this out to make an argument against the claims that Apple has any sort of claim to monopoly status (or that the EU has any basis for making that claim), but that any legal argument at all made on that foundation would crumble because bad facts make bad law. > whereas having prefered treatment because of your monopoly at any stage is. Except Apple does not have market dominance, let alone a monopoly, in Music or Phones. > Some are mentioning the App Store being the root of the monopoly, and that is probably true. Not having market dominance, let alone a monopoly, in phones, software, or software retail and distribution, that is actually not true. They have a monopoly on iPhone features, including the App Store, insofar as the iPhone is researched, developed and sold by Apple as a cohesive product, and it does not have out of the box functionality that Apple does not add themselves. You might as well claim Google has a monopoly on YouTube channels or that Amazon has a monopoly on Whole Foods shelves; more accurately, that Nintendo has a monopoly on the eShop and Sony has a monopoly on the PlayStation Store. It was a bad argument 13 years ago, and it is a bad argument today that doesn’t even pass the sniff test. > especially as the EU is stating their case in the streaming music area only Why only streaming music? Spotify was originally an upstart competitor to iTunes and the iTunes Music Store, and the iTunes Music Store was originally a competitor to record stores. Music itself is part of the larger News and Entertainment industry where ultimately the resource is someone else’s leisure time and you want to be the one to fill it. Spotify knows this; that’s why they experimented with video and they’re huge into podcasts now. > wouldn't the simplest way for Apple to get away with it be to externalize 'enough' Apple Music and to have them pay the same fees as Spotify? Why should they have to? Because they have a competitive advantage? Businesses always look to edge out their competitors by accumulating advantages. Spotify was successfully out-competing iTunes, so Apple acquired Beats and folded Beats Music into iTunes and called it Apple Music. Spotify has almost 5 times the global market share of streaming music as Apple does, and has almost as many EU subscribers as Apple has total subscribers, that is globally, give or take 10 million. What Spotify is doing here is trying to lower their costs because they have massive overhead in licensing fees, same as everyone else that licenses music. Part of their growth story is exactly being on the iPhone at the right time to capitalize on its growth, and being featured in the App Store. In order to compete, they offer an ad-supported tier from which Apple sees exactly none of that money. I don’t think you can even subscribe to Spotify from within the iPhone app anymore so Apple is still footing the bill for distribution and any money that Apple sees from prior subscriptions is now at the lower 15% rate that all subscription apps see for customers after their first year subscribed. > Therefore, the only way to restrict anticompetitive practices here would be as others like Epic are doing: by proving the monopoly in enough different domains covered by the App Store? Would the antitrust laws in the US similar, that is proving monopoly has to be done by domain, or would a more global view be possible there? I don’t know how to parse this. Clarify and I’ll get back to you.
paulpan 6y ago
Right, the percentage of Apple's cut isn't the key part of this EU case. Certainly doesn't help that it's the current 30% but it being 15% won't change the fundamental issues being argued - whether Apple is abusing its market power and shutting competitors out of or subjecting them to unfair practices in its iOS ecosystem. E.g. unfairly favoring its own Music app. I think it's a fairly straightforward case similar to Microsoft's antitrust case for bundling the Internet Explorer in its Windows OS a couple of decades ago. The argument then was that Microsoft favored its own browser and crowded out viable competitors like Netscape. If anything, the case is more obvious here since you can't even install any other music streaming alternatives on your iPhone if it's not in the App Store - in Windows you could download and install another browser (even if most users didn't).
- danity 6y ago
  The main difference with Microsoft is that Apple does not have a monopoly in phones like Microsoft had with PCs. Apple phones make up only 13% of the phone market.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pixl97 6y ago
    Apple has at least 30% market share in EU, you're giving the EMEA number.
  - paulpan 6y ago
    Depends on how one defines "monopoly". Back in the late 1990s, one could theoretically install non-Windows OSes like Linux, Unix or even purchase an Apple Mac. But yes, in practice Microsoft commanded the market and abused its market power. Also it's market-specific. As the other commenter noted, the market share is region-specific and in the EU higher than 13%. In the U.S. it's even higher at ~47% (https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-population-that-own-a-iphone-smartphone/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-...). You could argue that users technically have a choice to switch to Android but due to network effect (e.g. your family/friends all use iOS) and lock-in features like iMessage and Facetime, it's often a false choice.
LaMarseillaise 6y ago
> Now they have an unfair advantage since Spotify must pay 30% to apple while apple music "pays" 0%. I think this does not account for the opportunity cost. If Apple Music competes with Spotify, then Apple Music implicitly pays the 30% fee of the next best alternative. If Spotify operates at a loss with the fee, and Apple Music is otherwise an identical business, then Apple should prefer Spotify - it makes more money this way. The fee is basically irrelevant.
- w0m 5y ago
  That ignores the 'operate at a loss to kill competition then jack up prices/lower quality' strategy that the EU is directly trying to fight here. It's a common trope; Monopolies are great for the consumer; until they aren't held accountable.
  - LaMarseillaise 5y ago
    Imagine that Apple charges a 0% fee. They could still undercut the pricing of Spotify, using their vast resources, and accomplish the same.

by zibzab 6y ago

dustinmoris 6y ago

I agree with this principle but in this specific case it’s not true because Apple started their music business long before the iPhone and Spotify existed. In fact they started with the iPod and their music business with the iPod is what lead them to invent the iPhone and the AppStore. It’s rich from other music businesses like Spotify to want to benefit from all of the R&D and innovation cost from Apple and the market they created whilst dismissing that in fact they entered the music market with the goal to eat shares from Apple and not the other way around.

teknopaul 6y ago
starting first does not mean you are not abusing your monopoly. Another way of looking at this is that a 30% margin is preventing a lot of businesses from happening until Apple do it. The 30% is less of a concern that the fact that they can shut you down on a whim.
- dustinmoris 6y ago
  It’s hardly abuse if Apple was the first to invent an iPod and iTunes and the online music business and then evolved their own products around their own offerings. They decided to let others into their own platform to enrich it, not to crush them. Spotify entered knowing that Apple already had a competing product. Why did they enter and start competing if they thought it was an unfair competition from the start? I find it hard to believe given the history of events. If it was in any way different then perhaps I could understand but to me it feels that Spotify just decided that now is the time to look for avenues to increase their profits and see the AppStore as the first opportunity to attack after never having had a problem before. Only a fool would start a business in a platform which tries to crush them so clearly that was never the case. EDIT (cannot reply): So if Apple would basically not have an AppStore for third parties and only distribute their own apps then it would be fair. If Apple was to not allow other Music apps on their AppStore then it would be fair. But when Apple allows others to distribute a competing product to Apple on Apple’s own platform for a fee then it is considered unfair? I honestly don’t understand this logic.
  - simion314 6y ago
    It is not about who is first, is about fair competition, If Apple is the best then they should not be afraid to compete fair, let other web browsers exist, let alternative stores exist, let free apps show a Patreon link, let apps show the user the information that they have the choice to buy outside the store (defend this please, this information can harm the user somehow or it harms the pockets of some rich guy)
    - f6v 6y ago
      I don’t think EU cares about fair competition, rather being petty about not having their own FAANG.
      - simion314 6y ago
        But you could be wrong right? Maybe we should analyze if there is actual any merit for the complaints on Apple or about the tracking on the web instead of inventing some conspiracy. I would show you the example with Microsoft or Intel, this companies were found guilty and all the US nerds did not complain that EU is anti-american.(they were found guilty in US too)
      - yunohn 6y ago
        You know what? The funny thing is that all of FAANG has their international HQs in the EU (Dublin, Ireland) for tax evasion purposes. I’d argue they are more reliant on the EU then.
        jquery 6y ago
        Nobody thinks of FAANG as EU creations. Even if Nintendo is headquartered in the USA, it’s still considered Japanese. IKEA is Swedish and so on. Where the companies were founded seems to play the largest role in their national identities.
        yunohn 6y ago
        I was making a comment more about how the socialist EU can offer better corporate taxes than the more "capitalist" country (USA).
- bennysomething 6y ago
  30 percent fee is not a 30 percent margin. You are factoring in any costs of running and developing the service.
  - weego 6y ago
    That argument leads to the logical conclusion that Apple needs to be broken up so their music subsidiary have to pay their app store subsidiary the same 30% as Spotify do. Still not a logical defense.
    - bennysomething 6y ago
      How is that a logical conclusion? It's just one conclusion.
- Retric 6y ago
  Apple doesn’t get a cut of their advertising revenue, and according to Apple was only paid 15% on subscriptions. With credit card processing fees and other associated costs it’s far from 100% profit.
iso1631 6y ago
Of course Apple's music business was a whole separate legal minefield for decades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
- maxerickson 6y ago
  They bought out the name rights 8 years after iTunes launched. That payment was $500 million, but they were printing money from iPod+iTunes at that point (revenues of $9.5 billion in 2006, $10.5 billion in 2007). I'd call it an ongoing headache more than a minefield.
danielscrubs 6y ago
When they started have no bearing. It’s using their power in one market to strongarm others in another. It’s not about what is fair, it’s about making sure the market is healthy.

slver 6y ago

So then if Apple Music internally pays 30% to App Store, we're all good by this definition.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
In theory and superficially that makes sense, but they are the same company so it wouldn't make a difference in the end. It's not like Spotify can pay itself that 30%.
- villasv 6y ago
  > it wouldn't make a difference in the end Yes it would.
konschubert 6y ago
I am sure they are doing that already. And I don't think that's the law works.
- slver 6y ago
  It's often how law works. For example companies often create subsidiaries in order to limit liability of the parent company.
  - konschubert 6y ago
    You have a point.
falcor84 6y ago
I think the problem is with 'internally'. As I understand it, the antitrust regulations could force Apple to spin Apple Music out.
- slver 6y ago
  Let's take a step and ponder wouldn't you find it bizarre to have this sequence of events: 1. Apple creates iPod, and iTunes serves as its music store. 2. Apple creates iPhone, which has an iPod app. 3. Apple introduces App Store so other apps can be used on the iPhone. 4. iPod (Apple Music) competitors emerge. 5. EU says "that's it, Apple can't have iPod anymore on the phone unless iPod (Apple Music) becomes a separate company". No one (successfully) sued Apple for anti-competitive practices on iPod. Ergo if the iPhone never had an App Store, they'd be allowed to have 100% of the revenue of iTunes, and ban competitors out completely. By opening the iPhone platform to third parties, EU sees them as another type of entity completely. In effect the EU penalizes the creation of market places, because once you're market place, you lose control over your own products to the government.

breakfastduck 6y ago

Apple have been in the music business much longer than Spotify.

pityJuke 6y ago
I guess he meant music streaming?
frereubu 6y ago
I'm not sure that's relevant is it?
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Yes, considering apple have been in the music business longer than App Stores have even existed.
  - manicdee 6y ago
    Is Apple charging 30% on all Spotify transactions through their phone/tablet App Store giving them an economic advantage for their own Music store? It’s irrelevant for the example whether Apple was already in that space.
  - frereubu 6y ago
    I don't think that can be right. On the surface you're suggesting that if a company worked in a particular area before another company then the first company is entitled to use anti-competitive practices, which clearly isn't true.
    - whomst 6y ago
      I think the main point the (grand?) parent is saying is that "Apple is in the phone business" isn't a reasonable description of Apple. I agree that Apple hosting itself on its own platform is an abuse of market position (especially for something as peripheral as music), but to claim that music/audio isn't a/hasn't been core part of Apple's business model is ridiculous.

randomluck040 6y ago

Isn’t leveraging the market share with the iPhone/iPad for a lot of other things (Arcade, AirTag, ApplePencil, …) in the same category?

pornel 6y ago
Which is why Epic and Tile are complaining too.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

SllX 6y ago

Original article didn’t make that case, or present this side of the EU’s argument. If that were the EU Commission’s line of thought, it would be wrong on the basis of its presuppositions alone by trying to categorize these two companies into what businesses they are in and screwing up the timeline. Apple has been in the music business longer than the iPhone has existed, even in prototype form, and longer than Spotify or Beats Electronics existed (whose Beats Music service is the direct predecessor of the subscription component of Apple Music).

GlobalFrog 6y ago
As said elsewhere, who was there first is not relevant, whereas having prefered treatment because of your monopoly at any stage is. Some are mentioning the App Store being the root of the monopoly, and that is probably true. But speaking from a legal EU point of view, especially as the EU is stating their case in the streaming music area only, wouldn't the simplest way for Apple to get away with it be to externalize 'enough' Apple Music and to have them pay the same fees as Spotify? Therefore, the only way to restrict anticompetitive practices here would be as others like Epic are doing: by proving the monopoly in enough different domains covered by the App Store? Would the antitrust laws in the US similar, that is proving monopoly has to be done by domain, or would a more global view be possible there?
- SllX 6y ago
  > As said elsewhere, who was there first is not relevant You want to go back and re-read the comment I directly replied to where bullet point 1 was the EU (hypothetically at this point) making determinations about who was in what market and laid the foundations for bullet point 2 based on its own flawed presupposition and then tell me that the timeline is irrelevant? I didn’t point this out to make an argument against the claims that Apple has any sort of claim to monopoly status (or that the EU has any basis for making that claim), but that any legal argument at all made on that foundation would crumble because bad facts make bad law. > whereas having prefered treatment because of your monopoly at any stage is. Except Apple does not have market dominance, let alone a monopoly, in Music or Phones. > Some are mentioning the App Store being the root of the monopoly, and that is probably true. Not having market dominance, let alone a monopoly, in phones, software, or software retail and distribution, that is actually not true. They have a monopoly on iPhone features, including the App Store, insofar as the iPhone is researched, developed and sold by Apple as a cohesive product, and it does not have out of the box functionality that Apple does not add themselves. You might as well claim Google has a monopoly on YouTube channels or that Amazon has a monopoly on Whole Foods shelves; more accurately, that Nintendo has a monopoly on the eShop and Sony has a monopoly on the PlayStation Store. It was a bad argument 13 years ago, and it is a bad argument today that doesn’t even pass the sniff test. > especially as the EU is stating their case in the streaming music area only Why only streaming music? Spotify was originally an upstart competitor to iTunes and the iTunes Music Store, and the iTunes Music Store was originally a competitor to record stores. Music itself is part of the larger News and Entertainment industry where ultimately the resource is someone else’s leisure time and you want to be the one to fill it. Spotify knows this; that’s why they experimented with video and they’re huge into podcasts now. > wouldn't the simplest way for Apple to get away with it be to externalize 'enough' Apple Music and to have them pay the same fees as Spotify? Why should they have to? Because they have a competitive advantage? Businesses always look to edge out their competitors by accumulating advantages. Spotify was successfully out-competing iTunes, so Apple acquired Beats and folded Beats Music into iTunes and called it Apple Music. Spotify has almost 5 times the global market share of streaming music as Apple does, and has almost as many EU subscribers as Apple has total subscribers, that is globally, give or take 10 million. What Spotify is doing here is trying to lower their costs because they have massive overhead in licensing fees, same as everyone else that licenses music. Part of their growth story is exactly being on the iPhone at the right time to capitalize on its growth, and being featured in the App Store. In order to compete, they offer an ad-supported tier from which Apple sees exactly none of that money. I don’t think you can even subscribe to Spotify from within the iPhone app anymore so Apple is still footing the bill for distribution and any money that Apple sees from prior subscriptions is now at the lower 15% rate that all subscription apps see for customers after their first year subscribed. > Therefore, the only way to restrict anticompetitive practices here would be as others like Epic are doing: by proving the monopoly in enough different domains covered by the App Store? Would the antitrust laws in the US similar, that is proving monopoly has to be done by domain, or would a more global view be possible there? I don’t know how to parse this. Clarify and I’ll get back to you.

paulpan 6y ago

Right, the percentage of Apple's cut isn't the key part of this EU case. Certainly doesn't help that it's the current 30% but it being 15% won't change the fundamental issues being argued - whether Apple is abusing its market power and shutting competitors out of or subjecting them to unfair practices in its iOS ecosystem. E.g. unfairly favoring its own Music app. I think it's a fairly straightforward case similar to Microsoft's antitrust case for bundling the Internet Explorer in its Windows OS a couple of decades ago. The argument then was that Microsoft favored its own browser and crowded out viable competitors like Netscape. If anything, the case is more obvious here since you can't even install any other music streaming alternatives on your iPhone if it's not in the App Store - in Windows you could download and install another browser (even if most users didn't).

danity 6y ago
The main difference with Microsoft is that Apple does not have a monopoly in phones like Microsoft had with PCs. Apple phones make up only 13% of the phone market.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pixl97 6y ago
  Apple has at least 30% market share in EU, you're giving the EMEA number.
- paulpan 6y ago
  Depends on how one defines "monopoly". Back in the late 1990s, one could theoretically install non-Windows OSes like Linux, Unix or even purchase an Apple Mac. But yes, in practice Microsoft commanded the market and abused its market power. Also it's market-specific. As the other commenter noted, the market share is region-specific and in the EU higher than 13%. In the U.S. it's even higher at ~47% (https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-population-that-own-a-iphone-smartphone/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-...). You could argue that users technically have a choice to switch to Android but due to network effect (e.g. your family/friends all use iOS) and lock-in features like iMessage and Facetime, it's often a false choice.

LaMarseillaise 6y ago

> Now they have an unfair advantage since Spotify must pay 30% to apple while apple music "pays" 0%. I think this does not account for the opportunity cost. If Apple Music competes with Spotify, then Apple Music implicitly pays the 30% fee of the next best alternative. If Spotify operates at a loss with the fee, and Apple Music is otherwise an identical business, then Apple should prefer Spotify - it makes more money this way. The fee is basically irrelevant.

w0m 5y ago
That ignores the 'operate at a loss to kill competition then jack up prices/lower quality' strategy that the EU is directly trying to fight here. It's a common trope; Monopolies are great for the consumer; until they aren't held accountable.
- LaMarseillaise 5y ago
  Imagine that Apple charges a 0% fee. They could still undercut the pricing of Spotify, using their vast resources, and accomplish the same.