4 ms·

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 fa

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
      I don’t think EU cares about fair competition, rather being petty about not having their own FAANG.
      - simion314 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
        I was making a comment more about how the socialist EU can offer better corporate taxes than the more "capitalist" country (USA).
- bennysomething 5y ago
  30 percent fee is not a 30 percent margin. You are factoring in any costs of running and developing the service.
  - weego 5y 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 5y ago
      How is that a logical conclusion? It's just one conclusion.
- Retric 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.

teknopaul 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    I don’t think EU cares about fair competition, rather being petty about not having their own FAANG.
    - simion314 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
        I was making a comment more about how the socialist EU can offer better corporate taxes than the more "capitalist" country (USA).
bennysomething 5y ago
30 percent fee is not a 30 percent margin. You are factoring in any costs of running and developing the service.
- weego 5y 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 5y ago
    How is that a logical conclusion? It's just one conclusion.
Retric 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.