5 ms·

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 happ

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).
      - briandear 5y ago
        Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is rational. Other EU countries have the ability to lower taxes right? It’s ironic that the EU is suing Apple because Spotify doesn’t want to pay 15% to Apple, yet the same people complaining of that have no problem with Apple attempting to avoid higher costs by having a non-Irish EU headquarters.
- lwhi 5y ago
  Apple are in the wrong here.
- piaste 5y ago
  > 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. I mean, it's kind of textbook vertical monopoly. Selling Windows is fine - you're competing over who makes the better OS. Selling Internet Explorer is fine - you're competing over who makes the better web browser. But using Windows to push Internet Explorer is not fine - you're using your unrelated OS superiority to fight off Netscape Navigator. It's a distorted market because the consumer is induced to go with iTunes over Spotify not because iTunes has the more appealing product, but because Apple makes iPhones. If the exact same software as iTunes was made by a non-Apple company, it wouldn't necessarily compete. -- And I'm not sure it would be "fair" if AppStore didn't allow music apps, either. With web browsers and app stores, there's a decent case to be made that allowing those apps would compromise the iPhone product/ecosystem as a whole (although I'm personally of the "It's my phone and I demand to be able to install whatever the hell I want on it" philosophy and loathe walled gardens in all forms). Banning music apps simply because they compete with their own product would likely attract Vestager's ire just as well.
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.

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).
    - briandear 5y ago
      Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is rational. Other EU countries have the ability to lower taxes right? It’s ironic that the EU is suing Apple because Spotify doesn’t want to pay 15% to Apple, yet the same people complaining of that have no problem with Apple attempting to avoid higher costs by having a non-Irish EU headquarters.
lwhi 5y ago
Apple are in the wrong here.
piaste 5y ago
> 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. I mean, it's kind of textbook vertical monopoly. Selling Windows is fine - you're competing over who makes the better OS. Selling Internet Explorer is fine - you're competing over who makes the better web browser. But using Windows to push Internet Explorer is not fine - you're using your unrelated OS superiority to fight off Netscape Navigator. It's a distorted market because the consumer is induced to go with iTunes over Spotify not because iTunes has the more appealing product, but because Apple makes iPhones. If the exact same software as iTunes was made by a non-Apple company, it wouldn't necessarily compete. -- And I'm not sure it would be "fair" if AppStore didn't allow music apps, either. With web browsers and app stores, there's a decent case to be made that allowing those apps would compromise the iPhone product/ecosystem as a whole (although I'm personally of the "It's my phone and I demand to be able to install whatever the hell I want on it" philosophy and loathe walled gardens in all forms). Banning music apps simply because they compete with their own product would likely attract Vestager's ire just as well.

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.