6 ms·

Since this is an EU case, that should mean it'll actually do something, and won't take a decade and a half to conclude. The penalty won't be the big deal here,

• endisneigh 6y ago
  What percentage is acceptable to you? Perhaps all percentage based transactions are rent seeking and should be made illegal. I’m on board.
  • dannyw 6y ago
    Any percentage is accessible, Spotify just can't be forced to use it. Don't wanna use Spotify's own billing system? Don't use Spotify, there's Apple music. Voila. Competition.
    • endisneigh 6y ago
      Spotify doesn’t have to be available on Apple devices at all. The competition you’re describing already exists no? There’s a contradiction in these arguments. Either Spotify benefits from Apple devices, in which case the fee is a cost of doing business that ultimately benefits them, or they don’t benefit from the arrangement in which case they leave the platform. It’s the same thing with the food delivery apps and other food apps. There are literally thousands of platforms like this. People should just leave if they don’t like the rules.
      • itg 6y ago
        Apple devices and services don't have to be available in Europe at all. Either Apple benefits from Europe, in which case they need to follow European rules and regulations, or they don't benefit from the arrangement in which case they leave the EU.
        • endisneigh 6y ago
          I agree completely. I look forward to seeing rules in the EU that ban percentage based fees and make all platforms open.
          • asddubs 6y ago
            it might just end in them not being allowed to reject apps for advertising alternate payment methods
      • dannyw 6y ago
        Actually, yes, Spotify does have to be available on iOS devices if Spotify chooses to. Apple will be slapped with aggressive enforcement action if they pull something like that. Apple isn't a deity.
        • endisneigh 6y ago
          What? According to what rule is Spotify entitled a presence on Apple devices?
          • quonn 6y ago
            According to rules made by the EU presumably.
          • isbvhodnvemrwvn 6y ago
            That would be a huge breach of anti-monopoly laws - you are abusing dominant position in the market to fuck over your competition (on the music streaming market).
        • breakfastduck 6y ago
          This is so utterly bonkers. You're essentially saying if a crisp manufacturer wanted to sell in Asda, but Asda didn't want to sell them, Asda could be slapped with enforcement action for not selling the crisps?
          • isbvhodnvemrwvn 6y ago
            If Asda is the only shop for half of the population, then yes. Especially if Asda had their own crisps and don't allow anyone else to sell theirs.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • swongel 6y ago
        So Apple is forcing its customers to bundle their phone with their billing platform. Which should be illegal (as we democratically decided to have these laws), having no choice in services is not a feature it's an additional price to pay for the product and customers legally didn't agree to that simply by buying a commodity phone (no contract, no consideration whatsoever for this additional price). > People should just leave if they don’t like the rules. This is correct, Apple should just get out if they don't like the anti-trust rules of our market.
        • endisneigh 6y ago
          I’m curious - In the EU are businesses required by law to accept whatever form of payment the customer would like to use? Are vendors required?
          • swongel 6y ago
            No, you can't pay with any currency like Zimbabwean dollars and expect the EU to force businesses to accept it, no. But this article isn't about legal tender or how debts can be repaid it's about anti-trust and coupling commodities (like bread, and phones) with exclusive services without a service contract at the moment of purchase.
      • echelon 6y ago
        > Either Spotify benefits from Apple devices [...] or they don’t benefit from the arrangement in which case they leave the platform. Apple benefits from our society, and they've gamed their way into a Al Capone / Suez Canal / golden goose scenario. They've locked up everything under their control because they managed to weasel themselves into controlling 50% of the mobile phone market. This was, in retrospect, an illegal move. Either Apple benefits from government-sanctioned commerce, or they don't. They can easily be broken up or fined into oblivion. The industry will move on regardless of what happens to Apple.
    • mirthflat83 6y ago
      Spotify isn’t even using Apple’s payment system
    • hk1337 6y ago
      I believe the flip side of it is that Spotify would not even give the user the option. So, to use Spotify, you have to use their billing system.
      • echelon 6y ago
        That isn't a problem. I can count on my hand the number of merchants I haven't done business with because they weren't on Google Wallet, Apple Pay, or PayPal. Zero. The problem is one company controlling our entire industry.
  • ChrisRR 6y ago
    It's not so much the percentage, as the ability to operate outside of the app store if you so wish
    • endisneigh 6y ago
      Can’t you just buy another phone? I honestly don’t get it - did people not understand what they were buying when they purchased an Apple device? Did Apple ever advertise openness and reneg on that?
      • gambiting 6y ago
        That's irrelevant. EU has already ruled previously that if you, as a company, reach more than 10% of EU's population(about 30M people) then no, you can no longer get away with just saying "my platform, my rules". The easiest way to think about it is - John wants to sell Mark a product that works on Mark's iphone. Currently, John cannot do that without a) getting explicit permission from Apple b) giving Apple a substantial cut, regardless of whether John wants to use their services or not. This is what EU(and hopefully US very soon) has a problem with - Apple holds a gigantic market in their grasp and by controlling it so tightly and by forcing everyone to use their billing, they stifle legitimate business and competition.
        • endisneigh 6y ago
          I see if that’s the rule then I support it. I await the end of percentage fees and hope all >10% platforms open up. By the way you have a link to that law ?
          • gambiting 6y ago
            I believe this has already passed into law, but admittedly I cannot find the specific link saying so. Here's the law anyway: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2347 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_... "Platforms that reach more than 10% of the EU's population (45 million users) are considered systemic in nature, and are subject not only to specific obligations to control their own risks, but also to a new oversight structure. This new accountability framework will be comprised of a board of national Digital Services Coordinators, with special powers for the Commission in supervising very large platforms including the ability to sanction them directly."
  • swiley 6y ago
    I don't care if Apple takes 90% I'm just tired of them telling people what software they're allowed to run. It makes everyone miserable even if they don't use the iPhone.
    • endisneigh 6y ago
      How does apple’s decisions affect non iOS users?
      • ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        Most businesses must have mobile apps of some kind, and must support the two biggest options, iPhone and Android. So even if you don't own an iPhone, as a business owner there's a good chance you must make an iPhone app. Also, the entire web has to maintain Safari compatibility because iOS devices can only browse via Safari's engine. Ironically, this is the only thing protecting us from a complete Chrome monopoly... so I'm kinda in favor of it, but it's a problem we need to address as well.
        • endisneigh 6y ago
          Most businesses don’t need mobile app - the entire basis of your argument is based off a false premise.
          • swiley 6y ago
            If there isn't a native client for iOS for a chat protocol then no one will use it. Apple has distorted chat over the internet so severely that there are many people who say they pick who they date partly based on whether or not they use iMessage for chat.
  • ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    The issue is it being a mandatory offering, as opposed to alternative stores. And it's designed to make a profit, not to secure iOS in any meaningful way. (For instance, the requirement on IAPs, despite them not requiring additional software distribution services or app review costs for Apple.) If Apple wants to secure or curate their platform, fine, but it's now a general computing device, and alternative platforms must be allowed, and most importantly, users must not be prevented from hearing about them. Imagine the pressure Apple would feel from consumers if they were even still permitted to charge 30% and require companies to use their app store... but they also were required to let apps tell users to go to their website for a cheaper price. Apple would need to drive it's prices down at least enough to make it worth eating their tax for a smoother experience. The fact Apple prevents consumers from being told about their cut or that things can be gotten cheaper elsewhere is the most insidious and obvious consumer harm in their entire schtick.
    • endisneigh 6y ago
      I don’t understand why people say it’s a general computing device. It’s clearly not nor has it been advertised as such. If it actually was a general computing device you could just install an entirely different operating system onto it. If Apple allowed users to install Android on iPhones but didn’t change iOS would that be an acceptable solution? If so, what’s stopping someone from just getting an Android device now? If not- doesn’t Android already fix all of the issues you’re describing?
      • m4rtink 6y ago
        That's the whole issue - it is a general purpose computing device but Apple is trying to prevent users from using it as such for their selfish reasons. Not only is that anticompetitive, it's also dangerous (state actors can and do apply pressure on them to censor dissenting apps as Apple is the the single gatekeeper) and wasteful (you can't easily repurchase older unsupported devices due to the artificial limits inserted by Apple in what they can boot).
        • endisneigh 6y ago
  • oaiey 6y ago
    That has a simple answer: What banks / credit card companies take. Banks have to run infrastructure to transfer money and App Store have to run infrastructure for certain services like distribution, quality filtering, etc. Why is it simple: Banks have settled this over (maybe) 100 years and have a (idealistically seen) competitive environment.
• Mindwipe 6y ago
  I'm hopeful Apple might be forced to divest the App Store into a separate company entirely tbh.
  • tgv 6y ago
    That's my nightmare scenario. I fear it'll be the end of the mac as we know it. What upside do you see?
    • perryizgr8 6y ago
      What has the app store got with Mac laptops? And why would splitting into a different company end the laptops?
      • tgv 6y ago
        Because the mac division will become the lesser of the sister companies. Its best people will go with the more profitable divisions on the split. And it's not in great shape as it is. When its ROI turns out to be lower than that of the rest of the company, year after year, more heads will roll, ending with the sale to some Asian manufacturing giant. And that will be the end of it. Splitting off the media part (iTunes, Beats, Tidal, and the rest) will have the same effect, I fear.
  • the-dude 6y ago
    I wonder if they do that, if they will be pressured into allowing competing stores too. Seems inevitable.
    • philliphaydon 6y ago
      Let’s hope not.
      • josephcsible 6y ago
        Why don't you like that idea?
• adriancooney 6y ago
  Is it fair to call Apple's platform rent-seeking? I think a 30% cut is certainly far too much but I wouldn't call it rent-seeking. The platform itself provides a lot of value and they are entitled to charge something for it.
  • nolok 6y ago
    The problem is that if Apples' services have a price, then they should price it out, like any provider. "Here's the price to have your app in the store, here is the one for one download, here is the one for an update". Having a blanket "buffet" pricing (sub is 1€ or 100€ ? Doesn't matter it's a set % you owe us !), making it illegal to let the user get the app another way, making it impossible for them to not pay through Apple (and then pay back Apple what you we them for the service you use) is why they're going to lose.
  • norswap 6y ago
    One might argue they already capture the value in the phone's price. Their hardware might be good, but if they switched to android overnight, iPhone sales would plummet. It's clear many companies think the 30% cut is too high, but giving up on Apple means giving up on 45% of the highly-lucrative US market. This means Apple is able to use its dominant position to squeeze the margin of other companies via the too-high 30% fee. A clear monopolistic practice. As for the value-add (since rent-seeking is about charging without value-add) — it's smaller than you think. Contrast with Android, where you can at least install the app without going through the official App store. Apple's is simply charging for gatekeeping the access to its market (Google would like to do this too but historically hasn't bee in a position to do it as effectively).
  • oliwarner 6y ago
    Is it fair? Yes. The cost to Apple is largely flat. A free app costs as much to host per user as a paid one, and both arguably cost less than a service client like Spotify. And what does Apple add? I hope the outcome of this is the dissolution of "free" distribution. It's not free, it's sending and revenue to Apple and Google, and the balance is (more than) paid off by paid apps. Flat fees for everyone, pay a cent or so per user per year. It's up to you to make that work.
• oliwarner 6y ago
  The penalty might be tremendously significant, especially if they enforce something retroactively.
• varispeed 6y ago
  > Since this is an EU case, that should mean it'll actually do something Are you joking, right? Below is the quote from the linked article: > The EU ruled in 2016 that Apple had to repay 13 billion euros ($15.7 billion) in unpaid taxes to the Irish government, after the latter granted “undue tax benefits.” Apple and the Irish government have contested the decision and the case is still in court. I believe there is going to be many years, many meetings, dinners, salaries, bonuses funnelled out, and in my opinion, also money changing hands under a table, before anything really happens. EU is all sizzle without the steak.
  • hrktb 6y ago
    The tax case takes so long because they have a participating government on their side, and it’s far to be clear cut on a legal perspective. The app store issue is in many respects simpler.
  • colinmhayes 6y ago
    That happened because the Irish government refused apple's payment.