27 ms·

Apple hit with over 1.8B euro EU antitrust fine in Spotify case

588 points by nopakos 3y ago

hello_kitty2 3y ago
[flagged]
- vachina 3y ago
  Right? And have the rest of the world pay for it.
- theshrike79 3y ago
  Meh, we just write laws and expect companies to abide by them, no matter how big they are. All good fines are a percentage of revenue or earnings, that way they hurt everyone equally and can't be written off as "cost of doing business".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- frizlab 3y ago
  And they’re especially targeting Apple AFAICT.
  - austinheap 3y ago
    *only
    - McDyver 3y ago
      FTA: "Apple's fine, however, is about a quarter of the 8.25 billion euro fines the EU regulator meted out to Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab Google in three cases in the previous decade."
- dutchdev 3y ago
  If a US business is restricting an EU business unfairly, that does limit the ability of EU tech to make money yes.
- hobs 3y ago
  A fine on one company for screwing over another company is not "making money from big tech", really low effort comment here.
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
Is the fine going to EU politicians or to Spotify?
- jeltz 3y ago
  Neither, it is going to EU taxpayers in the form of paying for investments into the EU and paying for EU institutions.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    Who selects the institutions that receives the money? Let me guess, it is politicians.
    - timbit42 3y ago
      Who do you want decide that? Someone unelected?
      - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
        If they are collecting fine as a percent of "global revenue", they should divide it proportionally. Why is EU claiming its share in something they are not involved in.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  EU, the institution - in other words the European taxpayers. Politicians don't get a cut.
  - basil-rash 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - kuschku 3y ago
      The EU member states get a big tax rebate at the end of the year. They're free to use this money to give tax rebates to their citizen or use it to build new infrastructure.
TrackerFF 3y ago
Good, good. EU seems to be a good watchdog, with actual bite, as far as scummy BigTech tactics go.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
  I concur. Problem is, they're probably effective only because Europe has negligible control over Internet services/data due to its complete reliance on the Big Five US tech companies. They may be imposing fines but Europeans have little (if any) control. It might be a coincidence, but the EU announced an agreement on Privacy Shield (which had been revoked because of the strict GDPR requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Data_Privacy_Framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Data_Privacy_Fra...) on March 25, the exact same day they agreed on a deal to supply EU countries with LNG https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-eu-strike-lng-deal-europe-seeks-cut-russian-gas-2022-03-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-eu-strike-lng-dea... Having too little power to provide essential services like energy and communication makes it pretty difficult to defend your citizens' interests…
miguelxt 3y ago
Spotify does not get that money. The general EU budget does. > Fines imposed on undertakings found in breach of EU antitrust rules are paid into the general EU budget. This money is not earmarked for particular expenses, but Member States' contributions to the EU budget for the following year are reduced accordingly. The fines therefore help to finance the EU and reduce the burden for taxpayers. https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines_en https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines_en
- jeltz 3y ago
  Yes, these are fines, not damages. The headline says as much.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Can Spotify sue for damages as well?
    - techpression 3y ago
      There are no damages really, without Apple Spotify would be a dead product by now. Their entire existence is more or less due to the advent of iPhones and the App Store where customers subscriptions were significantly higher than any other platform (this was common knowledge within the organization too, we loved Apple, I say we as I worked there for many years)
      - andybak 3y ago
        Without Apple, there would be other mobile devices, surely? It was an idea that was in the air. Arguments about Apple doing it better or quicker or differently don't have much bearing on your specific point here.
        techpression 3y ago
        There were, windows phone and android, but neither could prove the Spotify model that offering a free tier led to paying subscribers (and at least Android had enough market share for this to be certain), something their entire existence was built on and something the labels questioned a lot. People seem to forget this part entirely. Now you could argue everyone on iOS would pay as happily on Android if there were no iOS, but then you argue fiction against reality.
mikae1 3y ago
Great news. Finally big tech is no longer untouchable. I hope there will be repercussions for the App Store situation [1] too. [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-faces-strong-action-if-app-store-changes-fall-short-eus-breton-says-2024-01-26/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-faces-strong-action...
- vasco 3y ago
  I agree with the sentiment but this is Big Tech fighting with Big Tech, or rather Big Tech / Music Rights Mafia fighting Big(ger) Tech. Small publishers are just happy bystanders in this case. Would've been great if regulators had gotten smart on their own but I'm also happy to take it like this I guess.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - GardenLetter27 3y ago
    But the relevant part here is the App Store. Giving users more freedom to get their apps without requiring Apple's authorisation is a good thing. It helps startups and stops Apple from abusing the App Store monopoly to funnel users to Apple Music over competitors, etc. The Big 3 labels don't enforce exclusivity at all (although UMG has threatened it a few times) - so you can get the same library on Apple Music, Deezer, Youtube Music, Spotify, Tidal, Amazon Music, etc. so even though it sucks they have a monopoly on almost all popular music, at least there isn't a monopoly in distribution like the App Store.
  - mikae1 3y ago
    The EU is fighting big tech on multiple fronts. My point was that this fine (and other fines) might show these companies what happens if they keep ignoring lawmakers.
    - GardenLetter27 3y ago
      I think the DMA (and this case) is the most important one. Right now Apple directly controls how most people interact with all their software and the Internet. Although I wish the EU would take the money from these fines and put it straight into developing European competition like the FairPhone, or new projects building on the PinePhone Pro or Purism work, etc. - competition is the only real threat. I dislike some of the EU policies like the Cybersecurity Act and AI act (and parts of the DSA), but the DMA has been great.
braza 3y ago
For whom was in tech during 90s and now in 2020s, what are the differences between Microsoft back then and Apple now in terms of why the regulators are so "soft" against an actor that is overplaying it's hand for consumers? I was not in tech in that time, but I was cognizant about the fact that entire segments of media and policy makers just dunked on Microsoft due to anti-competitive practices back then, and I recall congressmen and congresswomen, members of DoJ and so on openly talking about break Microsoft in pieces and I wonder why we do not have those conversations today in the biggest markets (China, US and EU)?
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  > what are the differences between Microsoft back then and Apple now in terms of why the regulators are so "soft" against an actor that is overplaying it's hand for consumers? The monetary proportion that big-tech contributes to US GDP. It would be silly to assume the US would ever kneecap it's most profitabile and rising industry. After killing its manufacturing industry, tech and finance is all ti has.
  - kaashif 3y ago
    > After killing its manufacturing industry Manufacturing's share of US real GDP has remained relatively stable over time: https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/april/us-manufacturing-really-declining https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/april/us-manu... i.e. the quantities of goods produced is growing about as fast as the economy. The reason manufacturing is dropping as a percentage of nominal GDP is that inflation for manufactured goods has been lower than for other goods.
- laborcontract 3y ago
  Microsoft's market share was well over 90% in the 90s. The iPhone's market share is 60%. Very different market dynamics. It was a lot easier to see how Microsoft was being mean-spirited for consumers versus Apple. I'd argue that Apple's policies are consumer agnostic, and the only people really up in arms about Apple are developers and some of its partners. Also the US is no longer in a position to be punching it's own companies, given the onslaught of Chinese companies that are seeking to undercut in even auto manufacturing now.
punnerud 3y ago
Do big tech companies listen to anything else than fines or loss of income? If there is any other way, that would be preferable
- basil-rash 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - chx 3y ago
    In the spirit of https://existentialcomics.com/comic/289 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/289 please familiarize yourself with Hobbes' Leviathan and the concept of state monopoly on violence and the advantages of it before embarrassing yourself with posts like this.
    - basil-rash 3y ago
      I’m not embarrassed. I occasionally explore contrarian interpretations of events in order to Cunningham a reasonable argument against them into existence. It’s a good exercise in reevaluating one’s internal implicit biases: if no argument exists against hypothesis H, one should reject that hypothesis in favor of the null. In this case the only argument is “I read a book that says X is good”, which isn’t much of an argument at all. Null hypothesis is looking strong. You however should be embarrassed for suggesting folks opinions don’t matter if they haven’t read the same books as you.
      - chx 3y ago
        You completely misunderstood what happened here. I do not argue with you because it's pointless. I recommended a book as a starter in order to get to a point where we can have a discussion. Some things can't be explained in a short comment. You embarrassed yourself not with the statement itself but that it makes crystal clear you have no idea about what underpinnings of a modern state, its interaction with society and so forth.
      - basil-rash 3y ago
Moldoteck 3y ago
I salute the decision, but I wonder, is the fine big enough? I mean how much money did apple make with this behavior. If even after the fine they are net positive, wouldn't they continue the same way?
- piva00 3y ago
  The fines are not to claw back damages, they are a deterrent for the company to stop the behaviour with the idea if they don't stop those fines will keep happening with increasing amounts.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  The linked press release has a whole section explaining how get got to the fine https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161#_Hlk159859783 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... > In addition, the Commission decided to add to the basic amount of the fine an additional lump sum of €1.8 billion to ensure that the overall fine imposed on Apple is sufficiently deterrent. Such lump sum fine was necessary in this case because a significant part of the harm caused by the infringement consists of non-monetary harm, which cannot be properly accounted for under the revenue-based methodology as set out in the Commission's 2006 Guidelines on Fines.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    Translation: even after switching the scope of the investigation multiple times during the tens years we investigated Apple because we couldn’t make anything stick, we still ended up with a joke of a case, so to really make sure we can continue our streak of our decisions being overturned by the EU courts, we decided to slap an additional “deterrence” fine on the basis of “fuck you, that’s why”
- eigenspace 3y ago
  It's 0.5% of Apple's global turnover. So it's not a gigantic sum, but it's also certainly not nothing to them. And the fines will continue and escalate in size if Apple does not move to comply. This is pretty comparable to a speeding ticket. E.g. if Apple was a person making $100,000 / year, this fine would be roughly equivalent to getting slapped with a $500 speeding ticket. Not a big dent in the total pool of income, but it still stings, and it is a deterrent to know that the next time you get caught speeding the fine will be even higher, and you could even lose your license if it happens too many times.
jph 3y ago
The Apple press release response is here: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify-and-europes-thriving-digital-music-market/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify...
- Gravityloss 3y ago
  Interesting claim: > Today, Spotify has a 56 percent share of Europe’s music streaming market — more than double their closest competitor’s — and pays Apple nothing for the services that have helped make them one of the most recognizable brands in the world. Don't they have to pay the provision of the subscription like other apps? EDIT: actually read the letter and they indeed don't (thanks for the responses too)
  - lutoma 3y ago
    Spotify does not allow you to subscribe in their iOS app. You have to do that in a browser and then log in. That way Apple does not get a cut.
    - transcriptase 3y ago
      It’s telling that Apple would rather get 30% of 0 than lower their fees to the point where it’s mutually beneficial for Spotify and other large apps to offer in-app subscriptions. If an app is charging users $1000 a month, what entitles Apple to $300 of that versus the $3 of a $10 subscription? It seems like more of a tax than a fee that allows Apple to profitably operate the store and infrastructure.
  - ankit219 3y ago
    It explains it later that spotify does not allow for subscription via App store. so, all they pay is $100 per year as a dev fee which is basically nothing. Apple also claims that they flew an engineer to Sweden to help out Spotify.
  - raverbashing 3y ago
    > pays Apple nothing Nothing? Not even the developers fees? C'mon Apple
ftyhbhyjnjk 3y ago
Awesome news! Apple deserve far worse than this.
philoinvestor 3y ago
I wrote a few post on Apple's brewing problems, outlined within: https://www.philoinvestor.com/p/downside-at-apple-a-10x-in-10-years https://www.philoinvestor.com/p/downside-at-apple-a-10x-in-1...
arkadiytehgraet 3y ago
Could someone please explain to me the following: does Apple have to pay the fine just once and then it can continue with the same practice of taking its 30% cut and preventing Spotify to direct users outside of the app for payment? Or can EU sue Apple immediately again for the same thing? Or does Apple get some time to change their ways and if they don't, then they will get fined even more?
- tpm 3y ago
  They can continue to take 30%, but can't stop apps using other subscription methods. > Apple will now have to remove terms that prevent developers telling users about other subscription methods. https://www.politico.eu/article/apple-gets-e1-8b-eu-antitrust-fine-for-abusive-app-terms/ https://www.politico.eu/article/apple-gets-e1-8b-eu-antitrus...
- lucianbr 3y ago
  When you are fined for speeding, can you then just go on speeding like the speed limit does not apply to you, having paid the fine once? No. Apple is ordered to change their behavior and pay a fine. If they pay the fine but repeat the behavior, they are in for more trouble. The second time around, it would not take years to do the investigation and decide on the fine. It would be really fast. However, what I'm worried is that they may appeal the fine, and get it reduced. This happens sometimes with these fines, actualy feels like most times.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  I think Spotify can direct users outside of the app for payment? From Apple's response: > Music app developers can even include information about other offers available outside of their app, along with a link directing users to a website to create and manage their account.
  - hu3 3y ago
    Apps can link to external payment methods only if they pay Apple. And there's a bunch of bureaucracy. You have to apply to the program beforehand, follow a bunch of guidelines, implement a bunch of hooks in app code and pray they will approve. See section "Commission, transaction reports, and payments" from: https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl... > Apple’s commission will be 27% on proceeds you earn from sales (“transactions“) to the user for digital goods or services on your website after a link out (i.e., they tap “Continue” on the system disclosure sheet), provided that the sale was initiated within seven days and the digital goods or services can be used in an app. This includes (a) any applicable taxes and (b) any adjustments for refunds, reversals and chargebacks. For auto-renewing subscriptions, (i) a sale initiated, including with a free trial or offer, within seven days after a link out is a transaction; and (ii) each subsequent auto-renewal after the subscription is initiated is also a transaction.
sneak 3y ago
This is how much revenue Apple accumulates in 45 hours. Apple’s 380B USD in annual revenue is over a billion dollars per day.
- CommanderData 3y ago
  Increase the fines! Make it hurt instead of pinch.
- mderazon 3y ago
  In that case, good for the EU, just another form of tax collection.
- mopsi 3y ago
  Revenue != profit.
- jannes 3y ago
  revenue != profit
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Manfred 3y ago
I will miss the handy subscription overview and a minimal amount of clicks to cancel or request a refund. I wish we could have both.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  ... you can. There's nothing stopping apple requiring subscriptions to appear on a unified management interface.
  - nozzlegear 3y ago
    Sorry, am I missing something? If I go to App Store => My Profile => Subscriptjons, I can see every subscription that I’m paying for in a unified view and I can cancel them all in a couple taps from there. That includes my Apple Music (Apple One) subscription.
    - pornel 3y ago
      Apple could have an API for putting a Cancel button and other info for 3rd party subscriptions in the unified subscription screen. App Store requirement to integrate subscriptions with it would be uncontroversial, unless they also slapped a 27% because-we-can fee on that API. Apple creates these either-or narratives that you either accept exactly what they want at their egregiously inflated price, or you will get the crappiest most inconvenient basically fraudulent alternative. As if nothing was possible in between.
    - switch007 3y ago
      Apple could support different subscription platforms in that view
    - nulld3v 3y ago
      Yes, they are saying that Apple can require any app in the app store that wants to sell a subscription also must allow the user to cancel the subscription through that App Store UI (even if the user doesn't pay for the subscription through Apple).
    - 3y ago
shreyansh_k 3y ago
Spotify does seem to be in an interesting position where it gets to piggyback on Apple's whole infrastructure and ecosystem without paying Apple anything. That should count for something...
- occz 3y ago
  I find this argument kind of ridiculous - yes, access to Apple's APIs does bring value to its app developers, but crucially, the app developers increase the value proposition of Apple's product by being available on the platform. It would be just as fair in this case to say that Apple should be paying Spotify for making their app available on the App Store. Luckily, by custom there is another solution - the platform providers charge nothing and let their customers decide what software to use, and the developers targeting the platform do not charge for developing their software for the platform. As it has worked forever on Windows, Linux, Android, MacOS, etc.
  - shreyansh_k 3y ago
    I find this argument kind of ridiculous - yes, app developers (such as Spotify) bring value proposition to Apple's products by being available on the platform. But, apps (such as Spotify) probably wouldn't exist and wouldn't have access to the immense value of an App Store and its tooling if Apple didn't exist. Luckily, by custom there is another solution - respect each other boundaries and stop acting like whiny little children.
    - madeofpalk 3y ago
      The iPhone also wouldn't exist without the immense value delivered by all the apps on the App Store.
      - shreyansh_k 3y ago
        Apps wouldn't exist without the immense value delivered by all the Apple tooling on the iPhone.
      - 3y ago
ankit219 3y ago
Somehow I wonder if this is indeed protectionism. Slack filed a complaint against Microsoft too, but no action has been taken on that. Having said that, it took five years and three pivots for EU to arrive at this decision. So, wonder how long it will take for Slack to come through.
- klabb3 3y ago
  I doubt it. Could be a soft factor, but at the end of the day this (and other rulings) are consumer related. This being suspicious against the EU mindset is amusing. From a European perspective, the US has enormous influence, the arrow clearly points in the other direction. EU politicians are often desperate to please the overlords to the west, and very little if any pressure is exerted to protect EU interests. Also EU is uncoordinated, and doesn’t act like a unified force at all. Take the Pirate Bay trial for another example. That was proven to be a US media industry hit job. Lots of things like that. The US hints at sanctions and everyone loses their minds. Make no mistake, modern US corporations untangled from pesky regulations are still screwing over Americans the most. This “the Europeans are up to something” is amusing in the face of an absolute massacre of the middle class at home, with things like healthcare-insurance-prescription cartels being probably the most egregious example.
  - procgen 3y ago
    Interestingly, in the US, the middle class only shrank because the upper class grew.
- breadwinner 3y ago
  Slack's case is an obvious example of Microsoft using their dominant platforms to stifle competition. Microsoft basically cloned Slack, then bundled it with Windows and Office. If this doesn't merit huge fines, I don't know what does.
  - GardenLetter27 3y ago
    Yeah, Microsoft is just as bad. Slack and Zoom should have good cases over the Teams bundling tbh. The "Open"AI investment and sudden shift from a non-profit is crazy too.
newbie578 3y ago
Now we await for the app store because of DMA. Let’s see how obtuse Apple can be.
s1k3s 3y ago
This isn't about music streaming but about the payment restrictions Apple forces on Appstore devs. The court decided that Apple's practices destroy competition, which is obviously true. Also it's in line with the new gatekeeping laws that are coming this month.
- shadowfiend 3y ago
  Enforcing past behavior under laws that haven’t come into effect yet is not a great approach though…
  - eigenspace 3y ago
    These fines aren't through the new DMA. These fines are through preexisting regular antitrust laws.
  - oaiey 3y ago
    This argumentation is probably being based on generic anti trust law ... and the DMA is a new specialization below it. Does not mean that you violated past law just because new law is also applicable to you.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    It's actully a 15 year old law (in it's current name, originally from 1958). From the article: > Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU')
  - todd-davies 3y ago
    The specific guidelines that the Commission is relying on were written in 2006 [1]. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52006XC0901%2801%29 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  You seem to be confused with something else. This was about music streaming and no court was involved with this. This is a decision from an executive branch. The courts will come into play once Apple has filed their announced appeal.
malermeister 3y ago
Interesting to see how positive the feedback in these comments is. I predict the mood will turn once the West Coast wakes up...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
madeofpalk 3y ago
Spotify really has the short end of the stick here. Apple does themselves no favors by participating from a privileged position at every point in the market. Apple App Store sets rules that disadvantages Apple Music's competitors. To offer subscriptions on iOS, Spotify must give away 30% of it's revenue to Apple. Yet Apple compete with them with Apple Music. Do you think Apple is giving away 30% of it's Apple Music revenue? This means that in order for Spotify to compete head-to-head with Apple Music, it must either charge 30% more, or maybe 30% less money than it's next competitor.[0] This is on top of Apple's blatently unfair rules that prevent developers actually explaining any of them to it's users, or informing users how to actually sign up or get a cheaper option. If Apple believes these rules are so correct, why does it ban communicating them to it's users? [0] Indeed, for Apple Music on Android Apple bypasses Google Play payments, it's 30% cut, and bills itself via credit card.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - malermeister 3y ago
    It's not about Apple Music's market share. It's about Apple iPhone market share.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Which is 35%. If Apple needs to be regulated as a monopoly in the mobile device market, Spotify needs to be regulated in the streaming space.
- gilgoomesh 3y ago
  > To offer subscriptions on iOS, Spotify must give away 30% of it's revenue to Apple Spotify haven't paid revenue to Apple in years. This finding is because Spotify aren't permitted to "[inform] users of payment options outside its App Store" due to Apple's anti-steering rules.
mrkramer 3y ago
Apple always thinks they are right and they know the best, the very same stubborn mindset as Google. And why they keep repeating "Spotify Pays Apple Nothing"?!
rvz 3y ago
Great start. It's about time that Microsoft gets investigated as well.
- haunter 3y ago
  You mean the Xbox? Guess you can count Sony and Nintendo too then.
  - GardenLetter27 3y ago
    Teams bundling would be the main one. Then Xbox for not allowing alternative marketplaces like Steam. OneDrive and Office365 cross-promotion is also a bit dodgy, especially tied in to the near-mandatory Microsoft account. Apple might get sued over iCloud for the same reason soon.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
  And Google, too. Try using an popular Android application without being forced to install Google Play Services. You can't do banking, can't get notifications, etc. Many of the most critical apps will simply refuse to launch. Google slowly turned Android into a Google service thanks to developers having to rely on Google's proprietary APIs. I work at a small independent app studio, and we just decided to required the Google Play Services in our Android apps because too few people don't have it (why try and do without then). It's like all websites only supporting Chrome and nobody complaining (except a few nerds using custom ROMs). What a shame.
throwaway2037 3y ago
Also on Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/05606b16-8c4d-4535-893e-af909fcf22f0 https://www.ft.com/content/05606b16-8c4d-4535-893e-af909fcf2...
iammjm 3y ago
I like Spotify and I like Apple. But Apple do treat Spotify badly - I assume it's nothing personal but just sheer abuse of power to push their own product - Apple Music. Thanks to this I as a end user get a worse product - buggy Apple Watch App, connectivity issues, reduced functionality
- judge2020 3y ago
  The YouTube Music Apple Watch app works flawlessly for me. Maybe the problem is Spotify not putting in the effort to make a good watch app?
  - ted_bunny 3y ago
    It's pretty poor on Android, fwiw
    - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
      Ironically Spotify on Android Wear has always worked better than Youtube Music.
Glimjaur 3y ago
Apples response: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify-and-europes-thriving-digital-music-market/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify... Spotifys response: https://newsroom.spotify.com/2024-03-04/the-european-commission-confirms-apples-anti-competitive-behavior-is-illegal-and-harms-consumers/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2024-03-04/the-european-commiss...
- 7moritz7 3y ago
  Apple forgot to mention that one of the main reasons for the high fine is them having made false statements during the case.
  - burnerthrow008 3y ago
    What were the false statements?
- mikeortman 3y ago
  Apple's response, in a nutshell: - A weird callout to the nationality of the company right out of the gate - Spotify will be nothing without us (insert crazy ex memes) - "Our engineering helps ensure that Spotify’s apps can work seamlessly with Siri, CarPlay, Apple Watch, AirPlay, Widgets, and more." -- yeah, because those are your products, Apple. You make your money on those products being tightly integrated - A bizarre quantization of the apple ecosystem by total number of "APIs" Apple gives them access to (250k) - A claim of insider coercion between Spotify and the EU Commission that made it difficult for Apple to win - They are going to appeal
  - albert180 3y ago
    The Outrage out of Cupertino will be even funnier when they will get bonked for their BS Compliance with the DMA
    - arlcode 3y ago
      I mean the tone of their initial press release anouncing "compliance" was borderline unprofessional (in global company PR speak terms) and sounded at time like a pertulent teenager fuming about that "unfair" teacher. I'm sure it was all calucated and discussed a million times but if their goal was to appeal to emotions, I think it mostly failed (outside a very small nieche of Apple groupies). Their leverage in the EU is weak (thanks to few jobs and tax avoidance (even if that's legal)) Once they notice they will revert to lawywers and silent compliance.
lapcat 3y ago
The European Commission announcement: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... (ironically with cookie banner) Apple's response: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify-and-europes-thriving-digital-music-market/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify...
- mjhagen 3y ago
  > Apple's conduct, which lasted for almost ten years, may have led many iOS users to pay significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions [...] Apple Music and Spotify subscriptions cost exactly the same.
  - stephenr 3y ago
    Not mentioned: Apple pays more than double the royalties of Spotify.
  - lock-the-spock 3y ago
    Yes but Spotify gets only 70% of that cut while apple gets 100%. Without the apple tax Spotify might be able to either go down in price or increase quality/breadth/payouts to creators/other offerings/... The market is distorted and you pay more and get less if one monopoly takes all others for a ride.
    - mjhagen 3y ago
      Spotify doesn't pay that though.
    - rahkiin 3y ago
      Spotify is not paying 30% to apple, nor is it cheaper for Android users than for Apple users. So this is just margin for Spotify (and record labels), not cheaper products for users
  - concinds 3y ago
    Of all the narratives surrounding Apple's practices, "it leads to higher prices for consumers" is an outright lie, and I don't know why the EU is telling it. It applies to nothing. Reader apps (Kindle/Netflix/Spotify) don't use IAP so they currently pay nothing. In-game IAPs (where the vast majority of Apple's fees come from) would just pocket the difference, because customers are used to current prices and there's no price competition that could drive prices down (you can only buy Fortnite v-bucks from Epic Games, obviously). The App Store has exerted downward pressure on app prices compared to desktop apps, not upward pressure, since its inception. The real benefit of these rulings is ease of competition (subscribing to Spotify as easily as to Apple Music, buying Kindle books as easily as iBooks, all great things). And more game companies dumping Apple IAP for their in-app gambling mechanics, overpriced cosmetic skins, and pay-to-win tokens, so they can make them non-refundable, screwing over parents. Some customers win and some lose, but prices won't change.
rchaud 3y ago
Apple blocking even the mention of alternative payment options in its app is pathetic. They are what they supposedly reviled in the original 1984 commercial for the Mac [0]. They're even doing "newspeak" in the brazenly self-serving way they attempt to justify these choices. The open web is the metaphorical sledgehammer here. Megacorps need to go back to selling cool hardware as is, instead of $1000 trojan horses for whatever Wall St analyst-approved "service" they can tack on. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I
udev4096 3y ago
What if Apple doesn't pay the fine?
- albert180 3y ago
  They don't have a choice as long as they are doing business in the European Union. It will be probably taken out of their Accounts in the European Subsidiary after going through the usual process of People/Companies not paying.
- s_dev 3y ago
  Would be like going up against the taxman. They will pay the fine because 100% no Apple exec based in Europe will risk prison time.
kingsleyopara 3y ago
Worth pointing out that when this complaint was filed Spotify was publicly complaining about the lack of equal access to the HomePod and Apple Watch.[0] Apple addressed this with API’s at WWDC the following year.[1] Yet here we are, almost 4 years later and Spotify have yet to implement support whereas competing services have.[2] [0] https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-03-13/consumers-and-innovators-win-on-a-level-playing-field/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-03-13/consumers-and-innova... [1] https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10061/ https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10061/ [2] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/06/deezer-announces-voice-control-support-for-homepod/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/06/deezer-announces-voice-...
- Terretta 3y ago
  They* don't have to hustle to compete when they're the in-market dominant player. * I mean Spotify.
- matthewfcarlson 3y ago
  Drives me nuts. Apple even added this weird sort of work around where if you ask for it on Spotify, it connects to your phone and the phone airplays Spotify to the HomePod.
- shuckles 3y ago
  Right: complainants can argue they should have access to all of Apple’s hardware devices for free while they themselves are an Apple-level monopoly in their market. I wonder how many billions of dollars in exclusive podcast deals for formerly openly distributed content consumers are missing out on because of these anti-steering rules.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  The APIs don't allow applications quite the same access as Apple Music has. I imagine that using them would weaken Spotify's complaints, while also resulting in a sub-par user experience. Users lose out in the short run, but I wouldn't necessarily blame Spotify for this.
  - 3y ago
macinjosh 3y ago
A financial hangnail for Apple. Thoughts and prayers to Cupertino. /s
576768sa 3y ago
[dead]
perryizgr8 3y ago
I don't understand. If Spotify (or EU) is unhappy with Apple's offerings and don't think they are worth the money, they can simply build their own smartphone ecosystem and offer their products on there. Why coerce Apple? Why not let them do their own thing? It's not like they are preventing you from developing your own technology or funding/buying from someone else.
- Seb-C 3y ago
  I don't understand. If Apple is unhappy with the EU's rules and don't think they are worth the money, they can simply build their own country and offer their products on there. Why coerce Spotify? Why not let them do their own thing? It's not like the EU is preventing Apple from developing their own civilization or funding/buying from someone else.
- xvector 3y ago
  Because as the past 20 years have demonstrated, the EU is fundamentally incapable of innovating in consumer technology. At this point all it can do is rent-seek from US tech.
vinay_ys 3y ago
Currently Apple wants to charge core technology fee per install (irrespective of App Store or not, after first 1 million install) and App Store commission of 14.1666% of total revenue. This seems egregious because it is charging it on customer transaction and ultimately it is coming out of customer pockets when they have already paid Apple for the hardware. Instead, Apple should have disaggregated their fees. IMO, they can charge the following fees fairly: 1. Developer Ecosystem Tools – compilers, libraries, entitlements – can be one time or annual fees, not coupled with number of installs or revenue. (mandatory, entitlement fees could be per entitlement purchased by the app). 2. App Store registration fees – can be one time or annual fees, not coupled with number of installs or revenue. (optional – can choose to not use App Store) 2.1 App Store technical fees for app binary release certification – charged per app release/update. 2.2 App Store bandwidth fees – per app install delivered via App Store – charged per total bytes delivered. 2.3 App Store in-app purchase payment fees – percent of payment processed (currently 0.25%). 2.4 App Store ads fees – developers can choose to pay for Apple Ads for boosted discovery of their app within App Store. They could provide free quotas for each of the above. That way free apps can still exist. Apple can also provide iOS level capability via System Preferences or managed device profiles to lock App stores (or alternate app stores). IMHO, this is likely the path that would be well-received and will be followed by alternate app stores as well.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  The problem with this plan is the "entitlement fee". The DMA mandates that OS API access be offered free of charge.
  - zigzag312 3y ago
    Platforms are very intertwined, where third party products increase the value of the platform far beyond the base value of the platform (i.e. the value created only by the creator of the platform). A feedback loop is created as bigger platform attracts more third party products, which in turn make the platform even bigger. At some point it becomes impossible for new competition to enter the market. IMO laws should treat platforms as special in order to promote creation of environments with a healthy amount of competition. Laws requiring openness of platforms seem to be one way to do it.
todd-davies 3y ago
Note that this fine is made up of 0.04bn of fine and 1.8bn of deterrent against future anti-competitive behaviour [1]. The the 2006 fine-setting guidelines allow the Commission to do that [2]. We should read the 1.8bn lump sum (roughly 0.5% of Apple's revenue) as partially being about music streaming and app stores, but mainly a warning to all large firms which are currently jockeying for a dominant position in emerging tech like generative AI and visual computing. The warning: play fair and compete on the merits, or see you in court. [1] "the Commission decided to add to the basic amount of the fine an additional lump sum of €1.8 billion to ensure that the overall fine imposed on Apple is sufficiently deterrent" https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... [2] See paras 30 and 31. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52006XC0901%2801%29 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
- JonAtkinson 3y ago
  Hi Todd!
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  what is actually the difference in this case? I thought the function of fines WAS the deterrent effect? or is some aspect of this restitution? I thought this was payable to the EU itself, not spotify.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > I thought the function of fines WAS the deterrent effect? or is some aspect of this restitution? I thought this was payable to the EU itself, not spotify. Maybe it's something akin to punative damages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages), where the "fine" component is assessed according to the actual harm measured and the "deterrent" amount is meant to make it sting as a punishment. The law always needs a little something extra to deal with people like the guy who parks in handicap spaces because he can afford the fines.
    - 3y ago
bengale 3y ago
I wonder how many billions in fines the EU can take out of US companies before they start to get political blowback.
- gitaarik 3y ago
  Isn't this coming out from the politics of the EU? Isn't politics suppose to act on the desires of citizens? (In principle in Democracy). Would there be a lot of citizens that would want huge companies to easily gain a monopoly position? Is that what you want?
  - bengale 3y ago
    I’m quite sure I didn’t give an opinion either way. I’m also not that interested in how things “should” be. I was just musing that at a certain point there might be political blow back in the US towards a continent that doesn’t have a lot of leverage.
    - gitaarik 3y ago
      If Europe doesn't have much leverage, which content will? And still, why would citizens vote for politicians that would make monopolies easier? Of course there's corruption. But how would that work against the laws of another continet?
      - bengale 3y ago
        You're asking me why the real world works like it does. Citizens vote from a handful of candidates that have competing priorities. One of those priorities is going to be supporting the huge companies that support them, even if it's for non-selfish reasons like their own economy. If we put aside how we wish things were or how they should be, the point I was musing on is that large companies can influence politicians in the US. The EU depends on the US in many ways, with energy and physical security probably being top of that list right now. With those things being true, there must be a point where politicians in the US, seeing the damage being done to some of the biggest companies in their own economy by a group dependent on them, start to apply pressure to back them off. If these politicians wanted their companies regulated like this they would do it themselves presumably.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
monkin 3y ago
As for me, Spotify could cease to exist. With each passing year, they become even more unusable. Now, even music recommendations are turning into rubbish. Not to mention the UI experiments...
sonicanatidae 3y ago
Apple fined 2% of the money they have in offshore accounts that they never paid taxes on. FTFY.
moogly 3y ago
Why are we talking about Microsoft's behavior 30 years ago in this thread about current Apple? Appalling diversionary tactic, that's what it is. I guess the parallel I can draw here is that just as you shouldn't defend whatever unrelated crap Microsoft pulled off in the 90s,you shouldn't defend the crap Apple is pulling off today.
octacat 3y ago
It is kinda obvious that Apple does not really want to comply with markets act, so deterrent is required here.
seec 3y ago
As an "old" Apple customer, I'm going to say it's well deserved it's not like they didn't work hard for that to happen. Apple's behavior since a few years after Job's passing (around 2015) has been appalling on many fronts. They take their customers for fools and try very hard to trap them into their prison with very little recourse (and no you don't just get rid of very expensive devices for an alternative, especially if many of your purchases are dependent on the use of one of those devices). As I get older, I care less and less especially since I am unlikely to purchase another iPhone (at the current price point with the current limitations) or any other Apple devices for that matters. In fact, the moment I decide to replace my Apple watch all the rest will follow in short order. While the platforms are still nice in some ways, they just don't provide enough lasting value with the current pricing and forced obsolescence (both hardware and software). Anyway that's good news for everyone because in the futur Apple and their friends will maybe think twice before fucking over their customers with absurdly anti-competitive rules.

588 points by nopakos 3y ago

hello_kitty2 3y ago

[flagged]

vachina 3y ago
Right? And have the rest of the world pay for it.
theshrike79 3y ago
Meh, we just write laws and expect companies to abide by them, no matter how big they are. All good fines are a percentage of revenue or earnings, that way they hurt everyone equally and can't be written off as "cost of doing business".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
frizlab 3y ago
And they’re especially targeting Apple AFAICT.
- austinheap 3y ago
  *only
  - McDyver 3y ago
    FTA: "Apple's fine, however, is about a quarter of the 8.25 billion euro fines the EU regulator meted out to Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab Google in three cases in the previous decade."
dutchdev 3y ago
If a US business is restricting an EU business unfairly, that does limit the ability of EU tech to make money yes.
hobs 3y ago
A fine on one company for screwing over another company is not "making money from big tech", really low effort comment here.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

Is the fine going to EU politicians or to Spotify?

jeltz 3y ago
Neither, it is going to EU taxpayers in the form of paying for investments into the EU and paying for EU institutions.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  Who selects the institutions that receives the money? Let me guess, it is politicians.
  - timbit42 3y ago
    Who do you want decide that? Someone unelected?
    - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
      If they are collecting fine as a percent of "global revenue", they should divide it proportionally. Why is EU claiming its share in something they are not involved in.
mrtksn 3y ago
EU, the institution - in other words the European taxpayers. Politicians don't get a cut.
- basil-rash 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - kuschku 3y ago
    The EU member states get a big tax rebate at the end of the year. They're free to use this money to give tax rebates to their citizen or use it to build new infrastructure.

TrackerFF 3y ago

Good, good. EU seems to be a good watchdog, with actual bite, as far as scummy BigTech tactics go.

rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
I concur. Problem is, they're probably effective only because Europe has negligible control over Internet services/data due to its complete reliance on the Big Five US tech companies. They may be imposing fines but Europeans have little (if any) control. It might be a coincidence, but the EU announced an agreement on Privacy Shield (which had been revoked because of the strict GDPR requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Data_Privacy_Framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Data_Privacy_Fra...) on March 25, the exact same day they agreed on a deal to supply EU countries with LNG https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-eu-strike-lng-deal-europe-seeks-cut-russian-gas-2022-03-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-eu-strike-lng-dea... Having too little power to provide essential services like energy and communication makes it pretty difficult to defend your citizens' interests…

miguelxt 3y ago

Spotify does not get that money. The general EU budget does. > Fines imposed on undertakings found in breach of EU antitrust rules are paid into the general EU budget. This money is not earmarked for particular expenses, but Member States' contributions to the EU budget for the following year are reduced accordingly. The fines therefore help to finance the EU and reduce the burden for taxpayers. https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines_en https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines_en

jeltz 3y ago
Yes, these are fines, not damages. The headline says as much.
- leereeves 3y ago
  Can Spotify sue for damages as well?
  - techpression 3y ago
    There are no damages really, without Apple Spotify would be a dead product by now. Their entire existence is more or less due to the advent of iPhones and the App Store where customers subscriptions were significantly higher than any other platform (this was common knowledge within the organization too, we loved Apple, I say we as I worked there for many years)
    - andybak 3y ago
      Without Apple, there would be other mobile devices, surely? It was an idea that was in the air. Arguments about Apple doing it better or quicker or differently don't have much bearing on your specific point here.
      - techpression 3y ago
        There were, windows phone and android, but neither could prove the Spotify model that offering a free tier led to paying subscribers (and at least Android had enough market share for this to be certain), something their entire existence was built on and something the labels questioned a lot. People seem to forget this part entirely. Now you could argue everyone on iOS would pay as happily on Android if there were no iOS, but then you argue fiction against reality.

mikae1 3y ago

Great news. Finally big tech is no longer untouchable. I hope there will be repercussions for the App Store situation [1] too. [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-faces-strong-action-if-app-store-changes-fall-short-eus-breton-says-2024-01-26/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-faces-strong-action...

vasco 3y ago
I agree with the sentiment but this is Big Tech fighting with Big Tech, or rather Big Tech / Music Rights Mafia fighting Big(ger) Tech. Small publishers are just happy bystanders in this case. Would've been great if regulators had gotten smart on their own but I'm also happy to take it like this I guess.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  [flagged]
- GardenLetter27 3y ago
  But the relevant part here is the App Store. Giving users more freedom to get their apps without requiring Apple's authorisation is a good thing. It helps startups and stops Apple from abusing the App Store monopoly to funnel users to Apple Music over competitors, etc. The Big 3 labels don't enforce exclusivity at all (although UMG has threatened it a few times) - so you can get the same library on Apple Music, Deezer, Youtube Music, Spotify, Tidal, Amazon Music, etc. so even though it sucks they have a monopoly on almost all popular music, at least there isn't a monopoly in distribution like the App Store.
- mikae1 3y ago
  The EU is fighting big tech on multiple fronts. My point was that this fine (and other fines) might show these companies what happens if they keep ignoring lawmakers.
  - GardenLetter27 3y ago
    I think the DMA (and this case) is the most important one. Right now Apple directly controls how most people interact with all their software and the Internet. Although I wish the EU would take the money from these fines and put it straight into developing European competition like the FairPhone, or new projects building on the PinePhone Pro or Purism work, etc. - competition is the only real threat. I dislike some of the EU policies like the Cybersecurity Act and AI act (and parts of the DSA), but the DMA has been great.

braza 3y ago

For whom was in tech during 90s and now in 2020s, what are the differences between Microsoft back then and Apple now in terms of why the regulators are so "soft" against an actor that is overplaying it's hand for consumers? I was not in tech in that time, but I was cognizant about the fact that entire segments of media and policy makers just dunked on Microsoft due to anti-competitive practices back then, and I recall congressmen and congresswomen, members of DoJ and so on openly talking about break Microsoft in pieces and I wonder why we do not have those conversations today in the biggest markets (China, US and EU)?

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
> what are the differences between Microsoft back then and Apple now in terms of why the regulators are so "soft" against an actor that is overplaying it's hand for consumers? The monetary proportion that big-tech contributes to US GDP. It would be silly to assume the US would ever kneecap it's most profitabile and rising industry. After killing its manufacturing industry, tech and finance is all ti has.
- kaashif 3y ago
  > After killing its manufacturing industry Manufacturing's share of US real GDP has remained relatively stable over time: https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/april/us-manufacturing-really-declining https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/april/us-manu... i.e. the quantities of goods produced is growing about as fast as the economy. The reason manufacturing is dropping as a percentage of nominal GDP is that inflation for manufactured goods has been lower than for other goods.
laborcontract 3y ago
Microsoft's market share was well over 90% in the 90s. The iPhone's market share is 60%. Very different market dynamics. It was a lot easier to see how Microsoft was being mean-spirited for consumers versus Apple. I'd argue that Apple's policies are consumer agnostic, and the only people really up in arms about Apple are developers and some of its partners. Also the US is no longer in a position to be punching it's own companies, given the onslaught of Chinese companies that are seeking to undercut in even auto manufacturing now.

punnerud 3y ago

Do big tech companies listen to anything else than fines or loss of income? If there is any other way, that would be preferable

basil-rash 3y ago
[flagged]
- chx 3y ago
  In the spirit of https://existentialcomics.com/comic/289 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/289 please familiarize yourself with Hobbes' Leviathan and the concept of state monopoly on violence and the advantages of it before embarrassing yourself with posts like this.
  - basil-rash 3y ago
    I’m not embarrassed. I occasionally explore contrarian interpretations of events in order to Cunningham a reasonable argument against them into existence. It’s a good exercise in reevaluating one’s internal implicit biases: if no argument exists against hypothesis H, one should reject that hypothesis in favor of the null. In this case the only argument is “I read a book that says X is good”, which isn’t much of an argument at all. Null hypothesis is looking strong. You however should be embarrassed for suggesting folks opinions don’t matter if they haven’t read the same books as you.
    - chx 3y ago
      You completely misunderstood what happened here. I do not argue with you because it's pointless. I recommended a book as a starter in order to get to a point where we can have a discussion. Some things can't be explained in a short comment. You embarrassed yourself not with the statement itself but that it makes crystal clear you have no idea about what underpinnings of a modern state, its interaction with society and so forth.
    - basil-rash 3y ago

Moldoteck 3y ago

I salute the decision, but I wonder, is the fine big enough? I mean how much money did apple make with this behavior. If even after the fine they are net positive, wouldn't they continue the same way?

piva00 3y ago
The fines are not to claw back damages, they are a deterrent for the company to stop the behaviour with the idea if they don't stop those fines will keep happening with increasing amounts.
madeofpalk 3y ago
The linked press release has a whole section explaining how get got to the fine https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161#_Hlk159859783 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... > In addition, the Commission decided to add to the basic amount of the fine an additional lump sum of €1.8 billion to ensure that the overall fine imposed on Apple is sufficiently deterrent. Such lump sum fine was necessary in this case because a significant part of the harm caused by the infringement consists of non-monetary harm, which cannot be properly accounted for under the revenue-based methodology as set out in the Commission's 2006 Guidelines on Fines.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  Translation: even after switching the scope of the investigation multiple times during the tens years we investigated Apple because we couldn’t make anything stick, we still ended up with a joke of a case, so to really make sure we can continue our streak of our decisions being overturned by the EU courts, we decided to slap an additional “deterrence” fine on the basis of “fuck you, that’s why”
eigenspace 3y ago
It's 0.5% of Apple's global turnover. So it's not a gigantic sum, but it's also certainly not nothing to them. And the fines will continue and escalate in size if Apple does not move to comply. This is pretty comparable to a speeding ticket. E.g. if Apple was a person making $100,000 / year, this fine would be roughly equivalent to getting slapped with a $500 speeding ticket. Not a big dent in the total pool of income, but it still stings, and it is a deterrent to know that the next time you get caught speeding the fine will be even higher, and you could even lose your license if it happens too many times.

jph 3y ago

The Apple press release response is here: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify-and-europes-thriving-digital-music-market/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify...

Gravityloss 3y ago
Interesting claim: > Today, Spotify has a 56 percent share of Europe’s music streaming market — more than double their closest competitor’s — and pays Apple nothing for the services that have helped make them one of the most recognizable brands in the world. Don't they have to pay the provision of the subscription like other apps? EDIT: actually read the letter and they indeed don't (thanks for the responses too)
- lutoma 3y ago
  Spotify does not allow you to subscribe in their iOS app. You have to do that in a browser and then log in. That way Apple does not get a cut.
  - transcriptase 3y ago
    It’s telling that Apple would rather get 30% of 0 than lower their fees to the point where it’s mutually beneficial for Spotify and other large apps to offer in-app subscriptions. If an app is charging users $1000 a month, what entitles Apple to $300 of that versus the $3 of a $10 subscription? It seems like more of a tax than a fee that allows Apple to profitably operate the store and infrastructure.
- ankit219 3y ago
  It explains it later that spotify does not allow for subscription via App store. so, all they pay is $100 per year as a dev fee which is basically nothing. Apple also claims that they flew an engineer to Sweden to help out Spotify.
- raverbashing 3y ago
  > pays Apple nothing Nothing? Not even the developers fees? C'mon Apple

ftyhbhyjnjk 3y ago

Awesome news! Apple deserve far worse than this.

philoinvestor 3y ago

I wrote a few post on Apple's brewing problems, outlined within: https://www.philoinvestor.com/p/downside-at-apple-a-10x-in-10-years https://www.philoinvestor.com/p/downside-at-apple-a-10x-in-1...

arkadiytehgraet 3y ago

Could someone please explain to me the following: does Apple have to pay the fine just once and then it can continue with the same practice of taking its 30% cut and preventing Spotify to direct users outside of the app for payment? Or can EU sue Apple immediately again for the same thing? Or does Apple get some time to change their ways and if they don't, then they will get fined even more?

tpm 3y ago
They can continue to take 30%, but can't stop apps using other subscription methods. > Apple will now have to remove terms that prevent developers telling users about other subscription methods. https://www.politico.eu/article/apple-gets-e1-8b-eu-antitrust-fine-for-abusive-app-terms/ https://www.politico.eu/article/apple-gets-e1-8b-eu-antitrus...
lucianbr 3y ago
When you are fined for speeding, can you then just go on speeding like the speed limit does not apply to you, having paid the fine once? No. Apple is ordered to change their behavior and pay a fine. If they pay the fine but repeat the behavior, they are in for more trouble. The second time around, it would not take years to do the investigation and decide on the fine. It would be really fast. However, what I'm worried is that they may appeal the fine, and get it reduced. This happens sometimes with these fines, actualy feels like most times.
gcanyon 3y ago
I think Spotify can direct users outside of the app for payment? From Apple's response: > Music app developers can even include information about other offers available outside of their app, along with a link directing users to a website to create and manage their account.
- hu3 3y ago
  Apps can link to external payment methods only if they pay Apple. And there's a bunch of bureaucracy. You have to apply to the program beforehand, follow a bunch of guidelines, implement a bunch of hooks in app code and pray they will approve. See section "Commission, transaction reports, and payments" from: https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl... > Apple’s commission will be 27% on proceeds you earn from sales (“transactions“) to the user for digital goods or services on your website after a link out (i.e., they tap “Continue” on the system disclosure sheet), provided that the sale was initiated within seven days and the digital goods or services can be used in an app. This includes (a) any applicable taxes and (b) any adjustments for refunds, reversals and chargebacks. For auto-renewing subscriptions, (i) a sale initiated, including with a free trial or offer, within seven days after a link out is a transaction; and (ii) each subsequent auto-renewal after the subscription is initiated is also a transaction.

sneak 3y ago

This is how much revenue Apple accumulates in 45 hours. Apple’s 380B USD in annual revenue is over a billion dollars per day.

CommanderData 3y ago
Increase the fines! Make it hurt instead of pinch.
mderazon 3y ago
In that case, good for the EU, just another form of tax collection.
mopsi 3y ago
Revenue != profit.
jannes 3y ago
revenue != profit

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Manfred 3y ago

I will miss the handy subscription overview and a minimal amount of clicks to cancel or request a refund. I wish we could have both.

mjburgess 3y ago
... you can. There's nothing stopping apple requiring subscriptions to appear on a unified management interface.
- nozzlegear 3y ago
  Sorry, am I missing something? If I go to App Store => My Profile => Subscriptjons, I can see every subscription that I’m paying for in a unified view and I can cancel them all in a couple taps from there. That includes my Apple Music (Apple One) subscription.
  - pornel 3y ago
    Apple could have an API for putting a Cancel button and other info for 3rd party subscriptions in the unified subscription screen. App Store requirement to integrate subscriptions with it would be uncontroversial, unless they also slapped a 27% because-we-can fee on that API. Apple creates these either-or narratives that you either accept exactly what they want at their egregiously inflated price, or you will get the crappiest most inconvenient basically fraudulent alternative. As if nothing was possible in between.
  - switch007 3y ago
    Apple could support different subscription platforms in that view
  - nulld3v 3y ago
    Yes, they are saying that Apple can require any app in the app store that wants to sell a subscription also must allow the user to cancel the subscription through that App Store UI (even if the user doesn't pay for the subscription through Apple).
  - 3y ago

shreyansh_k 3y ago

Spotify does seem to be in an interesting position where it gets to piggyback on Apple's whole infrastructure and ecosystem without paying Apple anything. That should count for something...

occz 3y ago
I find this argument kind of ridiculous - yes, access to Apple's APIs does bring value to its app developers, but crucially, the app developers increase the value proposition of Apple's product by being available on the platform. It would be just as fair in this case to say that Apple should be paying Spotify for making their app available on the App Store. Luckily, by custom there is another solution - the platform providers charge nothing and let their customers decide what software to use, and the developers targeting the platform do not charge for developing their software for the platform. As it has worked forever on Windows, Linux, Android, MacOS, etc.
- shreyansh_k 3y ago
  I find this argument kind of ridiculous - yes, app developers (such as Spotify) bring value proposition to Apple's products by being available on the platform. But, apps (such as Spotify) probably wouldn't exist and wouldn't have access to the immense value of an App Store and its tooling if Apple didn't exist. Luckily, by custom there is another solution - respect each other boundaries and stop acting like whiny little children.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    The iPhone also wouldn't exist without the immense value delivered by all the apps on the App Store.
    - shreyansh_k 3y ago
      Apps wouldn't exist without the immense value delivered by all the Apple tooling on the iPhone.
    - 3y ago

ankit219 3y ago

Somehow I wonder if this is indeed protectionism. Slack filed a complaint against Microsoft too, but no action has been taken on that. Having said that, it took five years and three pivots for EU to arrive at this decision. So, wonder how long it will take for Slack to come through.

klabb3 3y ago
I doubt it. Could be a soft factor, but at the end of the day this (and other rulings) are consumer related. This being suspicious against the EU mindset is amusing. From a European perspective, the US has enormous influence, the arrow clearly points in the other direction. EU politicians are often desperate to please the overlords to the west, and very little if any pressure is exerted to protect EU interests. Also EU is uncoordinated, and doesn’t act like a unified force at all. Take the Pirate Bay trial for another example. That was proven to be a US media industry hit job. Lots of things like that. The US hints at sanctions and everyone loses their minds. Make no mistake, modern US corporations untangled from pesky regulations are still screwing over Americans the most. This “the Europeans are up to something” is amusing in the face of an absolute massacre of the middle class at home, with things like healthcare-insurance-prescription cartels being probably the most egregious example.
- procgen 3y ago
  Interestingly, in the US, the middle class only shrank because the upper class grew.
breadwinner 3y ago
Slack's case is an obvious example of Microsoft using their dominant platforms to stifle competition. Microsoft basically cloned Slack, then bundled it with Windows and Office. If this doesn't merit huge fines, I don't know what does.
- GardenLetter27 3y ago
  Yeah, Microsoft is just as bad. Slack and Zoom should have good cases over the Teams bundling tbh. The "Open"AI investment and sudden shift from a non-profit is crazy too.

newbie578 3y ago

Now we await for the app store because of DMA. Let’s see how obtuse Apple can be.

s1k3s 3y ago

This isn't about music streaming but about the payment restrictions Apple forces on Appstore devs. The court decided that Apple's practices destroy competition, which is obviously true. Also it's in line with the new gatekeeping laws that are coming this month.

shadowfiend 3y ago
Enforcing past behavior under laws that haven’t come into effect yet is not a great approach though…
- eigenspace 3y ago
  These fines aren't through the new DMA. These fines are through preexisting regular antitrust laws.
- oaiey 3y ago
  This argumentation is probably being based on generic anti trust law ... and the DMA is a new specialization below it. Does not mean that you violated past law just because new law is also applicable to you.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  It's actully a 15 year old law (in it's current name, originally from 1958). From the article: > Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU')
- todd-davies 3y ago
  The specific guidelines that the Commission is relying on were written in 2006 [1]. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52006XC0901%2801%29 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
turquoisevar 3y ago
You seem to be confused with something else. This was about music streaming and no court was involved with this. This is a decision from an executive branch. The courts will come into play once Apple has filed their announced appeal.

malermeister 3y ago

Interesting to see how positive the feedback in these comments is. I predict the mood will turn once the West Coast wakes up...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

madeofpalk 3y ago

Spotify really has the short end of the stick here. Apple does themselves no favors by participating from a privileged position at every point in the market. Apple App Store sets rules that disadvantages Apple Music's competitors. To offer subscriptions on iOS, Spotify must give away 30% of it's revenue to Apple. Yet Apple compete with them with Apple Music. Do you think Apple is giving away 30% of it's Apple Music revenue? This means that in order for Spotify to compete head-to-head with Apple Music, it must either charge 30% more, or maybe 30% less money than it's next competitor.[0] This is on top of Apple's blatently unfair rules that prevent developers actually explaining any of them to it's users, or informing users how to actually sign up or get a cheaper option. If Apple believes these rules are so correct, why does it ban communicating them to it's users? [0] Indeed, for Apple Music on Android Apple bypasses Google Play payments, it's 30% cut, and bills itself via credit card.

scarface_74 3y ago
[flagged]
- malermeister 3y ago
  It's not about Apple Music's market share. It's about Apple iPhone market share.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Which is 35%. If Apple needs to be regulated as a monopoly in the mobile device market, Spotify needs to be regulated in the streaming space.
gilgoomesh 3y ago
> To offer subscriptions on iOS, Spotify must give away 30% of it's revenue to Apple Spotify haven't paid revenue to Apple in years. This finding is because Spotify aren't permitted to "[inform] users of payment options outside its App Store" due to Apple's anti-steering rules.

mrkramer 3y ago

Apple always thinks they are right and they know the best, the very same stubborn mindset as Google. And why they keep repeating "Spotify Pays Apple Nothing"?!

rvz 3y ago

Great start. It's about time that Microsoft gets investigated as well.

haunter 3y ago
You mean the Xbox? Guess you can count Sony and Nintendo too then.
- GardenLetter27 3y ago
  Teams bundling would be the main one. Then Xbox for not allowing alternative marketplaces like Steam. OneDrive and Office365 cross-promotion is also a bit dodgy, especially tied in to the near-mandatory Microsoft account. Apple might get sued over iCloud for the same reason soon.
rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
And Google, too. Try using an popular Android application without being forced to install Google Play Services. You can't do banking, can't get notifications, etc. Many of the most critical apps will simply refuse to launch. Google slowly turned Android into a Google service thanks to developers having to rely on Google's proprietary APIs. I work at a small independent app studio, and we just decided to required the Google Play Services in our Android apps because too few people don't have it (why try and do without then). It's like all websites only supporting Chrome and nobody complaining (except a few nerds using custom ROMs). What a shame.

throwaway2037 3y ago

Also on Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/05606b16-8c4d-4535-893e-af909fcf22f0 https://www.ft.com/content/05606b16-8c4d-4535-893e-af909fcf2...

iammjm 3y ago

I like Spotify and I like Apple. But Apple do treat Spotify badly - I assume it's nothing personal but just sheer abuse of power to push their own product - Apple Music. Thanks to this I as a end user get a worse product - buggy Apple Watch App, connectivity issues, reduced functionality

judge2020 3y ago
The YouTube Music Apple Watch app works flawlessly for me. Maybe the problem is Spotify not putting in the effort to make a good watch app?
- ted_bunny 3y ago
  It's pretty poor on Android, fwiw
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
    Ironically Spotify on Android Wear has always worked better than Youtube Music.

Glimjaur 3y ago

Apples response: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify-and-europes-thriving-digital-music-market/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify... Spotifys response: https://newsroom.spotify.com/2024-03-04/the-european-commission-confirms-apples-anti-competitive-behavior-is-illegal-and-harms-consumers/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2024-03-04/the-european-commiss...

7moritz7 3y ago
Apple forgot to mention that one of the main reasons for the high fine is them having made false statements during the case.
- burnerthrow008 3y ago
  What were the false statements?
mikeortman 3y ago
Apple's response, in a nutshell: - A weird callout to the nationality of the company right out of the gate - Spotify will be nothing without us (insert crazy ex memes) - "Our engineering helps ensure that Spotify’s apps can work seamlessly with Siri, CarPlay, Apple Watch, AirPlay, Widgets, and more." -- yeah, because those are your products, Apple. You make your money on those products being tightly integrated - A bizarre quantization of the apple ecosystem by total number of "APIs" Apple gives them access to (250k) - A claim of insider coercion between Spotify and the EU Commission that made it difficult for Apple to win - They are going to appeal
- albert180 3y ago
  The Outrage out of Cupertino will be even funnier when they will get bonked for their BS Compliance with the DMA
  - arlcode 3y ago
    I mean the tone of their initial press release anouncing "compliance" was borderline unprofessional (in global company PR speak terms) and sounded at time like a pertulent teenager fuming about that "unfair" teacher. I'm sure it was all calucated and discussed a million times but if their goal was to appeal to emotions, I think it mostly failed (outside a very small nieche of Apple groupies). Their leverage in the EU is weak (thanks to few jobs and tax avoidance (even if that's legal)) Once they notice they will revert to lawywers and silent compliance.

lapcat 3y ago

The European Commission announcement: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... (ironically with cookie banner) Apple's response: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify-and-europes-thriving-digital-music-market/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify...

mjhagen 3y ago
> Apple's conduct, which lasted for almost ten years, may have led many iOS users to pay significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions [...] Apple Music and Spotify subscriptions cost exactly the same.
- stephenr 3y ago
  Not mentioned: Apple pays more than double the royalties of Spotify.
- lock-the-spock 3y ago
  Yes but Spotify gets only 70% of that cut while apple gets 100%. Without the apple tax Spotify might be able to either go down in price or increase quality/breadth/payouts to creators/other offerings/... The market is distorted and you pay more and get less if one monopoly takes all others for a ride.
  - mjhagen 3y ago
    Spotify doesn't pay that though.
  - rahkiin 3y ago
    Spotify is not paying 30% to apple, nor is it cheaper for Android users than for Apple users. So this is just margin for Spotify (and record labels), not cheaper products for users
- concinds 3y ago
  Of all the narratives surrounding Apple's practices, "it leads to higher prices for consumers" is an outright lie, and I don't know why the EU is telling it. It applies to nothing. Reader apps (Kindle/Netflix/Spotify) don't use IAP so they currently pay nothing. In-game IAPs (where the vast majority of Apple's fees come from) would just pocket the difference, because customers are used to current prices and there's no price competition that could drive prices down (you can only buy Fortnite v-bucks from Epic Games, obviously). The App Store has exerted downward pressure on app prices compared to desktop apps, not upward pressure, since its inception. The real benefit of these rulings is ease of competition (subscribing to Spotify as easily as to Apple Music, buying Kindle books as easily as iBooks, all great things). And more game companies dumping Apple IAP for their in-app gambling mechanics, overpriced cosmetic skins, and pay-to-win tokens, so they can make them non-refundable, screwing over parents. Some customers win and some lose, but prices won't change.

rchaud 3y ago

Apple blocking even the mention of alternative payment options in its app is pathetic. They are what they supposedly reviled in the original 1984 commercial for the Mac [0]. They're even doing "newspeak" in the brazenly self-serving way they attempt to justify these choices. The open web is the metaphorical sledgehammer here. Megacorps need to go back to selling cool hardware as is, instead of $1000 trojan horses for whatever Wall St analyst-approved "service" they can tack on. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I

udev4096 3y ago

What if Apple doesn't pay the fine?

albert180 3y ago
They don't have a choice as long as they are doing business in the European Union. It will be probably taken out of their Accounts in the European Subsidiary after going through the usual process of People/Companies not paying.
s_dev 3y ago
Would be like going up against the taxman. They will pay the fine because 100% no Apple exec based in Europe will risk prison time.

kingsleyopara 3y ago

Worth pointing out that when this complaint was filed Spotify was publicly complaining about the lack of equal access to the HomePod and Apple Watch.[0] Apple addressed this with API’s at WWDC the following year.[1] Yet here we are, almost 4 years later and Spotify have yet to implement support whereas competing services have.[2] [0] https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-03-13/consumers-and-innovators-win-on-a-level-playing-field/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-03-13/consumers-and-innova... [1] https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10061/ https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10061/ [2] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/06/deezer-announces-voice-control-support-for-homepod/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/06/deezer-announces-voice-...

Terretta 3y ago
They* don't have to hustle to compete when they're the in-market dominant player. * I mean Spotify.
matthewfcarlson 3y ago
Drives me nuts. Apple even added this weird sort of work around where if you ask for it on Spotify, it connects to your phone and the phone airplays Spotify to the HomePod.
shuckles 3y ago
Right: complainants can argue they should have access to all of Apple’s hardware devices for free while they themselves are an Apple-level monopoly in their market. I wonder how many billions of dollars in exclusive podcast deals for formerly openly distributed content consumers are missing out on because of these anti-steering rules.
danpalmer 3y ago
The APIs don't allow applications quite the same access as Apple Music has. I imagine that using them would weaken Spotify's complaints, while also resulting in a sub-par user experience. Users lose out in the short run, but I wouldn't necessarily blame Spotify for this.
- 3y ago

macinjosh 3y ago

A financial hangnail for Apple. Thoughts and prayers to Cupertino. /s

576768sa 3y ago

[dead]

perryizgr8 3y ago

I don't understand. If Spotify (or EU) is unhappy with Apple's offerings and don't think they are worth the money, they can simply build their own smartphone ecosystem and offer their products on there. Why coerce Apple? Why not let them do their own thing? It's not like they are preventing you from developing your own technology or funding/buying from someone else.

Seb-C 3y ago
I don't understand. If Apple is unhappy with the EU's rules and don't think they are worth the money, they can simply build their own country and offer their products on there. Why coerce Spotify? Why not let them do their own thing? It's not like the EU is preventing Apple from developing their own civilization or funding/buying from someone else.
xvector 3y ago
Because as the past 20 years have demonstrated, the EU is fundamentally incapable of innovating in consumer technology. At this point all it can do is rent-seek from US tech.

vinay_ys 3y ago

Currently Apple wants to charge core technology fee per install (irrespective of App Store or not, after first 1 million install) and App Store commission of 14.1666% of total revenue. This seems egregious because it is charging it on customer transaction and ultimately it is coming out of customer pockets when they have already paid Apple for the hardware. Instead, Apple should have disaggregated their fees. IMO, they can charge the following fees fairly: 1. Developer Ecosystem Tools – compilers, libraries, entitlements – can be one time or annual fees, not coupled with number of installs or revenue. (mandatory, entitlement fees could be per entitlement purchased by the app). 2. App Store registration fees – can be one time or annual fees, not coupled with number of installs or revenue. (optional – can choose to not use App Store) 2.1 App Store technical fees for app binary release certification – charged per app release/update. 2.2 App Store bandwidth fees – per app install delivered via App Store – charged per total bytes delivered. 2.3 App Store in-app purchase payment fees – percent of payment processed (currently 0.25%). 2.4 App Store ads fees – developers can choose to pay for Apple Ads for boosted discovery of their app within App Store. They could provide free quotas for each of the above. That way free apps can still exist. Apple can also provide iOS level capability via System Preferences or managed device profiles to lock App stores (or alternate app stores). IMHO, this is likely the path that would be well-received and will be followed by alternate app stores as well.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago
The problem with this plan is the "entitlement fee". The DMA mandates that OS API access be offered free of charge.
- zigzag312 3y ago
  Platforms are very intertwined, where third party products increase the value of the platform far beyond the base value of the platform (i.e. the value created only by the creator of the platform). A feedback loop is created as bigger platform attracts more third party products, which in turn make the platform even bigger. At some point it becomes impossible for new competition to enter the market. IMO laws should treat platforms as special in order to promote creation of environments with a healthy amount of competition. Laws requiring openness of platforms seem to be one way to do it.

todd-davies 3y ago

Note that this fine is made up of 0.04bn of fine and 1.8bn of deterrent against future anti-competitive behaviour [1]. The the 2006 fine-setting guidelines allow the Commission to do that [2]. We should read the 1.8bn lump sum (roughly 0.5% of Apple's revenue) as partially being about music streaming and app stores, but mainly a warning to all large firms which are currently jockeying for a dominant position in emerging tech like generative AI and visual computing. The warning: play fair and compete on the merits, or see you in court. [1] "the Commission decided to add to the basic amount of the fine an additional lump sum of €1.8 billion to ensure that the overall fine imposed on Apple is sufficiently deterrent" https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... [2] See paras 30 and 31. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52006XC0901%2801%29 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...

JonAtkinson 3y ago
Hi Todd!
RugnirViking 3y ago
what is actually the difference in this case? I thought the function of fines WAS the deterrent effect? or is some aspect of this restitution? I thought this was payable to the EU itself, not spotify.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I thought the function of fines WAS the deterrent effect? or is some aspect of this restitution? I thought this was payable to the EU itself, not spotify. Maybe it's something akin to punative damages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages), where the "fine" component is assessed according to the actual harm measured and the "deterrent" amount is meant to make it sting as a punishment. The law always needs a little something extra to deal with people like the guy who parks in handicap spaces because he can afford the fines.
  - 3y ago

bengale 3y ago

I wonder how many billions in fines the EU can take out of US companies before they start to get political blowback.

gitaarik 3y ago
Isn't this coming out from the politics of the EU? Isn't politics suppose to act on the desires of citizens? (In principle in Democracy). Would there be a lot of citizens that would want huge companies to easily gain a monopoly position? Is that what you want?
- bengale 3y ago
  I’m quite sure I didn’t give an opinion either way. I’m also not that interested in how things “should” be. I was just musing that at a certain point there might be political blow back in the US towards a continent that doesn’t have a lot of leverage.
  - gitaarik 3y ago
    If Europe doesn't have much leverage, which content will? And still, why would citizens vote for politicians that would make monopolies easier? Of course there's corruption. But how would that work against the laws of another continet?
    - bengale 3y ago
      You're asking me why the real world works like it does. Citizens vote from a handful of candidates that have competing priorities. One of those priorities is going to be supporting the huge companies that support them, even if it's for non-selfish reasons like their own economy. If we put aside how we wish things were or how they should be, the point I was musing on is that large companies can influence politicians in the US. The EU depends on the US in many ways, with energy and physical security probably being top of that list right now. With those things being true, there must be a point where politicians in the US, seeing the damage being done to some of the biggest companies in their own economy by a group dependent on them, start to apply pressure to back them off. If these politicians wanted their companies regulated like this they would do it themselves presumably.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

monkin 3y ago

As for me, Spotify could cease to exist. With each passing year, they become even more unusable. Now, even music recommendations are turning into rubbish. Not to mention the UI experiments...

sonicanatidae 3y ago

Apple fined 2% of the money they have in offshore accounts that they never paid taxes on. FTFY.

moogly 3y ago

Why are we talking about Microsoft's behavior 30 years ago in this thread about current Apple? Appalling diversionary tactic, that's what it is. I guess the parallel I can draw here is that just as you shouldn't defend whatever unrelated crap Microsoft pulled off in the 90s,you shouldn't defend the crap Apple is pulling off today.

octacat 3y ago

It is kinda obvious that Apple does not really want to comply with markets act, so deterrent is required here.

seec 3y ago

As an "old" Apple customer, I'm going to say it's well deserved it's not like they didn't work hard for that to happen. Apple's behavior since a few years after Job's passing (around 2015) has been appalling on many fronts. They take their customers for fools and try very hard to trap them into their prison with very little recourse (and no you don't just get rid of very expensive devices for an alternative, especially if many of your purchases are dependent on the use of one of those devices). As I get older, I care less and less especially since I am unlikely to purchase another iPhone (at the current price point with the current limitations) or any other Apple devices for that matters. In fact, the moment I decide to replace my Apple watch all the rest will follow in short order. While the platforms are still nice in some ways, they just don't provide enough lasting value with the current pricing and forced obsolescence (both hardware and software). Anyway that's good news for everyone because in the futur Apple and their friends will maybe think twice before fucking over their customers with absurdly anti-competitive rules.