> Isn't that because it pays 100% to Apple? I didn't expect I'd have to make this point clearer but given the pedantry in HN: Apple Music doesn't have to pay 3

> Isn't that because it pays 100% to Apple? I didn't expect I'd have to make this point clearer but given the pedantry in HN: Apple Music doesn't have to pay 30% of its revenue and survive with the rest of 70%, it has potential access to 100% of Apple Corp's revenue, which is vastly larger than the revenue that Apple Music brings to Apple Corp... Apple Corp can subsidise multiple Apple Music if they so wish to maintain an advantage. > but how do you actually solve this here? One option would be to split up Apple and require the services division to be an entirely separate company, and maybe that would be a good solution... That's exactly why anti-trust exists. And yes, splitting a company into its components if it gets big enough to engage in anti-competitive behaviour is a completely valid solution applied quite a few times in history [0][1]. Usually in international trade a competitor subsidising a product through other product lines to engage in price dumping is considered illegal. Apple Music not having to pay 30% of its revenues to Apple when other competitors would have to provide the same level of access to their subscriptions is just price dumping with a few more layers of indirection. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey...