3 ms·

Spotify exceeds neither the revenue threshold of 7.5 billion euros nor the market cap threshold of 75 billion euros that is part of the definition of gatekeeper

by yorwba 3y ago

Spotify exceeds neither the revenue threshold of 7.5 billion euros nor the market cap threshold of 75 billion euros that is part of the definition of gatekeepers in Chapter II, Article 3 of the Digital Markets Act. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925#d1e1494-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... Even though they're a gateway between business users and condumers, they're not considered an important gateway because the music industry isn't big enough. (Or maybe Spotify's share of the EU music market is just too small.)

boxed 3y ago
That threshold is precisely the problem in the first place. It is a weird and arbitrary limit that "just by coincidence" happens to target a bunch of really huge American companies. Personally I hope it is that they just put that limit at the high number to warm up and then ratchet it down. But then they should say so.
- GTP 3y ago
  Surely that limit is the result of some political discussion, thus arbitrary. But I think there is no scientific way of setting such limit, so any limit you come up with will be arbitrary.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > Surely that limit is the result of some political discussion, thus arbitrary. The usual case is that the limit is certainly the result of political discussion, but not arbitrary. What you'd expect is that somebody made a list of targets, and then the thresholds were intentionally defined to include those targets and nobody else. In political contexts involving purchasing, this is called "single-sourcing". In contexts involving persecution, it is more frowned upon, and I'm not aware of a general name for the practice. But it's not a different practice.
    - GTP 3y ago
      > What you'd expect is that somebody made a list of targets, and then the thresholds were intentionally defined to include those targets and nobody else. Probably you're right, but the list of targets itself would be arbitrary, and likely was subject to discussion as well.
senorrib 3y ago
You can argue market cap isn’t there, but Spotify’s revenue in the EU far exceeds 7.5B Euro.
- robin_reala 3y ago
  No idea how accurate this is, but according to https://www.businessofapps.com/data/spotify-statistics/ https://www.businessofapps.com/data/spotify-statistics/ in 2023 Spotify had €13.2B revenue globally, and 40.5% users in Europe. Assuming that revenue is spread equally (which is a big assumption) that means that Spotify’s revenue in the EU in 2023 was €5.3B. Where did you get the “far exceeds” figure from?
roenxi 3y ago
I suspect a point to Gruber on that one - there is no logical reason to say that privacy impact is proportional to market cap or revenue. This is just the EU attempting to leverage their lack of high profile software companies. All fair in love and war; but this article is fooling few on this being a matter of principle. It looks like protectionism.
- yorwba 3y ago
  The Digital Markets Act and gatekeeper designation are primarily about antitrust, not privacy. Hence the focus on financial criteria. For privacy, there's the GDPR.

by yorwba 3y ago

boxed 3y ago

That threshold is precisely the problem in the first place. It is a weird and arbitrary limit that "just by coincidence" happens to target a bunch of really huge American companies. Personally I hope it is that they just put that limit at the high number to warm up and then ratchet it down. But then they should say so.

GTP 3y ago
Surely that limit is the result of some political discussion, thus arbitrary. But I think there is no scientific way of setting such limit, so any limit you come up with will be arbitrary.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > Surely that limit is the result of some political discussion, thus arbitrary. The usual case is that the limit is certainly the result of political discussion, but not arbitrary. What you'd expect is that somebody made a list of targets, and then the thresholds were intentionally defined to include those targets and nobody else. In political contexts involving purchasing, this is called "single-sourcing". In contexts involving persecution, it is more frowned upon, and I'm not aware of a general name for the practice. But it's not a different practice.
  - GTP 3y ago
    > What you'd expect is that somebody made a list of targets, and then the thresholds were intentionally defined to include those targets and nobody else. Probably you're right, but the list of targets itself would be arbitrary, and likely was subject to discussion as well.

senorrib 3y ago

You can argue market cap isn’t there, but Spotify’s revenue in the EU far exceeds 7.5B Euro.

robin_reala 3y ago
No idea how accurate this is, but according to https://www.businessofapps.com/data/spotify-statistics/ https://www.businessofapps.com/data/spotify-statistics/ in 2023 Spotify had €13.2B revenue globally, and 40.5% users in Europe. Assuming that revenue is spread equally (which is a big assumption) that means that Spotify’s revenue in the EU in 2023 was €5.3B. Where did you get the “far exceeds” figure from?

roenxi 3y ago

I suspect a point to Gruber on that one - there is no logical reason to say that privacy impact is proportional to market cap or revenue. This is just the EU attempting to leverage their lack of high profile software companies. All fair in love and war; but this article is fooling few on this being a matter of principle. It looks like protectionism.

yorwba 3y ago
The Digital Markets Act and gatekeeper designation are primarily about antitrust, not privacy. Hence the focus on financial criteria. For privacy, there's the GDPR.