Slashdot Mirror
Internet Giants Like Apple and Google 'Abuse Their Privileged Position', Says Spotify CEO (cnbc.com)
Giant companies like Apple and Alphabet's Google "can and do abuse their privileged positions," according to a letter sent to the European Commission by music streaming service Spotify, rival firm Deezer and Rocket Internet, among others. From a report: "Our collective experience is that where online platforms have a strong incentive to turn into gatekeepers because of their dual role, instead of maximizing consumer welfare," the CEOs wrote. In one part of the letter, the CEOs said examples of platforms turning into gatekeepers include them "restricting access to data or interaction with consumers, biased ranking and search results to lack of clarity, imbalanced terms and conditions and preference of their own vertically integrated services."
n/c
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And, so?
Hasn't every single company that has ever been in a similar position done exactly the same?
By the way, something isn't abuse because you don't like it. Apple and Google use their position to further their position. They are not abusing it because that would mean they were abusing themselves, and that doesn't even make sense.
Wasn't Microsoft slapped with an anti-trust suit in the 90's for the same vertical integration? Seems like Google preferring Google Music and Apple pushing Safari on iOS would be equivalent.
There are advantages, of course. Integrated platforms can be tested together to guarantee they work well. But it also does stifle competition.
If you think things are bad now, just wait until there is no regulation on net neutrality.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
It is human nature to abuse privilege once it is attained. There is simply no good reason not to.
Morality is for chumps.
Mod parent up. and I'll add that if Spotify's CEO had dominant market share, he'd be abusing a little too.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
If you don't like doing business with Google or Apple don't do business with them. You can also invest those millions and millions of dollars into creating your own successful mobile phones and operating systems and reap the benefits.
But of course it's cheaper to whine to EC to help you make more money.
Unfortunately, EC wouldn't wait a second to stick their stinking fingers into another industry.
If I want to sell my product through retailer, of course he will ask for part of the money. I'm using his infrastructure after all. And if he asks too much, then I simply wouldn't do business with him. And if he's only retailer on the market, yeah, that sucks. But either your product is so good that it will create a significant downside for retailer to not have it or if it doesn't maybe my product is not so good after all. That's called doing business. If you want to drag government regulation into it, well done for helping to destroy another functioning market,
I fully agree that in general walled gardens are bad. But in specifics I disagree. With google, and even more with facebook, the purpose of the wall is sell access to the cattle inside. With apple, I feel like the purpose of the wall is to protect the sheep from predators. perhaps I'm deluding myself but I feel like I see signs that apple isn't selling me out as a product in every possible way. The result of course is that apple has to make a profit some other way. Charging more for their devices is one way, and Taking a cut on apps is another. And to do that they have to prevent other ways of selling apps. On the flip side, I do feel a lot safer installing apps on my iphones than I do on my androids. Most of my rationale for paying more for apple products rests on peace of mind and lack of complexity.
Thus my feeling is apple uses it's power paternalistically, and google is more of the chicken farmer approach where the chickens don't know they are going to be put in a pie.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
So the people who have a 'screw you' attitude all the time don't see a problem with this, and the people who try to play fair get it. No surprise there. Fortunately there are still enough people who haven't given up on fair play that we still have a livable society. We could not have a society without them.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Microsoft was sued because they performed numerous illegal acts. Bundling IE was not a problem, but claiming it had to be part of the Kernel was a lie, as Microsoft repeatedly attempted to claim in court. Raising prices for people who also installed and configured Netscape was anti-competitive. Forcing vendors to install IE prominently and not install a current version of Netscape or lose the ability to sell any MS product was anti-competitive.
The problem was not vertical integration, the problem was abuse of monopoly powers to destroy competition. Repeatedly lying to courts didn't help, but didn't result in additional (or enough) punishment.
I'm pretty sure Groklaw is still around, who had a great repertoire of State/Gov vs. Microsoft cases. Not only the findings, but the evidence and arguments as well.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I think app store restrictions have always been primarily about protecting Apple's control and only incidentally about user security. I think Apple initially did have a vested interest in making the app store something less than a security train wreck, if only to get the platform off the ground and not scare away mass adoption.
But many of the restrictions were only coincidentally about security and quite often it seemed like it was just protecting their turf or ideas they had but weren't ready to introduce yet.
I expect they will get worse as iPhone revenue growth stalls and they turn to services to restore growth. There's not many services they can introduce that don't already have well-entrenched competition.
The judge in the case was not stupid, and removed the binary to prevent IE from running which Microsoft claimed would prevent Windows from running. Typical shill, not only openly lying but hiding from accountability.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You mean the SAME people we've "trusted" to tell us what is and isn't "fake news" are also ones who abuse their power?!
WHY? Color me surprised!
I'm guessing that's something to do with the RIAA?
Do you really have 10.000 all-time favorite tracks? If you're habitually saving whole albums, why not make playlists instead (those have separate 10.000 song limits from "My Music") or simply follow the artist, if you like the majority of their albums?
When I started using Spotify, I tried saving alle the music I had in my MP3 collection, and quickly ran into the limit. It made me realize how few tracks I actually considered favorites, and how few tracks I actually played on a regular basis. Don't worry, the music is still there even if you don't save it to "My Music".
Eat the rich.