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."

Comments

Well he would, wouldn't he?

[Hognoxious]

n/c

Re:Well he would, wouldn't he?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is human nature to abuse privilege once it is attained. There is simply no good reason not to.

Morality is for chumps.

Vertical integration

[imgod2u]

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.

Net neutrality

[NReitzel]

If you think things are bad now, just wait until there is no regulation on net neutrality.

Well, Duhh

[WheezyJoe]

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.

..and if he didn't, the Board would fire him for, essentially, leaving free earnings on the table - costing them money. Unless there's some pesky government regulation that'll fine you or throw you in jail, you're a fool NOT to take full advantage.. 'cause someone else will.

Oh, grow a pair

[earnil]

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,

Difference between paternalism and abuse

[goombah99]

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.

Re:Difference between paternalism and abuse

[TWX]

If Apple did a better job of actually protecting their users I might agree with you, but remember, one of those huge nude celebrity photo theft scandals was based on iCloud data being compromised en masse. On top of that, Apple provides textbook examples of vendor lock-in, creating their own versions of things like communications software with no compatibility for non-Apple devices, so that once one get accustomed to using said applications, it's much harder to leave and one has to continue paying the Apple Tax.

No single vendor is perfect. Once big in the market, every vendor attempts to manipulate the market itself. Apple is no different.

Incorrect

[s.petry]

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.