Spotify Files Complaint Against Apple With the European Commission Over 30% Tax and Restrictive Rules (spotify.com)

Spotify today filed a complaint with EU antitrust regulators against Apple, saying the iPhone maker unfairly limits rivals to its own Apple Music streaming service. Spotify CEO Daniel Ek writes in a blog post: In recent years, Apple has introduced rules to the App Store that purposely limit choice and stifle innovation at the expense of the user experience -- essentially acting as both a player and referee to deliberately disadvantage other app developers. After trying unsuccessfully to resolve the issues directly with Apple, we're now requesting that the EC take action to ensure fair competition. Apple operates a platform that, for over a billion people around the world, is the gateway to the internet. Apple is both the owner of the iOS platform and the App Store -- and a competitor to services like Spotify. In theory, this is fine. But in Apple's case, they continue to give themselves an unfair advantage at every turn.

To illustrate what I mean, let me share a few examples. Apple requires that Spotify and other digital services pay a 30% tax on purchases made through Apple's payment system, including upgrading from our Free to our Premium service. If we pay this tax, it would force us to artificially inflate the price of our Premium membership well above the price of Apple Music. And to keep our price competitive for our customers, that isn't something we can do. As an alternative, if we choose not to use Apple's payment system, forgoing the charge, Apple then applies a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions on Spotify.

For example, they limit our communication with our customers -- including our outreach beyond the app. In some cases, we aren't even allowed to send emails to our customers who use Apple. Apple also routinely blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades. Over time, this has included locking Spotify and other competitors out of Apple services such as Siri, HomePod, and Apple Watch. We aren't seeking special treatment. We simply want the same treatment as numerous other apps on the App Store, like Uber or Deliveroo, who aren't subject to the Apple tax and therefore don't have the same restrictions.

Comments

I felt a great disturbance in the Force ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in fury tested their flamethrowers and donned their flame retardant suits.

Re: I felt a great disturbance in the Force ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? They can't email their own customers because Apple blah blah? Why doesn't Apple take Uber fees? Well I bet it has a lot to do with not being responsible for what happens to riders

Re: I felt a great disturbance in the Force ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? They can't email their own customers because Apple blah blah? Why doesn't Apple take Uber fees? Well I bet it has a lot to do with not being responsible for what happens to riders

The most important prerequisite for participating in a flame ware is realising that you are participating in a flame war. I think you kind of flunked that one.

What do you expect from an American company

[Anonymous Coward]

that they would be fair, honest, and not engage in protectionism? Certainly, Apple would never do such a thing. But I agree it's criminal that they can get away with it.

I hope Spotify and other apps find a way around Apple's money-trap and dirty practices.

Re:What do you expect from an American company

[jellomizer]

A business from any country will engage in protectionism. I never had worked a software company that said. Here you go, take this code, we will show you how to use it, and give you training classes, all targeted so you can make a competing product with it.

Now the US has a problem as there is a vocal group of people who see any sort of corporate regulation as "OMG COMMUNISM!111!!!!!" which in general has made the amount of regulation in US Based companies low, allowing for a lot of bad behaviors.

Re:What do you expect from an American company

[jellomizer]

Actually I am a moderate, with right leaning tenancies. However, there is a difference between excessive regulations, and needed ones. The lesa fair economy creates a high volatility in the market, big highs, and big lows. When we are in a big high, we do not want to find ways to slow down, when we are down, we are trying to rush to bring things back up.
Yes the United States is still an innovation center, with it combination of (dare I say Socialist like protections) laws that promote development, like a rather forgiving Bankruptcy Laws, and Social Safety Net to prevent someone from failing too hard, that they cannot try again. We are also host to some of the worlds top Higher Education Centers, Colleges and Universities.
However After Apple started up the the garage, and now is the worlds largest company. The Lesa Fair method, will cause apple to feed into itself. And give it unfair competition against the other innovation that is going outside of it, and using its size to crush it. And companies like Apple, are so big that they span many types of services, so they are in an odd condition where they need to compete and partner with the same company. Because enough people like Spotify, Apple will need to support it, in order to sell its devices, because they will sell less without it. However Apple also wants to push its streaming music service, and that business unit is the one who also handles the payments. So they will make a platform designed to be great for Spotify to use, however cause it to be non-competive because of business redtape.

Re: What do you expect from an American company

[aliquis]

Criminal to get away with something?

That's not how it work. When it's decided a crime you didn't get away.

Re: What do you expect from an American company

[mSparks43]

surely a prerequisite of being an "American company" is that you have some money in America?

Apple dont have any money in in America.

The closest they come to having money in America is setting aside a small amount to pay "geniuses" to tell customers their otherwise perfectly working hardware needs completely replacing.

Re:What do you expect from an American company

[lgw]

A business from any country will engage in protectionism. I never had worked a software company that said. Here you go, take this code, we will show you how to use it, and give you training classes, all targeted so you can make a competing product with it.

Amazon did this, when they allowed third party sellers to compete with Amazon n the main amazon.com store pages. Of course, the EU wants to punish them for that now.

Re: What do you expect from an American company

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that there is eurogoogle, no europod and no europhone, I'd say that is correct. The web is almost 30 years old and there is no internet giant in the EU. It can be because europeans are not as smart as they think, because traditionally europeans do not like to pioneer new business or because regulations have been written by elderly people living in a bygone era. It's most probably a combination of the three.

Re:What do you expect from an American company

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope Apple stops selling products in the EU. They can try to use maybe Spotify parrots.

Re: What do you expect from an American company

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to be able to stream spotify on my Homepod speaker and calling up the music on spotify using siri even though siri is highly disappointing in what it can do.

Re: What do you expect from an American company

[drinkypoo]

That's not how it work. When it's decided a crime you didn't get away.

Bill Gates and Microsoft did.

Re:What do you expect from an American company

[lgw]

The lesa fair economy

"Laissez-faire": literally "let do", but idiomatically "hands off".

And, yes, laissez-faire capitalism is silly, and "no regulations at all" is not a principle of capitalism.

Re:What do you expect from an American company

[Anonymous Coward]

"no regulations at all" is not a principle of capitalism. - It's THE principle of retard-Republicanism however.

Re:What do you expect from an American company

[Anonymous Coward]

that they would be fair, honest, and not engage in protectionism? Certainly, Apple would never do such a thing. But I agree it's criminal that they can get away with it.

I hope Spotify and other apps find a way around Apple's money-trap and dirty practices.

that they would be fair, honest, and not engage in protectionism? Certainly, Apple would never do such a thing. But I agree it's criminal that they can get away with it.

I hope Spotify and other apps find a way around Apple's money-trap and dirty practices.

There is a very easy way for Spotify, or anyone, to avoid Apple's "money-trap and dirty practices".

Don't publish an App in the iOS App Store.

Done.

CAPTCHA: Borders

Re:What do you expect from an American company

[lgw]

"no regulations at all" is not a principle of capitalism. - It's THE principle of retard-Republicanism however.

Oh, the Republicans love regulatory capture. Much like the Democrats: more regulations or fewer, whichever pleases their corporate masters.

Re:What do you expect from an American company

[Demena]

Libtard? Sounds like a right wing twit to me.

Re:What do you expect from an American company

[Demena]

"lesa fair". Right, you sure know what you are talking about don't you? You demonstrate little though and a vast ignorance.

Re: What do you expect from an American company

[cyber-vandal]

There are no giant privacy violating European organisations it's true, but both Android and iOS run on chips designed by a British company and the core of Android was created by a Finn.

Re: What do you expect from an American company

[Anonymous Coward]

SpaceX was founded by a South African... yet none of those things you mentioned were able to get big where they were, only in America was it possible.

Re: What do you expect from an American company

[loufoque]

Nokia, former biggest phone maker, is European.
Then they shot themselves in the foot by cancelling all their good projects and focusing on Microsoft Phone.

Re: What do you expect from an American company

[Anonymous Coward]

You know Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the web (not the whole internet, but the browsable bits) is British/European?

Re: What do you expect from an American company

[cyber-vandal]

ARM got big in the UK and is still there. Linux is a global phenomenon. South Africa isn't in Europe.

competition

[fluffernutter]

What ever happened to the concept of restricting businesses due to unfair competition? At one time TV networks could not sell products. Surely it works the same for the owner of the whole marketplace?

Re:competition

[supremebob]

I have to wonder if Spotify had something to do with Elizabeth Warren's comments about breaking up Apple as well.

I'd imagine that when you go against a company like Apple in a legal battle, you're going to try to fight it on multiple fronts. That way, Apple can't focus their efforts and assemble a legal "dream team" to quash the EU filing because they have other Antitrust filings elsewhere to battle.

Re:competition

[e3m4n]

Actually it sounds like the internet explorer case that microsoft lost, but on steroids. Its significantly more egregious since the app store is the gateway to loading software. At least in windows 98/xp the only means of installing software was to download a zip/exe/cab file and run an installer. That precluded the ability to stifle the customers power to install whatever they wanted. They still lost. With the app store, they can not only tell you what you can and cannot install, but also force the vendors to give them a cut of gross sale regardless how razor thin the profit margin is. I really don’t see how it’s much different then the mob showing up in your business and insisting that you buy their fire insurance.

Re:competition

[Dog-Cow]

Apple could fund a 100 lawyers for a 100 years out of petty cash. Multiple fronts isn't going to overwhelm Apple's legal team.

Re:competition

[fluffernutter]

Yes this is why the anti-competition laws were there in the first place. Apple takes this competitive advantage and leverages it against the entire industry.

Re: competition

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing. This suit should have wings based on past precedent alone. Go Spotify!

Re:competition

[turp182]

Amazon has hundreds of house brands competing against 3rd parties (and they use sales information to drive new brands...).

But they don't charge 30% per transaction.

Re:competition

[registrations_suck]

Apple makes a phone and sells music services on it.

Spotify could make a phone and sell music services on it too. But instead, it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.

On a related note...Spotify of course doesn't make the music either. It is just a middle man. It wants to connector creators and consumers, and charge a Spotify tax to SOMEBODY (either users who pay, or advertise), to make use of its marketplace. Sound familiar?

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it gives additional ways to get at Apple.There's also always the opportunity to make Apple say "no" and "yes" at the same time to the same question, i.e you can't defend yourself in one domain without opening up a hole somewhere else.

IOW it's not about "overwhelming" it's about seeing where you can find something which sticks and trying to force errors by making the different different defending teams interfere with or directly harm each other. In an organisation like Apple, it's very hard for one hand to know what the other is doing even at the best of times. Now add more hands, and something as complicated as several anti-trust cases in different variations, and add not only the need for one to know what the other is doing but a need to fully coordinate them. It will be a right pain for Apple.

Re: competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yeah. Both points very familiar. Like a montage of a middle man pub crawl. Deplorable.

Re:competition

[fluffernutter]

What do you think are Spotify's chances of making a smartphone and going up against Apple and Google? I'm interested to know, because if it's less than 50% your point is bullshit.

Re: competition

[Anonymous Coward]

After she lied in her ads and said sage was speaking for Facebook, I donâ(TM)t see why anyone listens to her. She already has no credibility. She claimed Facebook wanted Facebook to break up with her lies and disrespect of trademarks.

Re:competition

[Gilgaron]

I've not used Spotify, but I've used other competitors: the value added is the algorithms that help you find music. The rest of your argument is pro-anticompetitive trust. Should Spotify also pay a cut of their subscription free to Microsoft and Intel to stream to a PC?

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think are Spotify's chances of making a smartphone and going up against Apple and Google? I'm interested to know, because if it's less than 50% your point is bullshit.

Their chances are 100%. There are probably at least dozens of phone makers who could make a phone for them, or rebrand an existing one.

What are their chances of doing that and succeeding against Apple and Google?

That's not the question you asked.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember this! Then the courts said "well if you want people to use your browser, you should make your own OS". Then we all went to the pub and laugh and laughed until we had to go home.

Re:competition

[Registered Coward v2]

What ever happened to the concept of restricting businesses due to unfair competition? At one time TV networks could not sell products. Surely it works the same for the owner of the whole marketplace?

Spotify can chose not to be on the iPhone, or chose to stream via the web and still let you get access. if you look at Spotify, they are a music marketplace; so should they be required to accept any music and pay the same to the artists across the board for every listen?

Re:competition

[AmiMoJo]

Are they not allowed to just charge iOS users more, or require subscriptions to be bought via their web site?

I seem to dimly recall Apple banning that, or wanting to...

Re:competition

[fluffernutter]

Spotify's investors would not be likely to agree to abandoning the iphone.

Re:competition

[fluffernutter]

No No but you were talking about Apple selling a music app. This means that Spotify needs to compete against Apple's ecosystem, not just get a phone.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon has hundreds of house brands competing against 3rd parties (and they use sales information to drive new brands...).

But they don't charge 30% per transaction.

Because they simply kick you out of business, and why bother with 30% of nothing?

Re:competition

[Registered Coward v2]

Spotify's investors would not be likely to agree to abandoning the iphone.

I agree, and there are ways for Spotify to provide its service on an iPhone without requiring an app. Access to Apple's user base is clearly desirable given its size and demographics. For me, the broader question is " Should a company be required to give free or low costs access to a user base that exists because of their product?" If the answer is yes, the follow-on is "Should they be required to compensate the all of the product suppliers equally?" This would mean services such as Spotify and Apple Music would have to allow anyone to place music on it and compensate the artist for every time it is streamed. I am sure Spotify would disagree with the idea that they should treat all artists the same and allow unfettered access to their user base to all comers and compensate them as well.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

With the app store, they can not only tell you what you can and cannot install, but also force the vendors to give them a cut of gross sale regardless how razor thin the profit margin is.

Just like any other payment platform.

Re: competition

[Anonymous Coward]

That's where all the money really comes from, you know, ripped off, poor, starving musicians.

I hope they both spend a gazillion bucks on lawyers.

Re:competition

[religionofpeas]

it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.

Apple rides on the coattails of the semiconductor industry. Shame.

Re:competition

[chiefcrash]

Apple makes a phone and sells music services on it.

Spotify could make a phone and sell music services on it too. But instead, it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.

On a related note...Spotify of course doesn't make the music either. It is just a middle man. It wants to connector creators and consumers, and charge a Spotify tax to SOMEBODY (either users who pay, or advertise), to make use of its marketplace. Sound familiar?

Microsoft makes an operating system and gives away a web browser with it. Netscape could make a computer operating system and give away web browsers too. But instead, it wants to JUST give away its web browser, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the operating system to make that possible...

On a related note.... Netscape of course doesn't make the websites either. It is just a middle man...

Sound familiar?

Re:competition

[xonen]

What's so special about making hardware? Musicians make software. Spotify maintains servers that hosts files and streams them. Everyone in this scheme has a role. Without software, the hardware is useless. Without music, less people would want to buy a phone. Without musicians, there's no music at all.
There's also the carrier or internet in general. There's the various taxes and radio frequency licenses. There's so many parties involved, that i really wonder why you think Apple is so special and Spotify is not.

Disclaimer: i cancelled my Spotify account long ago and am back to old school cd's, vinyl, tapes and radio. My smartphone is next on the won't-replace list.

Re: competition

[reanjr]

The big difference is Windows marketshare was significant enough to be talked about as a monopoly.

Apple's not even the market leader.

Re:competition

[drinkypoo]

Apple makes a phone and sells music services on it.
Spotify could make a phone and sell music services on it too.

No, they could not reasonably make their own phone. Without access to someone else's app store, it would be dead in the water — lack of apps is what killed Windows Phone. Apple and Google are sucking all the air out of the room, and consumers have to be protected from the consequences of that fact. This isn't just about Spotify.

Re:competition

[xonen]

Musicians make software.

Obviously i ment: Musicians make music. Well, some make software too. Or hardware. Or all of them *shrugs*

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

So whats is the point of the app system if you can't install whatever app you want because Apple would unfairly interfere to protect their own competing business. I should have twenty phones for twenty tasks because every app maker needs to make their own phone?

Re:competition

[DRJlaw]

Apple makes a phone and sells music services on it.

Spotify could make a phone and sell music services on it too. But instead, it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.

That's a bit of revisionist history.

Apple makes a phone and launches a store that is the only way for non-enterprise, non-developer customers to load software upon it. Apple invites essentially all comers to the store, which is governed by generally applicable rules. It's 2007.

Spotify launches a music service and an app through the Apple store. It's 2008. Apple sells music services -- through iTunes, which is automatically present on the phone -- that do not include streaming music services.

Apple launches streaming music services -- through the Music app, which is automatically present on the phone -- that includes streaming music services. It's 2015. Spotify has been in this space on this device for 7 years.

Apple's music app is not subject to the same pricing structure -- Apple simply matches the Spotify service fee without the overhead of paying itself 30% -- and is marketed by email to all Apple ID holders, something Spotify itself cannot do.

But instead, it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.

They were invited in. Then Apple leveraged its dominance in the platform to make special, anticompetitive rules for itself and expand into that line of business. There are terms for bodies of law that govern that. I believe that they include antitrust (U.S.) and competition law (E.U.).

On a related note...Spotify of course doesn't make the music either. It is just a middle man. It wants to connector creators and consumers, and charge a Spotify tax to SOMEBODY (either users who pay, or advertise), to make use of its marketplace. Sound familiar?

Nope - not remotely familiar. Spotify doesn't impose special rules on the content of music based whether the artist is a Spotify employee (or partner) or not. Spotify doesn't function as a creator and a connector self-interested in promoting itself to the detriment of other creators. Spotify doesn't have a fee structure that requires artists to pay it substantially more than it pays itself to distribute creations through the service.

I'm not convinced by your argument at all. European authorities will not be either.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Ayn Rand retarded logic sound familiar to you? Perhaps you are from the school of objectivity and shortsightedness where corporations live in their own cosmos. Ayn Rand doesn't stand even the simplest analysis and neither does y our bullshit unless you spell out what you are aiming at:

Apple shall be dictator and arbitrager of any decision concerning Apples bottom line. Can you tell me the reason there is an app store and if it is supposedly to give the user the ability to choose services and extend functionality beyond Apple. And why you believe that Apple should have the final say of whatever the user can do, decided on the basis of what's good for Apple.

Re:competition

[thegarbz]

But instead, it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.

With great marketshare and power comes great responsibility. The fact of the matter is that no Spotify cannot do the latter precisely because of the advantage of being the market leader afforded to Apple.

It is called antitrust laws. Fortunately in Europe they apply to everyone rather than just looking at the singular cost to an end user like they do in the USA.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple doesn't own the phone but still maintains ownership.

Re:competition

[ilsaloving]

Right, because that worked really well for Blackberry, Microsoft, Jolla...

I can't fathom how your post was modded insightful.

There's a huge difference between running a music service and building up an entire hardware ecosystem.

Apple spent well over a decade building up iOS before it decided to just jump into music subscription. And you think it's reasonable for Spotify to just jump into the hardware market willy nilly?

The problem is that Apple carved out a monopoly position with it's infrastructure and is now abusing that position to introduce new products at the detriment of existing ones. Just like Microsoft did with Internet Explorer. The difference is that Apple is trying very hard to keep itself from being declared a monopoly by keeping it's base small compared to competitors like Android, to hopefully avoid the circus Microsoft went through.

Ilsa

Re:competition

[registrations_suck]

What was Apple's chance of going up against everyone else in the mobile world? Hint: it was given virtually no chance of success at all.

Re:competition

[registrations_suck]

Apple shall be dictator and arbitrager of any decision concerning Apples bottom line.

That is pretty much the gist of it. If you don't like that, you are free not to buy Apple's products, or use its App Store. Go somewhere else where you can be more successful.

Re:competition

[fluffernutter]

There was no one in the smart phone market when Apple entered it with the iPod.

Re: competition

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like saying that someone who monopolizes gas and diesel distribution isn't a monopoly if more people own bicycles than cars. Apple has monopolized app distribution to a device that only does something useful when it has apps on it, I'd call that serious enough for antitrust?

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a well established smart phone market, and had been for at least 6 years, but none of it was marketed to consumers. County government had a bunch, firefighters, hospitals, etc... And they were very expensive, almost as much as the "flagship" phones are today, but back in 2000-2005. Having a cell modem that could work with your computer and also be its own device was like a superpower back then.

Oddly, Microsoft was a major player back then, and I still consider Windows Mobile to be the best smart phone OS I've used. They totally dropped the ball on the market change that Apple brought about, first ignoring it, then throwing their previous success under the bus in favor of crap (though that seems to be their strategy in all markets lately).

Re: competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Musicians are free to choose a different publisher/music store. iOS app devs are locked into 1 store. Apple has a monopoly on iOS app stores.

Contrast that to PS4 devs, they can sell their game in any store.

Re: competition

[fluffernutter]

Apple has one of the two biggest app markets. They use that to help their apps. Spotify does not own an app market. Fair competition should allow for Spotify either use Apple as a service to sell their app *OR* compete with Apple's app. What they should not be forced to do is both use Apple as a service and compete with their app and that is what is wrong here. Apple's app does not have to pass on it's own merits because Apple leverages the market to make it more affordable.

Re:competition

[hashish16]

I'm sure spotify has been planning this for some time. Just good timing, but maybe there was some interaction.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Were you there?

Not only were the carriers the gatekeepers to the "smart phone market", their barriers to entry were *outrageous*. I wanted to develop apps for AT&T phones in 2002 as a small-time developer; impossible. The licensing fees started at $10,000+/year, but you had to have already a company of a certain size and trajectory just to be allowed to shell out that kind of money for the privilege --so, no indie development. Not surprisingly, the market for smart phone apps was ridiculously minuscule back then, which was precisely what made it all the more interesting: if you got an early start the potential was inimaginable. A large part of Apple launching the first iPhone was, precisely, wrestling that control away from the carriers and being allowed by them to introduce a device to operate in their networks while maintaining ownership of the device's platform.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

If by "ride on the coattails" you mean investing *billions* of dollars to both develop their own chips and license third-party intellectual property, then sure, they're "riding" on the coattails of the semiconductor industry. Being a participant in said industry, both as a developer/supplier of technology and as a customer/licensor, would be much more considerate with the facts.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting case in point. So, why didn't Netscape survive simply by selling browsers for other platforms, say for instance the Mac? Answer: because Windows had a dominant position in the market to the extent that other platforms didn't even constitute competition. In fact, Microsoft was legally found to have a monopoly, and therefore its actions were illegal.
You see, bundling is not per se illegal. As Microsoft itself argued back then, you can bundle a ham sandwich with your operating system if you want, for as long as you find demand for your "bundle" ... *except* if you have monopoly power. So, Apple's bundling of any service or product with any other service or product is illegal only if Apple has a monopoly position in the market for that service or product.
With that in mind, where's Apple monopoly? Of course you can't say "Apple has a monopoly in iOS": "iOS" is not a market, merely a product in a market (competing, e.g., against Android and Symbian in the mobile space). You'd have to show that Apple wields monopolistic power in, say, mobile apps, mobile hardware, music services or some related market. Failing that, Apple is free to bundle its apps/services with its platform in order to, precisely, exploit the synergies made possible by their investment of billions of dollars in creating both the hardware and software that constitute said platform. Their position is similar to that of supermarkets that sell a "store brand" that competes directly with other brands you also find on the shelves: the store brand is cheaper, sure, and gives the store a selling advantage, but it doesn't make it illegal, or even unethical.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Do consumers really need to be protected? And is that what Spotify is arguing?
Consumers would have to be protected if Google and Apple were colluding in the market, rather than competing, in order to keep prices artificially high. What Spotify is saying is that the prices are so low that there's not enough margin for themselves as middle-men. So, for the sake of discussion, imagine that Spotify won and Apple was forced to raise its prices so that Spotify could also raise theirs and still compete; is that the kind of "consumer protection" you're referring to? Or imagine that somehow Apple was ordered to allow Spotify to operate for free in the iOS platform: shouldn't then musicians argue that Spotify itself is charging a "music tax" that is hurting them and therefore Spotify should also be forced to allow musicians to be in the Spotify platform for free?

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Antitrust laws don't apply to mere market leaders: they apply to monopolies. Not only that, but only to monopolies that behave anti-competitively.

So you first have to show that Apple has monopoly power on, say, the music distribution business (or some related market). Then you have to show that Apple is using that power anticompetitively, for instance by artificially raising prices to consumers.

So, as a consumer, ask yourself: do you think on average you're paying too much for your music streaming service(s)? Since Spotify is complaining that the cost of participating in the platform (what they incorrectly and tendentiously call the "Apple tax", as if Apple was a government) is too high, that seems to point to the fact that prices are not, in fact, too high: they're merely to high FOR THEM, since they don't own the platform. But Apple (and Google) invested billions of dollars in building and marketing their platforms, so I'm not sure it's unfair for them to exploit the synergies derived from the products of that investment. Should Kroger then be forbidden from selling products under its store brand at a cheaper price than their competitors, despite the fact that it's Kroger and not the competitors who incur the cost and the risk of building, staffing and operating said stores?

Re: competition

[Bert64]

Actually it's more like saying someone has monopolized diesel distribution, when the majority of cars use gas... You are free to choose a diesel car knowing these restrictions, or you can just as easily buy a gas car.

Re:competition

[Bert64]

There was blackberry, symbian, windows mobile...
Apple succeeded because their product was vastly superior to these existing offerings in various ways.

Re:competition

[Bert64]

Anyone can create a piece of "music" and distribute a million copies of it for negligible cost, many people do with varying degrees of quality. Once the first copy is created, infinite copies can be created and distributed for free.
Anyone can create a piece of software and distribute a million copies of it for negligible cost. many people do with varying degrees of quality. Once the first copy is created, infinite copies can be created and distributed for free.

It is much harder to create and distribute a piece of hardware, while anyone could in theory design a piece of hardware actually manufacturing it requires tooling and raw materials. Even after the initial design phase, each subsequent unit will still cost something to produce.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

> The problem is that Apple carved out a monopoly position ...

I think this is the crux of the argument: does Apple have a monopoly? If so, a monopoly of what? Mobile operating systems? Music distribution systems? Mobile payment systems? It really is unclear what is the basis for the "monopoly" accusation. The comparison with Microsoft, however, is not apt: back in the day Microsoft had indeed monopoly power in the personal computing power (Apple was almost bankrupt and Linux was for hobbyists who didn't mind to find out the brand of their video chip so they could find -without Google, which didn't exist back then!- the signal frequency rates in order to be able to install and configure their own XServer ... I know, I was there, I did that!)

Notice you can't claim they have a monopoly on "iOS" or "iPhone": those are products, not markets. What they do is *own* the platform where other companies sell, and then they also compete with those other companies in that platform: that is not a monopoly, either legally or economically. Is Apple somehow distorting the market so that consumers are paying more for streaming services than they would pay otherwise? I'm not sure that's the case. Are musicians being paid less because of Apple's agresive pricing policies combined with their monopoly power? Again, I don't think that's clear. Spotify is saying they can't effectively compete with the owner of the platform, which might be true, but that probably already means that prices are low enough that there's no space for middle-men, and if that's the case then the market is operating exactly how it should.

Re:competition

[Bert64]

The top and bottom of it is, you don't want to be dependent upon someone else's platform incase they decide to later cut you out of the market.

But instead of pushing for and promoting open platforms, companies are happy to be dependent on someone else's platform while the owner of that platform isn't trying to compete with them - and then act all surprised when that platform owner steals the lunch they laid out under their nose. The platform owner is a business too, if they see you making a good profit on a platform they control of course they're going to leverage their position to take that profit for themselves.

If you want to be able to run your business in an open market, you need open platforms on which to do so.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

This is correct, and it is why the IE case was ridiculous. Netscape could have made it's own operating system and included netscape if they wanted to.

Since they didn't create an operating system, they have no bone in the fight about monopolies in operating systems.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes this is why the anti-competition laws were there in the first place. Apple takes this competitive advantage and leverages it against the entire industry.

WHAT "Competitive Advantage"?

Apple holds NOWHERE NEAR a monopolistic share of ANY of the Markets they compete in.

THEIR App Stores don't count; because that's like saying Apple has a "Monopoly" on making iPhones, and it is UNFAIR or MONOPOLISTIC that no one else can make an "iPhone".

That's like saying that Walmart can't sell "Great Value" products for less than the "Brand-Name" equivalents on the same shelves, because Walmart has a "Monopoly" on what they sell and what they sell it for, in their OWN STORES.

Tough. Welcome to a Free Market Society. Don't like it? Shop at Kroger. Buy an Android. STFU and GTFO, Comrade!

Re: competition

[registrations_suck]

Apple has one of the two biggest app markets. They use that to help their apps. Spotify does not own an app market.

Apple owns an app market because it created one for itself. Spotify is free to do the same.

Fair competition should allow for Spotify either use Apple as a service to sell their app *OR* compete with Apple's app.

What they should not be forced to do is both use Apple as a service and compete with their app and that is what is wrong here.

Spotify isn't forced to deal with Apple AT ALL. It is free to ignore Apple entirely.

because Apple leverages the market to make it more affordable.

And the very last thing consumers want is for something to be more affordable.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Its significantly more egregious since the app store is the gateway to loading software.

First off, ASSUMING that you are talking about iOS, you STILL aren't correct.

Second off, don't like it? Don't buy an iPhone. Simple as that.

Whatever happened to "Due Diligence" and "Caveat Emptor"?

Everyone wants Gummint to "Protect" them. Bunch of fucking whiners. Grow a pair and vote with your FEET. If enough customers and developers abandon the iOS platform due to these (completely legal and ethical!!!) business practices and restrictions, Apple WILL change them.

Apple is ANYTHING but Stupid. Think about it. YOU have the Power. Use it or Lose it!

CAPTCHA: Remorse (as in Buyer's Remorse)

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no one in the smart phone market when Apple entered it with the iPod.

The iPod isn't a Smartphone, moron.

Go to Hell, Hater.

Re:competition

[registrations_suck]

It is ridiculous for a court to decide what should be included with an OS and what should not be included with an OS.

If someone wants to include web browser capability in an OS, the court should pretty much just fuck off.

Re:competition

[registrations_suck]

It is egregious that no one but GM is allowed make GM products. I mean, GM has a total monopoly on making GM products! That's so unfair!!

Re:competition

[registrations_suck]

No, they could not reasonably make their own phone. Without access to someone else's app store, it would be dead in the water

Really?

What App Store did Apple have access to when it made its own phone? Oh yeah, that's right! It made its OWN phone and its OWN app store.

Re:competition

[registrations_suck]

> The problem is that Apple carved out a monopoly position ...

I think this is the crux of the argument: does Apple have a monopoly? If so, a monopoly of what? Mobile operating systems? Music distribution systems? Mobile payment systems? It really is unclear what is the basis for the "monopoly" accusation.

It is because people are confusing "monopoly" with "vertical integration.

The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is making its own products. Those products include hardware (phones, computers, tablets, media streamers, etc.), controller software required to make THOSE products minimally work out of the box (OS X, iOS, tvOS, etc.), and applications to allow people to do something useful with those products (a browser, a messaging app, etc.).

Besides all of that, it also created a mechanism (App Store) for third parties to benefit from hardware that Apple sells to its customers. This increases the usefulness of Apple's hardware to its customers, and, presumably, allows Apple to sell more hardware to those customers.

Apple doesn't not sell hardware for the purpose of enriching 3rd parties, who are not Apple's customers. If THOSE people want to have access to Apple's customers, they pay Apple for that access. If they are unhappy with that arrangement, they are welcome to try to reach those customers another way, or pursue other avenues to enrich themselves.

Similarly, a head hunter doesn't provide access to its rolodex of job-seekers for free. If it makes a connection between a employer and an employee, it gets paid.

Re: competition

[registrations_suck]

Musicians are free to choose a different publisher/music store. iOS app devs are locked into 1 store.

Yes, but they are not locked into being iOS app devs. They are free to develop software for any other platform that interests them.

Re: competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Except apple doesnâ(TM)t have a monopoly. Not even close. Hell, they arenâ(TM)t even a majority, let alone a cornered market.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.

Apple rides on the coattails of the semiconductor industry. Shame.

And don't forget the laws of Physics! If the laws of Physics didn't exist, then there wouldn't BE any semiconductor industry...

Morons.

Re:competition

[JBMcB]

What ever happened to the concept of restricting businesses due to unfair competition? At one time TV networks could not sell products. Surely it works the same for the owner of the whole marketplace?

Those laws only kick in if the behavior is harming the consumer directly. Can a consumer easily get Spotify on other devices? Yes? Then there's no problem.

The converse to your idea would be any fly-by-night smart device manufacturer should be able to *force* Spotify to develop an app for their platform. Otherwise it's unfair, right?

Re:competition

[fluffernutter]

Well, your way there will eventually be one or two companies that own everything. In order for capitalism to function, competition must be encouraged not stifled. Limiting the markets that an app can participate in is stifling that app's ability to compete.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft makes an operating system and gives away a web browser with it. Netscape could make a computer operating system and give away web browsers too. But instead, it wants to JUST give away its web browser, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the operating system to make that possible...
On a related note.... Netscape of course doesn't make the websites either. It is just a middle man...
Sound familiar?

No, it doesn't sound familiar. Microsoft isn't forcing all windows apps to be downloaded through their store and taking a 30% cut. Not saying what Apple is doing is wrong, it just is an apples/oranges comparison you are making.

Re:competition

[JBMcB]

In order for capitalism to function, competition must be encouraged not stifled. Limiting the markets that an app can participate in is stifling that app's ability to compete.

Sure, but you are mis-defining competition. There are plenty of ways to use Spotify that don't involve Apple. You can even use Spotify on iOS using Safari and completely bypass Apple's app store. Otherwise there's Sonos, Alexa, Android, any device with a web browser, most blu-ray players, most receivers, smart TVs, any Roku-like device...

You could argue that Apple is stifling competition on Apple's platform, but they aren't preventing anyone from doing anything off of their platform, and that's where anti-monopoly rules would kick in.

Re: competition

[Obfuscant]

And the very last thing consumers want is for something to be more affordable.

I am an Apple user. What is this thing "affordable" you speak of? I would love to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:competition

[Obfuscant]

There was no one in the smart phone market when Apple entered it with the iPod.

Apple neither entered the smart phone market nor created it when they released the iPod. The iPod isn't a smart phone.

Re:competition

[fluffernutter]

It doesn't matter. Competition in this sense is what is best for capitalism to work.

Re:competition

[fluffernutter]

It was obviously the predecessor and ramp-up to the iPhone.

Re:competition

[Obfuscant]

Spotify's investors would not be likely to agree to abandoning the iphone.

"We cannot make a profit selling through the iPhone. We cannot make up the losses by increasing the volume." That should be enough to convince all but the Apple fanboi investors.

Now, if Spotify is making a profit through Apple, then the issue devolves into crying because Apple won't let them make as much profit as they want. But they're still making a profit.

It's one or the other.

Re:competition

[Obfuscant]

It was obviously the predecessor and ramp-up to the iPhone.

There was no iPhone, and it was "obviously" a follow-on to the Walkman. And the thousands of other MP3 players that came before it. And it still had nothing to do with the smart phone market. Apple did not enter the smart phone market, as you incorrectly claim, when it released the iPod.

Re: competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you've forgotten just how bad the first gen iPhone was.
It was a phone with a web browser. No apps, no store, music loaded on by cable from iTunes.

The only way that it was better than other smartphones available at the time was the quality of the web browsing experience. It turns out that's what really mattered to people.

Re: competition

[Anonymous Coward]

How come everyone thinks monopoly laws only affect companies with market shares of 99% when actual laws of actual countries kick in at 25% or more? Does noone ever read the business section of a newspaper?

Re:competition

[thegarbz]

But instead of pushing for and promoting open platforms, companies are happy to be dependent on someone else's platform while the owner of that platform isn't trying to compete with them - and then act all surprised when that platform owner steals the lunch they laid out under their nose.

There's a reason they are happy with this, there are laws that protect their interests in doing so. Spotify isn't acting surprised in the slightest, they are acting on enacting the protections they have in place for their business strategy.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck apple.

Re:competition

[JBMcB]

It doesn't matter. Competition in this sense is what is best for capitalism to work.

OK, then you are looking for substitute goods. If a consumer wants to use Spotify, is there a replacement platform for iOS that lets you do that? Yes. Is Apple preventing anyone from using a replacement platform? No. Then everything's OK.

Again, I can walk into Best Buy and buy dozens of devices that can run Spotify that have nothing to do with Apple. That's competition. How many of those devices also run Apple Music? Two or three? I'm failing to see the issue where Spotify is disadvantaged one ONE of those platforms. Granted, it's a popular platform, but it isn't even the MOST popular.

Re:competition

[fluffernutter]

So what if a person has $10000 in iOS apps? Spotify just isn't allowed to reach those people?

Re:competition

[fluffernutter]

You know, none of this really matters anyway. Life on Earth simply won't work if companies are allowed to leverage resources to the extent that they become the only company. Furthermore, there can be no capitalism either; so why go down this rabbit hole.

Re:competition

[unrealmp3]

Unfortunately it's not always this black and white. Some people REQUIRE an iPhone for work because of some apps that aren't available on competing platforms, so they are basically stuff in Apple's walled garden. The free market is an illusion at best.

Re:competition

[unrealmp3]

Are they not allowed to just charge iOS users more

They are, but whoever isn't tech-savvy or aware of that will compare Apple Music and Spotify and might decide to choose the former because Apple doesn't have to markup their subscription pricing to compensate the 30% cut. Sure, it's capitalism at work, but Apple is basically double-dipping on each subscriptions made through IAPs from their direct competitors.

or require subscriptions to be bought via their web site?

They can, but they cannot link or make it easy whatsoever for the customer to land on such a page, or make any mention of that possibility. Something that Apple also doesn't have to work around.

Re:competition

[unrealmp3]

Just like any other payment platform.

Is the payment platform providing the same exact service that the one being offered, therefore being in direct competition, or is it just handling the money processing?

Re: competition

[unrealmp3]

Apple owns an app market because it created one for itself. Spotify is free to do the same.

Can it add its own market on the iPhone though? No. It's a walled garden. Sure, Spotify will make its own smartphone company from the ground up, make an app store, etc. Even Microsoft tried getting in the game late with Windows Phone and didn't succeed. It's highly unlikely a competitor will be able to break in and have a significant enough marketshare to overtake Apple and tip the game in their favor now.

Re:competition

[unrealmp3]

Spotify could make a phone and sell music services on it too

lol, Microsoft tried to get into the smartphone market later in the game and they failed monumentally. It's unrealistic now to even think that a smaller business could break into that market solely to sell their music services. Apple does deserve to be compensated for their services, but to ask anyone to build an empire like this from the ground up to fight this is insane and out of touch with reality.

Re:competition

[unrealmp3]

Good for them, they're the pioneer who opened this world to others, and providing a service to process payment and that's totally fine. Now let's have a small thought experiment. Imagine that Visa decides to have 30% fees from the merchant for each transactions (which would be absurd, but that's not the point), most merchants would drop them almost instantly. Now, let's say that that payment processor decides to also get into the wholesale market and makes a huge breakthrough and becomes basically Amazon, Wal-Mart, etc. Some of their own services are exclusively sold there. Sure, they do not have a monopoly, but if you want that service you HAVE to get it there, using that payment processor only. Since Visa is the payment processor and they sell the service, all the money goes to them. Fine. Now, a competing service, that existed many years before, that is normally cheaper or similarly priced to the Visa one is sold in other places, but to reach a significant market you have to offer it through Visa's store. The thing is, if you want to make it easy to get it for Visa's customers, you have to use that payment processor. Since Visa is bigger than you and control the payment system, you have no other way to compete but to either increase your price, making your service less attractive, or operate at a loss which is out of question. This is how Apple can and will extinguish competitors, because they control the whole supply chain and it doesn't matter that you were there before, they'll kill you by systematically taking 30% of your sales because they did all the colossal work before. It's a tough situation to rectify, making sure that competitors have a fair ground but also that Apple is rewarded for maintaining their ecosystem.

Re:competition

[DRJlaw]

The top and bottom of it is, you don't want to be dependent upon someone else's platform incase they decide to later cut you out of the market.

Like Apple is/was dependent upon Qualcomm (excpeting their sudden decision to adopt inferior Intel modems because, surprise, Qualcomm has cut them off)?

What was Apple's actual response, again? Withhold billions in royalty payments and file antitrust/anticompetition lawsuits? Precisely.

Just because there are advantages to open platforms doesn't mean that it's always and at all times economically efficient to create or implement them,. They also do not justify a closed platform "leverag[ing] their position to take that profit for themselves."

Re:competition

[DRJlaw]

It is because people are confusing "monopoly" with "vertical integration.["]

And you're confusing laws containing a requirement for monopoly or "market power" (U.S. law) with laws governing anticompetitive actions (EU. law). Neither immunizes vertical integration from scrutiny, but competition law not so limited as you think, and certainly not as narrow as antitrust law.

Re:competition

[squiggleslash]

You've never used an iPod have you? There is pretty much nothing in common between the iPods (that were on sale before the iPhone that is, obviously the iPod Touch is a phoneless iPhone but that postdates the iPhone) and the iPhone. It absolutely wasn't the iPhone's predecessor, in function, technology, or anything else.

Re:competition

[squiggleslash]

There were plenty of smartphones in existence when Apple produced the iPhone. And plenty when it produced the unrelated iPod too. Nokia, Ericsson, Palm, Blackberry and others had smartphones out during the late 1990s.

Apple didn't even produce the first iPhone-like iPhone, that would be the LG Prada. There's ample evidence the iPhone was a direct rip off with Apple changing mid stream to clone the Prada when they saw it in action (early versions of iOS had a completely different UI philosophy.)

Re:competition

[chiefcrash]

Your argument is that Microsoft being sued for anti-competitive behavior isn't a valid comparison because Apple is even *more* anti-competitive about it?

Art of text

[del_diablo]

It wouldn't surprise me if the case has some merits, but only legal merits.
Appletax via their system is unavoidable, but in app billing is a large legal grey area unless properly defined and fought for in court.

But i RTFA as they said:
Beyond that, what annoys me is that unless Ek is incapable of writing concrete examples.
'Blocks communication' and ' blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades' isn't anything defined. So this isn't a strong opening for a blog post, its essentially whining via essay.

Re: Art of text

[Anonymous Coward]

"Whining via essay" that's poetry in motion.

Re:Art of text

[e3m4n]

I am unaware of the legal parameters of Apple tax, so this question could already be answered, but what about apps that are free to download in the App Store that require you to login with your credentials? Like pandora or slingTv. If Pandora does their own billing externally, Apple can’t demand a cut of that can they? If they can that would be very disturbing, because what’s to keep Apple from demanding a cut of my pay since I use an app for my banking software and I pay my bank to hold my money. That would be a loophole that would allow Apple to demand a cut of every bill I pay from my phone. I’m sure those greedy bastards are probably dreaming up a way to pull that off

Re:Art of text

[ConfusedVorlon]

The EU has been pretty broad in the past in terms of how they interpret anti-competitive behaviour.

This certainly seems like the kind of thing they could go with. It's one thing for Apple to demand a cut when they manage the payment; But denying apps from using any other payment method (or even linking to a web page that offers payment functionality) may be a step too far...

And the EU can fine up to 10% of annual turnover, ~$25 Billion

Re:Art of text

[redback]

they dont demand a cut but they place other restrictions on you

Re: Art of text

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not a tax. It is a fee. I donâ(TM)t understand why your kind spews that lie. I understand Warren is a lying moron that lied constantly in order to get affirmative action and to grift from the public, but why are you respewing the lies of a liar?

Re:Art of text

[Anonymous Coward]

'Blocks communication' and ' blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades' isn't anything defined. So this isn't a strong opening for a blog post, its essentially whining via essay.

I can expand on this having used both platforms. The short version is that Apple Music suuuuuuuucccccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkksssssssss. It is a terrible, horrible, awful, buggy service. It is also far easier to use on any Apple device thanks to Apple tightly integrating it with the OS.

When you ask Siri to play a song, it will always open in Apple Music. There is no way to tell it to use Spotify instead. It will always use Apple Music. If you do not have a subscription to Apple Music, it will tell you to subscribe instead.

If you connect a Bluetooth audio device to an iPhone and press the "play" button, it will launch Apple Music and start playing something. (It's not supposed to. It's supposed to launch whatever audio app was running last. This does not work so instead it almost always launches Apple Music instead.) Note that in this case "audio devices" include connecting to your car. It does the same thing if you connect through CarPlay - it will immediately launch Apple Music. (Hilariously when using CarPlay what it generally does is launch whatever audio app you were using last, and then start playing music through Apple Music anyway. It's pretty blatant.)

When music is playing through Apple Music and you have an Apple Watch, it will show up as playing there. There are play controls that are tightly integrated with the Apple Watch and various applications on the Apple Watch (such as the Workout mode that's pretty much the only reason to own an Apple Watch) that you can't integrate with Spotify.

I have never tried a HomePod but I assume that it only works with Apple Music because it's basically just Siri and Siri only works with Apple Music.

In short, Apple Music is tightly integrated into Apple devices and their OSes in a fairly anti-competitive way.

(And it still SUCKS. Using Siri to play music barely works - you'll ask her to play a song and she'll pick something with a similar title. As far as I can tell, there's no way to tell Siri to play a specific song by a specific artist, or a specific song off a specific album. It won't base it on things you've listened to before. It won't ask you which one you want. It just starts playing whatever it wants. It also crashes. A lot. If you try and stream a playlist from Apple Music, there's a good chance it will just randomly stop playing several songs into it. Relaunch it, and it will have forgotten all about whatever playlist you were playing, so you have to find it again. Spotify does not have this issue. This also means that in those previous instance where I mentioned Apple always launching Apple Music, it will always start playing the same song, because it will have forgotten whatever was playing last (because it crashed) and will instead default to the start of your library. Hilariously the "start of your library" seems to randomly change as well, so while it will consistently play the same song for weeks, some day it will randomly change to a completely different song it will constantly play. And then there are all the other UI inconsistencies and how difficult it is to navigate and just so much more that could go here.)

Re:Art of text

[gnasher719]

Apple gets no money if a company sells through its website. Apple pays out 70% (and doesn't keep 30% because there is cost involved) of the purchase price of the app, and of _in app purchases made through the app store_.

I don't know how far Netflix has transitioned their sales, but eventually Apple will not get a penny from Netflix. The app costs zero and Apple keeps 30% of zero. Purchases through the Netflix website, Apple gets zero. The only restriction is that you can't advertise your website through the app.

Re:Art of text

[e3m4n]

Hmm. That gives me a thought. A lot of times when I want to authorize a Netflix application I’m presented with the URL and an authentication code. That would be a backdoor way around advertising your website correct?

Re: Art of text

[Harlequin80]

Not really.

Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it too.

Apple can either be the gateway to ios or it can be the music provider. But being both is anticompetitive.

If apples service can compete with a 1.3 multiplier then ok. But not ok without.

Re: Art of text

[Registered Coward v2]

Not really.

Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it too.

Apple can either be the gateway to ios or it can be the music provider. But being both is anticompetitive.

I disagree. They are not the only choice for music, nor the largest. They also aren't the largest smartphone OS either. If they controlled the the entire distribution market, perhaps; but they don't and Spotify has choices besides Apple. To use your reasoning Spotify is anticompetitive because it controls the gateway (its app and what goes on it) and is also the music provider.

If apples service can compete with a 1.3 multiplier then ok. But not ok without.

It certainly can. Of the $10 subscription fee, iTune's P&L gets $7 and The App Store's gets $3. Apple corporate gets to combine the two and thus Apple, Inc. gets $10.

Re: Art of text

[Anonymous Coward]

> Apple can either be the gateway to ios or it can be the music provider. But being both is anticompetitive.

Says who?

Apple built their platform. They charge for access to it. They also use it for their own products. Since it's their platform, it's obviously cheaper for them to use it for their products than it would be for a third party; that means their *efficient*, not anti-competitive.

They are anti-competitive if they charge more to company A than to company B for access to their platform. They are anti-competitive if they do not provide access to their platform to companies that sell products that compete with their own, even when they companies are willing to pay the normal cost of access to the platform. They would also be anti-competitive if they collude to, for instance, inflate the prices of the goods and services they sell, or to restrict consumer choice on those goods and services. I don't see them doing any of those things, even in the case of Spotify.

Perhaps Spotify has a case, but so far it hasn't done much to prove it other than try to garner the audience's cheers by presenting themselves as the underdog. Of course they're free to do so, but that's just marketing --not a legal argument!

Re: Art of text

[serviscope_minor]

They also aren't the largest smartphone OS either.

But they are large enough to be guilty of anti trust violations.

Re:Art of text

[registrations_suck]

When you ask Siri to play a song, it will always open in Apple Music. There is no way to tell it to use Spotify instead.

Oh well boo fucking hoo.

You don't have to use Siri to play a song. I don't. I play songs with my iPhone all the time too. I have Siri completely disabled.

This is a feature issue for those who buy the fucking phone. Don't like how it works? Then by all means, complain to Apple.

It's not a feature issue for a 3rd party app developer. Don't like how the platform works? Then go to another platform. Apple isn't collecting piles of money from you just to have access to the platform. It is virtually free to have access. You only get charged real money if you make sales. And guess what? If you're making sales, it is because the people who are SPENDING THE MONEY are sufficiently satisfied with the situation to spend the money and enrich the app developer.

Re:Art of text

[TheOldestGit]

The only text that you need to read is that Apple are Twats.

Be brave

[stealth_finger]

So how about you just remove your service from apple and encourage all your tech buddy mates to do the same with their services? It might feel scary to cut off a big bunch but iphone has what, a 20pc market share or something. There are worse things and you can always go back when (if) apple wise up and stop trying to take a third of everything.

Re:Be brave

[fluffernutter]

You can't seriously think an app business can survive without having their app on iPhones.

Re:Be brave

[stealth_finger]

You can't seriously think an app business can survive without having their app on iPhones.

Seems they are having trouble on it too. Get enough apps to abandon the platform who will at most lose 20% of their customers whereas apple lose 100% of their 30% cut for nothing.

Re:Be brave

[sh00z]

You can't seriously think an app business can survive without having their app on iPhones.

Maybe not, but all Spotify has to do to avoid these charges is to pass all transactions requiring payment through a web browser (even if it's Safari on the phone). Seems pretty simple. Use an iOS app to "buy" anything digital, and Apple will take a cut. This is why Amazon's Kindle app kicks you out when you want to "buy" a book. Every other vendor seems to have caught on. It's not anti-competitive, it's the electronic equivalent of paying rent for a kiosk in Apple's mall.

Re:Be brave

[fluffernutter]

I don't believe Apple allows that.

Re:Be brave

[Anonymous Coward]

You can do this but 1) you can't advertise that website anywhere in the app or in your app store description and 2) you can't automatically link people from the app to your website. I believe you can include some text like "You cannot purchase this item via the mobile app" or something similar but that's it. The user would then need to know to go to your website to make the transaction. Back in the day this might have been a lot to ask of consumers but these days I think most people know that if you can't buy it in the app that you can probably just go browse the website. It's annoying for users and you could maybe argue that some companies would lose some sales because consumers don't want to be bothered but it's a legit alternative to paying Apple. Amazon does this and so do many other companies.

Re:Be brave

[ilsaloving]

Now you're getting into game theory, and considering that the iOS market is:
a) easier to develop for
b) overwhelmingly more lucrative per user than android

What do you think the likelyhood is of developers leaving en masse?

Re:Be brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple does allow that, many companies already do this.

Re:Be brave

[stealth_finger]

Admittedly the likelihood is so low as to be laughable but if the cost of playing on apple's pitch is too high what option do they have other than to take their ball elsewhere?

Re:Be brave

[fluffernutter]

So in other words, you can, but the solution you are left with completely sucks for a mobile phone user.

Re:Be brave

[fluffernutter]

If the alternative is awful for people to do, you may as well not even do it.

Re:Be brave

[Anonymous Coward]

File complaints with regulators?

Re:Be brave

[serviscope_minor]

It's not anti-competitive, it's the electronic equivalent of paying rent for a kiosk in Apple's mall.

Except they own half the malls in the entire world, and 3/4 of the malls that anyone visits[*], so they can charge 10x what previous mall owners charged. And they also own all the premium places in the mall, so they can guarantee more customers than the pokey lot in the basement that they give you. Not anticompetitive at all.

[*] A fiar bit of androids market share is on the low end. Apple's market share of paid phone apps is way higher than their share of smartphones overally.

Re:Be brave

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't seriously think an app business can survive without having their app on iPhones.

If you believe that, then WHY, as an iOS Developer, do YOU keep CONSTANTLY Hating on Apple?

Do you want them to go away? Close down the App Store as Unprofitable?

Think of who's hand you're biting, Fucktard.

Re:Be brave

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe Apple allows that.

Sure they do, idiot.

I went to rent a movie from Amazon Prime Video on my Apple TV. After trying unsuccessfully to do it a couple of times, I realized that what the App was trying to tell me was to open a web browser and Add the Movie to my "Watchlist" (or whatever Amazon calls it), then GO BACK to the AppleTV "Prime Video" App and VOILA!

Apple didn't try to intercede, didn't stop my movie from playing. Nothing. Just SLIGHTLY more annoying of a "Workflow" for the USER (and no, it doesn't "Completely Suck". I got my movie, and it only too an addition minute or two, once I figured out what I had to do). And, most importantly of all (when comparing with Spotify's CLAIMs), Amazon isn't inconvenienced AT ALL by this method.

Apple got ZERO "Cut" from the Transaction (because they didn't "broker" it), and gets ZERO "Cut" from the App Sale (it's free), and gets ZERO "Cut" from my Prime Subscription (again, they didn't "broker" that, either), and I get my Movie. A slight PITA for the User; but after you do it the first time, you get used to that little hiccup in the force, and it really isn't a big deal.

Why can't Spotify do that sort of thing, and just STFU (like you)?

Divide hardware and services and content

[Anonymous Coward]

No Apple Music and Apple app store and Apple hardware. These need to be split into three independent companies. No Amazon web shop and Amazon cloud services and Amazon devices. No Microsoft operating system and Microsoft game console and Microsoft Xbox Live. No Google search engine and Google phone and Google app store. No Tesla cars and Tesla chargers.

Re:Divide hardware and services and content

[registrations_suck]

Maybe auto manufacturers should not be allowed to sell parts for the cars they produce either. I mean, it is TOTALLY anti-competitive to allow them to make BOTH the cars AND the parts required to repair those cars. I mean, WTF???

p.s: for the stupid, yes, that is sarcasm.

Re: Divide hardware and services and content

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Apple should be required to sell parts for their gadgets to third party repair businesses.

Re:Divide hardware and services and content

[thereddaikon]

Not only is it sarcasm, its wrong and stupid. Car manufacturers don't make all the parts for their cars. And aside from the Benz Patentmotorwagen probably never have. Cars have many parts suppliers behind them, Delco, Bosch and Denso to name a few off the top of my head.

Re:Divide hardware and services and content

[Spamalope]

More like they require gas purchases to pay 30%. And DRM the gas fill, such that the car computer tracks fillups with a toner cartridge like 'tracker' via NFC in the nozzle that authorized the next tank of miles. No 30% payment, and the activates limp mode until you pay a 'reactivation' fee. Maybe they can pretend safety features require a subscription paid per gallon, and put the car in limp mode as a 'safety precaution' because the safety features are disabled.

Hmm, sounds like cars aren't being 'fully monetized' yet...
Back to the lair for some marketing work!

Re:Divide hardware and services and content

[drinkypoo]

Not only is it sarcasm, its wrong and stupid. Car manufacturers don't make all the parts for their cars.

No, but they do have arguably anticompetitive agreements in place with the suppliers that prohibit their selling the parts directly for years after their introduction. And they also have abusive pricing on service documentation, which should be made available for the price of copying and distribution, since they have to produce those materials for their own purposes no matter what.

Re:Divide hardware and services and content

[registrations_suck]

Not only is it sarcasm, its wrong and stupid. Car manufacturers don't make all the parts for their cars. And aside from the Benz Patentmotorwagen probably never have. Cars have many parts suppliers behind them, Delco, Bosch and Denso to name a few off the top of my head.

Apple doesn't make parts for its phones. All that shit comes from some 3rd party manufacturer. Phones have many parts suppliers behind them too.

Re:Divide hardware and services and content

[drinkypoo]

Maybe they can pretend safety features require a subscription paid per gallon, and put the car in limp mode as a 'safety precaution' because the safety features are disabled.

Apple is always in limp mode. Hard things are dangerous, so they only permit rounded surfaces.

No to Apple

[Stephen Chadfield]

I have never bought any Apple hardware or paid for an Apple service. Bunch of assholes.

Re:No to Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this. Fuck apple. They are a cancer in the tech industry.

Re: No to Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice handle couldn't use your real name?

Re: No to Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you typing that on an iPhone? I wouldnâ(TM)t be surprised since Warren said basically the same thing just after she was pictured using one. She got caught in another lie.

Re:No to Apple

[drinkypoo]

You know who's a bunch of assholes? Facebook. I think they've put me into some kind of special new jail, because I can't post comments or status updates, but haven't gotten any notification about being in Fb jail.

Speaking of which, I can no longer submit stories or journal entries here...

boohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Another "our business model is broken please come and shore it up" whine from a player that is probably screwing someone else over down the line and want 'daddy' to come and protect them.

Re:boohoo

[Cmdln Daco]

Laws are meant to protect us all from predatory behavior.

That you feel the need to belittle this to a 'daddy' situation shows that you are firmly aligned with Apple.

Why not log on and make your comment?

Re: boohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple! (No no no no no)
Free stuff! (Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah)

Re:boohoo

[registrations_suck]

Laws are meant to protect us all from predatory behavior.

And Apple is doing nothing predatory. It says, "We have an App Store. Here are the rules. Come use it and make yourself some money, or not."

Apple is not selling life's essentials. We're talking about convenient or entertainment applications running on a pocket computer costing hundreds of dollars. It's a fucking luxury by any standard! They're hardly preying on anybody. No one is going to die if they don't have Spotify on their iPhone, or even if they don't have an iPhone at all! No one has a gun to anyone's head threatening to kill them if they don't develop something for Apple's App Store or buy Apple's products.

Spotify's argument is essentially, "Apple's prices are so low that we can't compete in the market for luxury goods for entitled people." FIRST WORLD PROBLEM if there ever was one!

Why not log on and make your comment?

Because registrations suck.

Re:The EU is back with more tax

[Nadir]

You obviously did not read the article. It has nothing to do with EU taxes.

I don't think they take an cut of public transport

[Joe_Dragon]

I don't think they take an cut of public transport tickets or it's well under 30% as the government has power to set an max fee.

Hey, its Apple go figure

[Anonymous Coward]

I still scratch my head and wonder why so many feed Apple's coffers all these years. The company tries to makes as much off its customers and developers as it can. I'm just surprised Apple hasn't been targeted a lot more over the years.

Spotify in App Store

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotify has to play by Apple's rules if it wants in the App Store.....no free ride. It is a competitor to Apple Music

There is no 30% tax

[gnasher719]

Apple has exactly the same terms for everyone. If you sell your product including in-app purchases through Apple, you get 70% of the official price. Apple doesn't keep 30%, they have to pay credit card fees, carry the cost of gift cards that stores pay less than 100% face value for, and so on. They host your app on the store, and they supply all the in app purchases.

And there is a very simple way to get around the payment, which Netflix chose to use and which everyone else is free to use: Don't sell through your app and through the app store. Create a website, and handle the purchases yourself. I worked for a company that did that (same price through in-app purchase and through the website, we kept more money from the website), Netflix does it, everyone can do it.

I have an app on the store that I wrote just for fun, and it makes a little bit of money. If I had to sell it myself I wouldn't get a penny. (I hate advertisements, so I refuse to add advertisements). Nice thing about Apple is that they treat me exactly the same as Spotify. So I'd tell Spotify to p*** right off.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[Anonymous Coward]

You might, but you're not the EU law courts.

It appears that the case might have merits, or at least might encourage apple to chance it's policies - and if that happens in the EU it'll probably be a benefit to consumers world wide.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[Orphis]

You didn't read the article.

The problem isn't doing a website and host your own payment platform for your service, but it is that Apple prevents any company from contacting their own customers about payment options that are not linked to Apple.

Even if you create a Free Spotify account, on another platform, use it on your iDevice, then Apple can tell you that you have breached the developer terms of service if you contact them with an email saying they could upgrade to premium on your website.

The margins in this business are thin, and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple made more money from the 30% tax (all expenses accounted for) than Spotify providing the actual service. And that's with Apple providing their own competing service too which isn't limited to those ridiculous rules (and honestly would be surprising if they made a profit too, but that's not an issue for Apple to operate this at loss anyway).

Re:There is no 30% tax

[fred6666]

Apple doesn't keep 30%, they have to pay credit card fees, carry the cost of gift cards that stores pay less than 100% face value for, and so on. They host your app on the store, and they supply all the in app purchases.

So, Apple is keeping 95% of that 30%, at least.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[ilsaloving]

So apparently you missed the part, in the summary no less, that Apple places technical restrictions in your app if you don't go through their payment system?

Apple Music doesn't have to take a 30% hit to run on an iOS. Apple apps get additional benefits and integration that no other competitor is allowed to achieve even if they follow the rules.

This is pure anti-competitive behaviour, pure and simple. They were able to get away with this before when they were too insignificant to be worth bothering with. Apple is now a serious player and shouldn't be allowed to get away with these shenanigans anymore.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[guruevi]

So companies can't spam you to death for upgrading their 'free' service. Sounds great. Spoitfy could do the same as Pandora and Netflix, simply sell it through their own website, why do you want to spam/ad everyone to upgrade? If they see value in your premium service, people will sign up by themselves. If not, stop spamming me.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[guruevi]

That is pure bullshit from Spotify though. There are no technical restrictions on free or paid apps, I can write an app today that interfaces with the Watch or Health or whatever else Apple API's have available.

What I'm NOT allowed to do and what Spotify wants to do is collect statistics and other tracking information, badger or spam their customers and make it appear as though I accept payments through the app but actually send them to a third party website. There are various consumer protection complaints both in EU and US with various laws being designed to protect people from being scammed through apps and Apple simply won't allow "consumer enhancing experiences" like "rate this product" or "give me your location".

Apple Music plays by the same rules, they don't collect information, they don't sell the information, they are a freestanding service making somewhat of a profit, Spotify is failing because they are collecting and selling your information and keep spamming you to upgrade and people simply don't like it.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[aaarrrgggh]

We aren’t talking rocket science here— yesterday I went into the Netflix app, noticed I couldn’t change billing info, so I went to their website. If you can’t figure that out then life has bigger challenges.

I am curious if it would be construed as more anti-competitive if large developers got better rates on in-app purchases and subscriptions. 30% is a big hit to large players, but less so for mid sized and small developers.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[Sebby]

Apple has exactly the same terms for everyone. If you sell your product including in-app purchases through Apple, you get 70% of the official price. Apple doesn't keep 30%, they have to pay credit card fees, carry the cost of gift cards that stores pay less than 100% face value for, and so on. They host your app on the store, and they supply all the in app purchases.

You do a good job of outlining what Apple does with that 30%, but you failed to point out that app developers also don't have the option of doing those things themselves if they don't want to go through Apple. That bit's important too.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[drinkypoo]

We arenâ(TM)t talking rocket science hereâ" yesterday I went into the Netflix app, noticed I couldnâ(TM)t change billing info, so I went to their website. If you canâ(TM)t figure that out then life has bigger challenges.

On one hand, yes, not being able to figure that out is stupid. On the other hand, Apple has built their reputation on coddling stupid people.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple prevents any company from contacting their own customers

In other words, Apple shuts down spammers.

Sounds like what most people want. This explains some of why Apple is so successful. They put the interests of their customers first, not the interests of spammers.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple Music doesn't have to take a 30% hit to run on an iOS.

True, but they still have to pay to develop the platform and all of the licensing agreements. That, and it's only available on iOS devices, Sonos and Alexa. Spotify is free to make their app available anywhere else they like.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[Anonymous Coward]

So apparently you missed the part, in the summary no less, that Apple places technical restrictions in your app if you don't go through their payment system?

Netflix seems to have gotten around it:

Oh, and that “Help” button up in the corner of the Netflix launch screen is interesting. Tap that button and you get the option to call Netflix customer support (over some VOIP system, not a real phone call). I tried that, was told the queue was “about 6 minutes”, and exactly 6 minutes and 11 seconds later I was speaking to a friendly support rep. I told him I was using the iPad app and trying to sign up, but couldn’t figure out how.

He told me I need to go to netflix.com in my browser.

* https://daringfireball.net/2019/01/netflix_itunes_billing

Re:There is no 30% tax

[Anonymous Coward]

> This is pure anti-competitive behaviour, pure and simple.

I'm sorry, but I think you don't understand what anti-competitive behavior is. Hint: it's not using the platform that you own to compete with others.

Have you seen store brands when you go shopping at the supermarket being offered cheaper than name brands? Yeah, that's not anti-competitive.
How about Toyota floor-mats being sold at the Toyota dealer next to no-name floor mats? Nope, not anti-competitive either.

Amazon owns and operates AWS. They also *use* AWS services in order to operate their other businesses (retail, video, Kindle ...) Netflix is a customer of AWS, but I don't see them complaining about anti-competitive behavior because AWS doesn't bill Prime Video the exact same amount it bills Netflix. In fact, Netflix has abandoned Apple's payments in order to avoid the 30% fee (not a "tax", Apple is not a government!) Couldn't Spotify just do the same?

What are some examples of anti-competitive behavior? Amazon not allowing Netflix to purchase computing services through AWS, or charging Netflix more than it charges any other customer, or degrading the services purchased by Netflix or restricting the availability of any of those services (as far as I'm aware, that doesn't happen). Luxottica exerting its monopoly power to charge $200 for glasses that cost $20 to produce (that does happen, as recently covered by Slashdot itself). Apple providing streaming services for free, or operating them at a loss. But investing billions of dollars to create a platform where you can operate your business, and selling the excess capacity to other businesses for a profit: not anti-competitive at all, neither legally or economically.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has exactly the same terms for everyone. If you sell your product including in-app purchases through Apple, you get 70% of the official price. Apple doesn't keep 30%, they have to pay credit card fees, carry the cost of gift cards that stores pay less than 100% face value for, and so on. They host your app on the store, and they supply all the in app purchases.

You do a good job of outlining what Apple does with that 30%, but you failed to point out that app developers also don't have the option of doing those things themselves if they don't want to go through Apple. That bit's important too.

They absolutely do, and Netflix themselves do it exclusively.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[Ries]

You apparently never wrote an app. You can't integrate Spotify with Siri like Apple Music, there are tons of stuff were Apple apps have favorable integration other apps only can dream off. Heck you can't even change the default browser. There are a lot of stuff restricted to "Apple only", the NFC chip is walled off (no payment apps, because Apple Pay). Apple is really very anti competitive when they launch something themselves. There are plenty of restrictions on free or paid apps and a whole slur of rules favouring Apple.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[registrations_suck]

So, Apple is keeping 95% of that 30%, at least.

Right...because there are no costs to running its App Store, or the development of the products that the App Store runs on and make it actually useful to someone. None at all.

Re: There is no 30% tax

[gnasher719]

So, Apple is keeping 95% of that 30%, at least.

Right now Apple has a promotion running where you pay 10% less for App Store credit. So if you want to buy an app or services for $100, you pay $90, and the developer gets $70. Thatâ(TM)s 33.3% already gone. The rest also pays for supplying all the free apps. Like Netflix who just operate smarter. Or eBay. Or Facebook.

Re: There is no 30% tax

[gnasher719]

You do a good job of outlining what Apple does with that 30%, but you failed to point out that app developers also don't have the option of doing those things themselves if they don't want to go through Apple. That bit's important too.

My current employer actually makes its money through sales people who sign deals with customers, and as part of those deals the end users get to download a free app from the AppStore. Zero money goes to Apple.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[Anonymous Coward]

there are tons of stuff were Apple apps have favorable integration other apps only can dream off.

Keep dreaming. Apple is nothing if not consistent in fiercely protecting their customer's privacy, and most of the access you speak of is used for violating customer privacy.

As far as the chips go: The chips should be walled off with only API access. That's just proper OS design.

You want to know the reason why Apple doesn't allow anybody else to use NFC? I have a better question for you: Why should they trust you or anybody else? Facebook violated pretty much every privacy rule Apple had with their "Facebook Research" app, and Google did the same with Google Screenwise.

Allowing somebody else would open the door for the alternative payment service to harvest a customer's payment information -- something Apple won't allow on its devices.

Apple has very strong, very consistent rules to prevent developers in its ecosystem from abusing Apple's customers. Telling developers they will not be allowed to fuck with Apple's customers is a strong selling point in the brand.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[fred6666]

Of course there is. That's why they sell their iPhones with such a high profit margin.
But anyways, the cost of running the App Store is very low compared to the profif they make out of it.

Re: There is no 30% tax

[fred6666]

they charge $99/year to Netflix. It's more than enough to cover the hosting and bandwidth of their 100 MB (or so, I haven't checked) application.
They are free not to run these promotions if they can't afford it.

But more importantly, their store is what is allowing them to sell their iPhones for such a high profit margin. They need the developers. The developers would be glad not having to support iOS, there would be less fragmentation in the mobile application world if everybody ran Android.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[aaarrrgggh]

Small correction: lazy people, not stupid.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Apple can and does spam you. That's the problem. It's abuse of a monopoly position to say everyone else can't spam you but we can. They need to play by the same rules they enforce on everyone else.

Re:There is no 30% tax

[drinkypoo]

Small correction: lazy people, not stupid.

Lazy people wouldn't want to wait for the context menu to pop up when they press their one mouse button.

Re:The EU is back with more tax

[Anonymous Coward]

FACT: liberals want more taxes

FACT: EU cannot make companies like Apple or Google because of socialism

FACT: socialism is to lead to social and economic collapse

Amazon's annual fee and small order fee

[tepples]

Summary of fees to sell physical goods on Amazon:

- $480 per year for a seller to be on its platform
- 15 percent of each order's total, including shipping but excluding sales tax, or $1.00 per order, whichever is higher
- 3 percent of sales tax

Apple charges each seller only $99 per year, and it has no $1 minimum fee per order. I imagine the $1 minimum fee has something to do with credit card and ACH debit processors taking a 30 cent fee per transaction.

Paid apps and in-app purchases on Amazon Appstore have a similar fee structure to Apple (source), though without the $99 per year fee:

- 20 percent for movie and TV subscription IAPs within Android apps
- 30 percent for paid apps and all other IAPs, including paid Alexa skills

Re:Amazon's annual fee and small order fee

[Sebby]

Just because “Amazon and Google do it too” doesn’t make it any more right.

Re:Amazon's annual fee and small order fee

[drinkypoo]

That's an excellent summary of why Amazon needs its behavior curtailed as well. They should be able to put all their own-branded crap (and it really is crap) on the store, or charge such abusive fees, but not both.

Re:Amazon's annual fee and small order fee

[Darth]

he's specifically responding to someone who said amazon doesn't do this. he isn't addressing the morality of the activity, he's addressing the assertion that amazon isn't engaging in this activity.

Re:Amazon's annual fee and small order fee

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like selling physical goods is different than selling bits over the Internet. Wow!

Re:Amazon's annual fee and small order fee

[Solandri]

You don't have to stock your home from Amazon though. You an go the local department store, or walmart.com, or the Salvation Army to get stuff for your home. Same for Android. You can load a different store, or even download an Android app directly from the app-maker's website and install it directly onto your Android device.

Apple is the only one who forces you to use their store, and prohibits you from using anyone else's. That's the lack of competition we're talking about. In Amazon and the Google Play Store's case, their fees and markups are somewhat justified because if they were egregious, sellers would preferentially use a competitor's store. In Apple's case, they have no choice. It's Apple's way or the highway.

And your minimum fee per transaction for credit/debit cards is horrendously out of date. The last time our business paid 30 cents per transaction was back around 2000. Currently it's around 10 cents per transaction, and the big retail chains like Walmart have probably negotiated far less since they don't bat an eye if I use a credit card for a 50 cent piece of fruit. Care to guess why the price per transaction went down? That's right - competition. Precisely the thing Apple prohibits.

Re:Amazon's annual fee and small order fee

[Anonymous Coward]

If comparing to Apple App store, why the hell is the GPP talking about physical goods?

Summary of fees to sell physical goods on Amazon:

Re: Amazon's annual fee and small order fee

[Anonymous Coward]

Go sell your apps on the play store then.

Re: Amazon's annual fee and small order fee

[Anonymous Coward]

+100. Hal Varians book on the pricing of information goods ought to be made compulsory reading for everyone

Re:Amazon's annual fee and small order fee

[thegarbz]

The fees aren't the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that the fees aren't leveled between sellers for Apple.

To compare to Amazon, Amazon would too be in deep shit if:
Instead of $480/year they charged $590 / year and 20% of each orders total to use (Amazon's custom feature X)
AND (and the "and" part is key), if choosing not to do this caused you in a completely unrelated way to lose access to Amazon customer feature Y and Z
AND customers which didn't rely on feature X got feature Y and Z anyway for the original price.

Re:Amazon's annual fee and small order fee

[thegarbz]

No it's fundamental misunderstanding of the issue involved. Apple is not in trouble for charging fees, and what Amazon and Google do in this regard isn't wrong either.

They are in trouble for not charging levelised fees. They are in trouble for unrelated restrictions applied to force b2b customers to buy a more expensive service than they need.

Re:Amazon's annual fee and small order fee

[squiggleslash]

That doesn't seem like a comparable situation. Amazon is allowing competitors to sell products via its platform to a group of people who have no dependence upon Amazon. Additionally I'm guessing Amazon has no rules in place forcing products bought from them to only accept add-ons that are also bought from Amazon - that is, if you buy a PC from Amazon, you're not bound to buy PC software and graphics cards from Amazon.

The Apple situation is somewhat different. You're not paying Apple to promote something to a customer base that buys a lot of stuff from Apple. You're paying Apple for fundamental access to the people who buy Apple's phones. They've taken technical measures to prevent anyone from selling directly, and Apple not only controls that, but also requires any follow up content - like books and movies for apps that show them - also have Apple taking a cut.

Someone who wants to sell me a graphics card can choose to sell via Amazon or not. When I do a search on Amazon they won't show up if they don't list there, but if I'm buying something that expensive I'm going to also search a bunch of other websites too.

Someone who wants to sell me an iPhone app cannot choose to not list via Apple. I can't buy their software unless I buy it from Apple.

Based upon that, you can't compare the pricing. Is Amazon's apparently high? Yes. Does it mean Apple's prices are reasonable? Nope. Amazon's lack of anything resembling a monopoly here means that Amazon must be selling something of value. Apple, on the other hand, is taking advantage of its control of the platform.

What a moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, when you signed up to be a developer on Apple's platform you agreed that Apple would take 30% for handling app distribution, payments, etc. That was an unbelievably great deal when the App Store was launched compared to other competitors at the time and it still is a great deal unless you're doing big business like Supercell or Epic or Spotify where you can bring that stuff in-house for less.

In the last couple of years, Apple has changed the terms so that it only takes 20% on payments for subscriptions that have been running longer than a year. For the overwhelming majority of developers, that's a great deal and eliminates a lot of hassles.

Apple has allowed a workaround the whole time for those who don't want to give up the 30% cut - handle payments yourself outside of the platform. All your app has to do is boot the user to a web link where they can create an account and make a purchase. I worked for a company that did this with its enterprise-focused iOS application five years ago. Netflix recently decided to go down this path as well and no doubt there are countless others that do the same.

They agreed to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotify doesn't have to deal with Apple. They chose to sign up and agree to Apple's terms. Nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to do this. Amazon definitely doesn't, where if you want to buy a Kindle book, you use their web page.

As for spam, It is a good thing Apple limits communication. People get enough unwanted junk already, and Spotify whining that they can't spew more, gets little compassion.

The ironic thing is that it took almost an act of $DEITY for Spotify to bother with the US market. They whined how Americans used VPNs to have European IPs, and how that was so horrible. It wasn't until Rdio stepped in and offered the same services that Spotify did with a usable client, that Spotify decided that they might bother making a buck in the US market.

Re: They agreed to this

[Anonymous Coward]

They could simply open a web page in a browser and totally avoid the in-app sales fee. The subscription purchased doesn't have to be done in the app.

Re: They agreed to this

[Shikaku]

If you tried that your app would be removed.

https://developer.apple.com/ap... Yes, really, here's the relevant line right here, you are required to use the Apple Payment unless you have an agreement to something else.

There's other things too

[ilsaloving]

It's not just the financial aspects. Apple is hampering the whole experience for competitors. For example, Apple Music has Siri integration. Spotify doesn't, and it probably never will without outside intervention.

Apple is doing everything they can t make the playing field as uneven as they can for competitors.

Re:There's other things too

[guruevi]

Pandora has Siri integration.

I hate Spotify, but I hate Apple more

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotify is a shitty company with questionable ethics, and I hate the company, in general, but Apple is even worse. So, if it comes down to supporting Spotify in order to inflict direct harm on Apple, I'll take two of those Spotify Premiums!

Re: I hate Spotify, but I hate Apple more

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance and stupidity are not good qualities and you exhibit both. Spotify is afraid of competition and using government power to abuse a rival. That is worse than anything Apple did.

Apple must die

[WCMI92]

They have become Microsoft back in 1995-8, a true monopolist.

Ironically Microsoft is largely irrelevant.

Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, however all need to be shattered.

Re:Apple must die

[Freischutz]

They have become Microsoft back in 1995-8, a true monopolist.

Ironically Microsoft is largely irrelevant.

Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, however all need to be shattered.

Apple? It's Google + Facebook that are the great monopolists. Apple does not hold a monopoly in any market segment.

Re:Apple must die

[drinkypoo]

Apple? It's Google + Facebook that are the great monopolists. Apple does not hold a monopoly in any market segment.

That is a falsehood, and what's more, it's a particularly tiresome one since it's been debunked so repetitiously. Apple has a monopoly on app installation on iOS devices. No other phone provider in history has made it so difficult (or for the average user, impossible) to install applications acquired from sources other than their app store. They are literally the most egregious offenders of this policy ever to exist in the consumer space. Only IBM has ever had a more offensive policy, back in the early days of their mainframe systems, when any software you wrote on the hardware effectively became the property of IBM. If your only defense is "IBM was worse back in the blue suit days" then you haven't got a leg to kneel on, let alone stand.

Re:Apple must die

[Anonymous Coward]

They have become Microsoft back in 1995-8, a true monopolist.

Ironically Microsoft is largely irrelevant.

Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, however all need to be shattered.

Apparently all it takes to make a monopoly irrelevant is to wait 20 years. Must not be as good to be a monopolist as everyone thinks.

Re:Apple must die

[thegarbz]

Apple does not hold a monopoly in any market segment.

That is ignorance of the incredibly highest order, not only about Apple's market, but also that anti-competitive behaviours do not require a company to be an outright monopoly in order to be illegal.

fuck yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple keeps app developers from spamming users. Thank christ on a cracker.

Some clarification

[dreamstateseven]

As someone who uses both the Apple ecosystem, and Spotify, I don't feel this article is very forthcoming -- and isn't painting a complete picture.

Apple requires that Spotify and other digital services pay a 30% tax on purchases made through Apple's payment system, including upgrading from our Free to our Premium service.

I made an account on their webpage, and signed up to pay them via PayPal. I'm sure PayPal is taking a cut. I certainly believe it's nowhere near 30%, but you're not "forced" to use Apple's payment system for the one type of payment transaction you're going to do.

As an alternative, if we choose not to use Apple's payment system, forgoing the charge, Apple then applies a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions on Spotify.

I have an account setup, I download the Spotify App from the App store -- and this is claiming that because I didn't pay via Apple that I am limited? Bullshit. Any limitation is there either way.

For example, they limit our communication with our customers -- including our outreach beyond the app. In some cases, we aren't even allowed to send emails to our customers who use Apple.

Again, citation needed. If you sign up via the web, you can easily get a user's email.

Apple also routinely blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades. Over time, this has included locking Spotify and other competitors out of Apple services such as Siri, HomePod, and Apple Watch.

Sure, you don't get the best integration with the ecosystem. I'll totally concede this. But Apple Watch now can control the Spotify app with effectively the same level of control it gives to Apple Music. Siri can control Spotify, but you can't speak out artists and the like. So Apple isn't locking them out, but again I fully concede that they are hindering the experience.

Re:Some clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

Shrilish response. Abuse of Market power is a pretty fair test. Take it or leave it when you are the sole gateway is another test. Gateway with 99% share tick. At the very least Europe should make public tied areement when market share goes over some large percentage or amount.

Re:Some clarification

[jonwil]

In regards to email, the problem Spotify has is that there is a rule whereby a developer of an iOS app is not allowed to provide information to those users about methods of payment for digital services that don't go through Apple. And this rule apparently means Spotify can't email anyone who has ever used the iOS app if those emails contain information on how to buy anything from Spotify.

Re:Some clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality that there are at least 2 other major music streaming services with subscribers in the millions (and Spotify actually has considerably more paying subscribers than Apple Music) makes it hard to argue that they are preventing competition in any meaningful way. Either way, anyone shedding tears over how a 20 billion dollar company feels victimized is a damn fool.

Let's face it, almost certainly the 30% thing is a red herring, mostly, I mean sure they'd love to pay less, but the real thing they're after is that customer data and the ability to market to them in whatever way they wish and sell the data on to their advertisers. They're not overly worried about what's going on with paying subscribers, what they're trying to do is increase their monetization of free subscribers.

Re:Some clarification

[drinkypoo]

But Apple Watch now can control the Spotify app with effectively the same level of control it gives to Apple Music. Siri can control Spotify, but you can't speak out artists and the like.

So to sum up your argument, it's the same level of control, except that it isn't? Nice one.

Re: Some clarification

[gnasher719]

In regards to email, the problem Spotify has is that there is a rule whereby a developer of an iOS app is not allowed to provide information to those users about methods of payment for digital services that don't go through Apple. And this rule apparently means Spotify can't email anyone who has ever used the iOS app if those emails contain information on how to buy anything from Spotify.

If thatâ(TM)s what Spotify says, then they are lying. Been there, done that, and sent emails to customers signing up through the website. No problem with Apple. Of course, you get no information about AppStore customers, which is exactly what AppStore customers want.

Competition 2

[Anonymous Coward]

What ever happened to the concept of restricting businesses due to unfair competition?

That only happens if there is no alternative. There are plenty of alternatives for listening to Spotify that aren't on Apple devices.

Re:Competition 2

[fluffernutter]

Really.. So people with iPhones are likely to listen to Spotify if they aren't in the Apple app store.

siri

[Anonymous Coward]

https://developer.apple.com/sirikit/

I'm guessing Spotify uses one of those cross-platform toolkits that doesn't have Siri support yet.

doesn't this so called Apple tax

[doginthewoods]

include payments to the people who wrote and played the songs? Spotify, being yet another business that doesn't want to pay for the music, really should shut up about this. At least Apple pays something that isn't so meager as to be an insult.

Re:doesn't this so called Apple tax

[radarskiy]

a). No, none of the 30% that goes to Apple is used for publishing or performance royalties.
b) Spotify pays higher royalties to labels than radio. The problem is that labels pay out lower royalties to creators for plays on Spotify than on radio, so if you don't own your own label you get paid less.

Re:doesn't this so called Apple tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotify pays higher royalties to labels than radio.

Depends on who you are. Spotify pays royalties based on the percentage of plays. So if you are Jay-Z and your song gets ten million plays, you get paid quite a bit. If you are Jason Isbell and your song gets played 10,000 times, you get almost nothing, whereas 10,000 radio plays would net you a decent amount of money.

Re:doesn't this so called Apple tax

[trims]

OK, I haven't logged in for almost 3 years, and I had to in order to reply to this idiocy and the morons who upvoted something that is both easily verified as false, and displays a staggering ignorance of how streaming works.

The 30% Apple fee is ALL APPLE'S. They might incur some portion of other expenses, but nothing that Spotify wouldn't doing the same thing. So it's just Apple wanting a slice of Spotify's business, and punishing them if they don't play by Apple's rules, which, of course, Apple's own competition apps don't have to.

NONE of that Apple fee goes to the Artists. Zero. Zilch. It's Revenue to Apple, and at least half Profit.

Secondly. Spoitfy pays Artists significantly more than Apple does - I used to work at Apple Music, and know what their schedule is. Apple pays about 8% less than Spotify in terms of per-play royalties.

Radio DOESN'T PAY THE ARTIST. Period. They only pay the Songwriter.

Whereas Spotify pays BOTH.

And Spotify pays per-play. Whereas Radio pays based not just on plays, but the size of the audience. You will make a LOT more on streaming than via Radio.

Radio is viewed as essentially free advertising, and the artists don't get compensated for plays with the songwriters getting a smidgeon. Streaming is similar to CD sales, so both get paid, and a LOT more than Radio.

Re:doesn't this so called Apple tax

[thegarbz]

include payments to the people who wrote and played the songs? Spotify, being yet another business that doesn't want to pay for the music, really should shut up about this. At least Apple pays something that isn't so meager as to be an insult.

Err no not at all. Please read up on the structure before you put your ignorance on display for the world to see.

"monopoly"?

[supernova87a]

Why "should" Apple do any of the things you want? Who determines "should"?

Last I thought about the issue, access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) wasn't a public utility or good with an expectation of fairness of pricing or in modification of terms.

Under what right does one claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to do anything beyond what is regulated in the payment and terms of operation?

Re:"monopoly"?

[religionofpeas]

Who determines "should"?

The law.

Re:"monopoly"?

[drinkypoo]

Why "should" Apple do any of the things you want?

Because otherwise, they stifle competition.

Who determines "should"?

The People, through their elected representatives.

Last I thought about the issue,

Was never.

access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) wasn't a public utility or good with an expectation of fairness of pricing or in modification of terms.

The App Store is a market. Only free markets benefit The People. Apple is a legal fiction which only exists at the pleasure of The People. Ironically, you can't have a free market without government interference.

Under what right does one claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to do anything beyond what is regulated in the payment and terms of operation?

Under the right of self-governance.

Re:"monopoly"?

[shilly]

The People, through their elected representatives.

Which People? Apple is a US-based multinational. Spotify is a Swedish-based multinational. Customers in many other jurisdictions may use Spotify on iOS. What first principles are you using to determine which People's will should prevail, if there is a conflict between companies and the jurisdictions have different rules for how the conflicts should be resolved?

Re:"monopoly"?

[drinkypoo]

The People, through their elected representatives.

What first principles are you using to determine which People's will should prevail, if there is a conflict between companies and the jurisdictions have different rules for how the conflicts should be resolved?

That's obvious: The People in the various jurisdictions get to demand that they be treated a certain way, and Apple has the choice of whether or not to do business in each jurisdiction.

Re:"monopoly"?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Under the right of self-governance.

The right of self-governance does not entitle anyone to repudiate the contracts in which he/she has entered of his/her own free will.

If you purchase/license Apple's goods or services, you're entering a contract with them; said contract is enforceable by law, and your "right of self-governance" does not exempt you from it.

> Apple is a legal fiction which only exists at the pleasure of The People.

And, as things stand now, Apple's existence pleases The People, as attested in the many other legal fictions which The People itself has given existence through its many laws and through its representatives and agents. Not only that: The People has allowed Its legal fiction Apple to use the courts to defend the rights It Itself has granted Apple and all other legal fictions of similar standing. "Right of self-governance allows me to require Apple to do what I want beyond the contract in which I voluntarily entered with them" would have to be asserted and found a valid claim in court. Good luck with that!

In other words, your pretension that capitalizing "The People" subverts the legal framework which regulates the interactions between businesses and customers is entirely ludicrous. Self-governance is so far removed from the issue at hand that your little tirade an be entirely dismissed as irrelevant without compunction.

Re:"monopoly"?

[shilly]

That's a little abstruse. And why do you say it's all about Apple's decisions? Clearly, Spotify has the same choice.

I don't have Apple products

[Anonymous Coward]

And I stream music just fine. I can do it because I have other options.. How is that anti-competitive?

Spotify

[Anonymous Coward]

You could also frame it as, if you want to listen to Spotify, you aren't going to buy an Apple device. I have an Android tablet because I want to use a particular GPS app that isn't available on iOS.

Every "smart" device I own has Spotify on it, including my blu-ray player, TV, and receiver. Sonos has it, too. I think it's difficult to make the argument that Apple is restricting competition if you can get it just about everywhere else.

Re:Spotify

[fluffernutter]

No one buys a phone because of the apps that work with it. They either like the Apple closed system or they don't. They pay more for an iPhone or they don't. Then they use the apps that work with the phone they buy. Spotify cannot hope to 'lure' people to Android simply because their app works there.

Re:Spotify

[Obfuscant]

No one buys a phone because of the apps that work with it.

Really? I currently own two iPads (yes I know, not "phones", but Apple products) ONLY because of one specific app that runs only on iOS. Try again.

They either like the Apple closed system or they don't.

Irrelevant. I don't have to like the Apple closed system to want to use the app that runs only on iOS.

Spotify cannot hope to 'lure' people to Android simply because their app works there.

Hmmm. If people can be lured INTO Apple because of an app, they can be lured out of Apple for the same reason. And save money while doing it.

EU responds ...

[PPH]

... 30% tax? More restrictive rules? Why didn't we think of that?

Its a good thing for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

That america's "rule of law" only consists of one rule...

Whoever has the most money gets whatever they want.

Free app with subscription on website

[Camembert]

Apple does get a share of purchases and also of in-app purchases or subscriptions. In that sense it is similar to any distributor of item such as for example amazon. Part of the sale price goes to the distributor (which can well be over 30%), in exchange for the distributorâ(TM)s tremendous wide customer reach As I understand it, Spotify could make its app free and requiring a login (and subscription setup) to be created on the Spotify website. It is indeed less convenient for the customer but then Apple wouldnâ(TM)t get anything (well, 30% of zero to be precise). There are several other apps that work like this. But yes I can see their argument. I donâ(TM)t agree with the blocking features argument however, because honestly it would be all about tracking the user.

Re:The EU is back with more tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Were do the rich people get idiots like yourself to do their bidding. You must be really cheap..

anti-trust isn't as simple as many think

[Anonymous Coward]

anti-trust would be more like this, if Apple used its clout with music publishers to force them not to sell rights to competitors or charge them more than you charge us

or if Apple told Spotify, to sell your service in our store, you have to charge at least as much as we do for Apple Music

or if Apple told Verizon you can only sell Apple products or we won't let you sell ours

lastly as an aside, it's pretty disingenuous at the least for a company (Spotify) that is well known for cheating artists to complain about another company "cheating" them.

As an IOS dev I agree with Spotify

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple restricts access to iOS for developers in ways that make it impossible to address certain functions (for example a non-apple app cannot develop an alarm clock).

It's time this changed and I guess apple won't give up their advantage unless forced.

Re: As an IOS dev I agree with Spotify

[gnasher719]

Apple restricts access to iOS for developers in ways that make it impossible to address certain functions (for example a non-apple app cannot develop an alarm clock).

I have two non-Apple alarm clocks on my Iphone so I guess you are wrong.

Spotify has it backwards

[izzo nizzo]

If Spotify can't make their finances work, that's not a sign that Apple should subsidize them with both cash and platform changes.

Spotify is a disruptive business that has doubtless killed many other businesses. It's pretty normal to expect that they themselves may not survive. Yes, Apple's product is markedly similar, but it arrived later and has access to lots of ways to operate more efficiently.

When someone uses the term 'fair', it's typically when they are trying to trick you.