The European Commission has fined Apple over €1.8 billion for abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps to iPhone and iPad users (‘iOS users’) through its App Store. In particular, the Commission found that Apple applied restrictions on app developers preventing them from informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app (‘anti-steering provisions’). This is illegal under EU antitrust rules.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
132 points

And Apple released a letter that sounds petty and greedy.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

… so that Apple fans can identify with it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

It reads like a child throwing a temper tantrum…

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Doesn’t it‽ it’s nuts how bad it sounds.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Nice interrobang!

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

And it’s so utterly ignorant of WHY the fine was issued. This isn’t about a competitors market position, it’s about Apple using its own dominant market position to push its own service. Using a monopoly to create another monopoly is anti-competitive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points
*

Lmaooo

“Spotify doesn’t even pay us!!!”

Edit: omg its so tone deaf, the pot calling the kettle black:

"In short, Spotify wants more. "

Once more, lmaooooo

permalink
report
parent
reply
88 points

Despite that success, and the App Store’s role in making it possible, Spotify pays Apple nothing.

That’s because Spotify doesn’t owe you anything. If I release a piece of software for Apple, Android, Linux, Windows, etc., I don’t owe these OSes anything for that. Apple makes plenty of money selling hardware, that’s good enough for them.

These delusional bastards really need a few slaps around their heads to get this concept to sink in.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

I can see an argument for owing something for hosting the app in the App Store, but certainly not 30% of what every user pays or whatever ridiculous amount Apple charges. Price it like hosting a file on S3, perhaps.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

You already pay to host your app in the app store.

And the thing is, that if the app is so popular, it gets installed a lot. Which means it only improves their devices.

Apple and app developers are a symbiotic relationship. Both need each other in order to function. Yet Apple is consistently taking a bigger piece than they should.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Hell nah. They cannot be the sole gatekeepers, alternative app stores that are outside of Apple’s control need to exist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Perhaps! But only if they allowed third party app stores. Because as it stands right now, they’re basically inventing a cost that they pass on to developers, and then rewarding themselves handsomely for the cost that they would have never needed to pay if they allowed others to compete in this area. It’s still a tactic they could not get away with if they were not a monopoly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Despite that success, and the App Store’s role in making it possible, Spotify pays Apple nothing. That’s because Spotify — like many developers on the App Store — made a choice. Instead of selling subscriptions in their app, they sell them on their website. And Apple doesn’t collect a commission on those purchases.

Oh noooooo, Apple is only making most of the money, instead of all the money 😭

Eat shit and die, Apple

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

It’s as if Ford wanted a dividend of all contractors revenue that use a F150.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Good metaphor, and their argument is “but we are also paying the gasoline”. Still sounds like slavery with extra steps.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Under the App Store’s reader rule, Spotify can also include a link in their app to a webpage where users can create or manage an account.

Instead, Spotify wants to bend the rules in their favor by embedding subscription prices in their app without using the App Store’s In-App Purchase system.

I’m confused now. What is a “reader app”?

Spotify wants to make subscriptions an app functionality and Apple restricts that to it’s own payment system - and the alternative they provide is external websites?

Why the heck is it called a “reader rule” and “reader app”?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’m confused now. What is a “reader app”?

This is some of Apple’s own terminology. It applies to any application who’s main purpose is to serve up audial, visual or text-based media.

Apple allows these apps to access existing accounts via apps but not create new ones.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

IIRC it’s because it comes from before when Apple was sued over charging 25-30% of all eBooks sales while pushing iBooks.

See: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/12/eu-investigating-whether-publishers-conspired-with-apple-on-e-book-pricing/

It was a while ago though so hard to find good sources now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

They’re getting punished for keeping the users in a golden cage, and they are mad that they might have to give some of that power away. You can tell by the fact that not a single paragraph actually addresses the reason for the fine. The EU doesn’t give a damn how many times you flew engineers to Stockholm, this is about the conditions in which iOS operates that hurt both developers and users. But we already knew that Apple doesn’t give a fly about users, it’s money and nothing else for them. “Spotify doesn’t pay Apple” oh cry me a river.

permalink
report
parent
reply
99 points

Apple’s answer is fair. IF THERE WAS A WAY FOR SPOTIFY TO BE DOWNLOADED WITHOUT THE APP STORE

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

How very much like a gatekeeper to their users their argument is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

“Their” is the keyword here, they think they own the users

permalink
report
parent
reply
48 points

Either that or just don’t directly compete with them. Without Apple Music no one would have complained about it.

But you can’t establish a monopoly and leverage it to charge your direct competitors a high fee.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

To be fair, Apple’s position in the digital music market predates all of the streaming apps. They may not have gone all in on Apple Music until after Spotify started taking off, but when it came to music, Apple devices were synonymous with them for a very long time.

The problem is they created a marketplace with the App Store, allowed competition in, and for way too long we have all kind of collectively accepted the fact that because it’s their platform there allowed to have special privileges over everyone else on it.

With the EU is doing is recognizing that these devices are not niche, they’re not game consoles, they are devices that every single person has, and this is a marketplace that every person is active in. It is far too large for Apple to be allowed to have that kind of privilege.

It has nothing to do with what’s fair to Apple because regulating capitalism properly should not be about fairness to all parties equally. It should be about balancing the scales and leveling the playing field.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

I am wondering if it’s really true, that Spotify pays nothing to Apple. If my information is correct every app provider needs to have at least one active Apple Developer subscription (in the case of Spotify there is probably far more than just one account involved). If it is true that Spotify pays nothing to Apple the only possibility is that Apple invited them to bring their app to iOS and granted them free access.

I know 99 USD is not what Apple is after, but it seems dishonest to not disclose this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I mean, in the sense of billions of dollars, having a few developer accounts is nothing. From apples side, they’re making it sound like Spotify and others are pissed they can’t charge users directly through apples apk store without paying a commission. That would be something to collapse the apple store, steam, and Google play store, if everyone just started going around helping to pay for the platform they want to sell on.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

They’re just bitter that Spotify is leading the market and not Apple Music and they crybaby because of that. They’ve been bullying Spotify from the beginning and there has been bad blood on both sides for years. Apple has not made it easy for Spotify, why would Spotify give them any more money? They could have worked together, allowing HomePod and Siri to control Spotify and other cross integrations then that would have maybe been a reason to share revenue. But that’s kinda like The Little Red Hen here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That’s on Spotify, HomePods have been able to stream from other music services for years: https://screenrant.com/apple-homepod-supported-music-services-how-many/

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Wait, you still can’t use HomePod/Siri to control Spotify? How the fuck does this company continue to exist? Why do people put up with their fucking garbage?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

MS and Google are also continously fined billions by the EU over anti competitve and anti trust practices and, so they don’t get particularly preferential treatment.

The issue here is that Apple only allows devs to let users sign up for their service through Apple. Apple also demands 30% of the subscription fee when doing this. They don’t allow a developer to have a button in the app that allows to sign up through their website, or to mention that you can sign up through a website.

So the devs only have two options aside from not having an iOS app: Eat the cost and lose 30% of income to Apple, for who it’s basically free money. Or charge the extra cost over the normal price to the user.

The EU has rules against this and to do business there you need to comply with those rules. Multi billion companies basically ignore those rules until they get fined, which in most cases is just considered cost of operation. After which they may or may not continue the practice if the fine is lower than what they’d lose by stopping.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

After which they may or may not continue the practice if the fine is lower than what they’d lose by stopping.

No they’re definitely stopping no company can tank 10% of yearly world revenue, every year.

The question isn’t whether the fines curb behaviour once imposed, but if they’re sufficient deterrence. Dunno whether starting to jail people is actually the best option, easy to get fall guys if you buy them golden parachutes. How about forced share dilution to the benefit of the EU budget: Offend often and hard enough and you’ll get right-out expropriated. That’s how you hurt shareholders, they all have a joint interest in it not happening (whether small fish or big shark) and I don’t think Apple is in the mood to get in trouble with Vanguard Group.

The stock impact is there, but most of it seems to be due to cessation of illegal behaviour (less ROI), not the impact on assets. It’s indeed priced in.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The issue here is that Apple only allows devs to let users sign up for their service through Apple. Apple also demands 30% of the subscription fee when doing this. They don’t allow a developer to have a button in the app that allows to sign up through their website, or to mention that you can sign up through a website.

“Reader” apps like Spotify can have a link to sign up on their website. There are more rules around than there maybe should be, but it’s allowed, and Apple’s letter says Spotify chooses not to do it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Which is why it’s better for fines to be expressed as percentages of revenue of the company. Not raw amounts. That way it truly hurts their bottom line and makes them listen and comply.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That was a very funny joke apple made!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

😡

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points

Damn that’s petty. They’re like a 5 year old child that got their toy taken from them

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points
*

They’re used to being treated like God’s special little tech company here in the states, so of course they’re going to throw a fucking tantrum when faced with a regulatory body that actually treats them as they should be treated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

“Mah, but I helped spotify! Wah”

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

That’s a paddlin anti-trust forced breakup!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The beatings will continue until morale anti-consumer practices improve.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 16K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 551K

    Comments