Spotify 1 : Apple 0 - Apple probably abuses dominant position

[HenrySalayne]

Summary

 The European Commission has informed Apple of its preliminary view that it distorted competition in the music streaming market as it abused its dominant position for the distribution of music streaming apps through its App Store.

 

Quotes

Quote

The Commission takes issue with the mandatory use of Apple's own in-app purchase mechanism imposed on music streaming app developers to distribute their apps via Apple's App Store. The Commission is also concerned that Apple applies certain restrictions on app developers preventing them from informing iPhone and iPad users of alternative, cheaper purchasing possibilities.  

Quote

The Commission's concerns, as outlined in the Statement of Objections, relate to the combination of the following two rules that Apple imposes in its agreements with music streaming app developers:

• The mandatory use of Apple's proprietary in-app purchase system (“IAP”) for the distribution of paid digital content. Apple charges app developers a 30% commission fee on all subscriptions bought through the mandatory IAP. The Commission's investigation showed that most streaming providers passed this fee on to end users by raising prices.
• “Anti-steering provisions” which limit the ability of app developers to inform users of alternative purchasing possibilities outside of apps. While Apple allows users to use music subscriptions purchased elsewhere, its rules prevent developers from informing users about such purchasing possibilities, which are usually cheaper. The Commission is concerned that users of Apple devices pay significantly higher prices for their music subscription services or they are prevented from buying certain subscriptions directly in their apps.

My thoughts

This decision might get expensive for Apple. Furthermore the same points apply to the "Epic vs. Apple" fight. We will probably see some major changes to the app store rules for developers.

 

Sources

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2061

[Arika]

Finally, some actual progress

 

I look forward to this thread turning into the same thing with the same arguments as the last 15billion of the same type.

 

[SorryBella]

5 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I look forward to this thread turning into the same thing with the same arguments as the last 15billion of the same type.

iTs FrEe MaRkEt SpOtIfY sHoUlDvE uP tHeiR gAmE

[WolframaticAlpha]

30 minutes ago, SorryClaire said:

iTs FrEe MaRkEt SpOtIfY sHoUlDvE uP tHeiR gAmE

aPpLe iS aBuSiNg iT's pOsITiOn ThO, cRaPpLe bAd VrO

[suicidalfranco]

Standard Oil should have been allowed to act as they did. It was their train platform, if other oil companies didn't like it they should have just built their own rail network.

Same for the trusts.

[FakeATF]

22 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Standard Oil should have been allowed to act as they did. It was their train platform, if other oil companies didn't like it they should have just built their own rail network.

Same for the trusts.

Do I hear oil? I'm an American, oil flows in my veins

 

If you're going to have your app on IoS, you should be prepared to use their app store. It's their product, lol.

 

Apple is also the market leader for a reason...

That being said Epic and now Spotify do have reasonable arguments, it's at least worth consideration and i'm interested to see how these lawsuits turn out for Apple and the industry as a whole.

[suicidalfranco]

8 minutes ago, FakeATF said:

If you're going to have your app on IoS, you should be prepared to use their app store. It's their product, lol.

The same should have been true for standard then: if other oil companies plan to use standard's railways, they should be prepared to pay the fees standard dictated. It's their rail, lol.

[FakeATF]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

The same should have been true for standard then: if other oil companies plan to use standard's railways, they should be prepared to pay the fees standard dictated. It's their rail, lol.

Yeah, they own it, they can decide to do what they want with it. Same with apple, it's their platform, they should be able to do what they want with it.

 

If people don't like it, Apple would lose their market leader position. The thing is that the average joe just doesn't care about this kind of thing. And thus, apple can do what they want and nobody should really complain about it. If they weren't so dominant in the market it would surely be a different story, but right now it's companies asking apple to use their app store and be on their devices, not the other way around.

[PocketNerd]

6 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

The same should have been true for standard then: if other oil companies plan to use standard's railways, they should be prepared to pay the fees standard dictated. It's their rail, lol.

Better solution, standardize and nationalize the railway and charge everyone equally for all to benefit.

 

Infrastructure is one of those things that shouldnt be controlled by private corporations.

[Fasterthannothing]

O boy looks like Apple is going to need to start saving their pennies to pay for this. This going to hurt bad. If the Epic lawsuit goes the same way the Apple app store might be completely different.  Imagine iOS apps outside of the app store. I for one am looking forward to when Apple is forced to allow sideloading apps or allow people to spin up their own payment system for in app stuff. 

[Kisai]

58 minutes ago, FakeATF said:

 

Apple is also the market leader for a reason...

That being said Epic and now Spotify do have reasonable arguments, it's at least worth consideration and i'm interested to see how these lawsuits turn out for Apple and the industry as a whole.

Does Epic though?

 

The primary issue I see with these app-store nonsense lawsuits is that the app developer wants 100% of the money. This is no different from your utility bill making it stupidly hard to pay by credit card, but they will happily accept the completely-unsafe-to-use routing+bank account number because it costs them less than you using a card.

 

Apple, probably should be receiving a commission for customers acquired via the Apple store on an Apple device. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Apple telling app providers to not show customers other ways, is to avoid the scenario above, where the app developer operates an insecure, or improperly secured payment gateway, and thus Apple getting the blame for stolen card numbers. Cause you know, Americans still pay this way.

 

Anyway, I do see issue with the commission level for simply acquiring a customer. The app developer always had the option of not being paid anything at all and being able to have an impulse buy on the platform, but they'd just whine about that too.

 

 

[HenrySalayne]

13 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The primary issue I see with these app-store nonsense lawsuits is that the app developer wants 100% of the money.

It's not a lawsuit, it's an antitrust investigation. Nobody is suing Apple.

 

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Apple, probably should be receiving a commission for customers acquired via the Apple store on an Apple device. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Apple telling app providers to not show customers other ways, is to avoid the scenario above, where the app developer operates an insecure, or improperly secured payment gateway

Rethink this argument. Are there only insecure payment methods or why would Apple block any payment method?

 

Quote

Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said: “App stores play a central role in today's digital economy. We can now do our shopping, access news, music or movies via apps instead of visiting websites. Our preliminary finding is that Apple is a gatekeeper to users of iPhones and iPads via the App Store. With Apple Music, Apple also competes with music streaming providers. By setting strict rules on the App store that disadvantage competing music streaming services, Apple deprives users of cheaper music streaming choices and distorts competition. This is done by charging high commission fees on each transaction in the App store for rivals and by forbidding them from informing their customers of alternative subscription options.”

 

[Spindel]

Best case outcome (that will not happen) is if apple completley bans in app purchases and only allow fully functional one time payment or free ad sponsored apps. 

[Kisai]

7 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

It's not a lawsuit, it's an antitrust investigation. Nobody is suing Apple.

 

Rethink this argument. Are there only insecure payment methods or why would Apple block any payment method?

 

 

This is exactly ebays argument for using PayPal when they owned it. The alternative that was popular, and still unsafe, is western union. These policies don’t come out of thin air. People who were once scammed via western union, are the same ones who get scammed by using Bitcoin or gift cards.

 

Perhaps if there was an international payment method akin to PayPal where you, the user don’t have to give 50 some odd companies your card number and have some of them screw up and leak it, this would be a completely different argument. But no, The standard payment option should be Applepay with the one-time use payment nonces. You know how much crap out there will not let you cancel except via convoluted hoop jumping? Like credit monitoring. Like domain registrations.

[HenrySalayne]

27 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Perhaps if there was an international payment method akin to PayPal where you, the user don’t have to give 50 some odd companies your card number and have some of them screw up and leak it, this would be a completely different argument. But no, The standard payment option should be Applepay with the one-time use payment nonces. You know how much crap out there will not let you cancel except via convoluted hoop jumping? Like credit monitoring. Like domain registrations.

At least here in the EU we have a wide variety of payment methods and accompanying laws to protect costumers. So maybe the freedom of choice for a payment method and some regulation is a good thing.

[Fasterthannothing]

14 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Easy solution: allow app side loading. 

Most of these apps with try to move their users out of the app store not to pay.

 

And no, the device isn't from the company after the customer bought it. They should not get to say what you can or cannot do with it.

I agree 100% app sideloading is the way to go. Use whatever payment method a user wants.

[Fasterthannothing]

On 4/30/2021 at 1:48 PM, Kisai said:

This is exactly ebays argument for using PayPal when they owned it. The alternative that was popular, and still unsafe, is western union. These policies don’t come out of thin air. People who were once scammed via western union, are the same ones who get scammed by using Bitcoin or gift cards.

 

Perhaps if there was an international payment method akin to PayPal where you, the user don’t have to give 50 some odd companies your card number and have some of them screw up and leak it, this would be a completely different argument. But no, The standard payment option should be Applepay with the one-time use payment nonces. You know how much crap out there will not let you cancel except via convoluted hoop jumping? Like credit monitoring. Like domain registrations.

Lol what so you want Apple controlling everything even down to your payment methods. There are tons of companies that can provide secure payment services.

[Blademaster91]

4 minutes ago, SlidewaysZ said:

Lol what so you want Apple controlling everything even down to your payment methods.

Theres plenty of other payment options, Google pay, Paypal, and Samsung pay are a few, which should all be allowed as alternative payments. And sideloading apps should be allowed as well IMO so app developers can bypass those excessive fees, but I doubt apple would allow it as they want a monopoly over the user down to what payment methods they can use.

[Distinctly Average]

8 minutes ago, SlidewaysZ said:

Lol what so you want Apple controlling everything even down to your payment methods. Wow what a corporate suck up you should take your Apple shilling somewhere else. There are tons of companies that can provide secure payment services.

I do find it funny really. If you owned a shop, a standard one on the high street, would you let a competitor seek their stuff in your shop under their rules for no or very little profit for yourself? Just because the Apple store is massive, should they not be allowed to make a profit and allow others to sell what they want ignoring your rules? That is what is happening here. If the doors are opened in this case then the flood gates will follow. Will we see Amazon having to allow all audio book stores on their site as well as kindle competitors and books etc? Could Epic be forced to allow Apple and Google apps on their stores. How about Sony and Microsoft, surely they will be allowed in on the action? See, it could all become a big mess. 

[Tieox]

7 hours ago, SorryClaire said:

iTs FrEe MaRkEt SpOtIfY sHoUlDvE uP tHeiR gAmE

They just did.

[Fasterthannothing]

4 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

I do find it funny really. If you owned a shop, a standard one on the high street, would you let a competitor seek their stuff in your shop under their rules for no or very little profit for yourself? Just because the Apple store is massive, should they not be allowed to make a profit and allow others to sell what they want ignoring your rules? That is what is happening here. If the doors are opened in this case then the flood gates will follow. Will we see Amazon having to allow all audio book stores on their site as well as kindle competitors and books etc? Could Epic be forced to allow Apple and Google apps on their stores. How about Sony and Microsoft, surely they will be allowed in on the action? See, it could all become a big mess. 

Digital goods are a whole new world. Your comparing Apple's to Oranges. I truly believe Apple,Google, Steam, Epic etc should be paying developers to have their content on their platform. Without developers making apps the phones would be worthless. Apple gets money for the hardware what a user wants to do with it shouldn't be a chance to make money holding hostage the storage and installation of a small file.

[FakeATF]

57 minutes ago, SlidewaysZ said:

Your comparing Apple's to Oranges

Hehe, pun intended?

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Spindel said:

Best case outcome (that will not happen) is if apple completley bans in app purchases and only allow fully functional one time payment or free ad sponsored apps. 

There are definitely cases where a subscription service can and should be an option. Otherwise you're basically saying Netflix shouldn't be allowed to have an iOS app. You can argue whether you personally like the idea of a Netflix Subscription, but many people value it and services like it.

1 hour ago, SlidewaysZ said:

Lol what so you want Apple controlling everything even down to your payment methods. Wow what a corporate suck up you should take your Apple shilling somewhere else. There are tons of companies that can provide secure payment services.

Please don't call other users shills just because they disagree with your opinion.

[Spindel]

40 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

There are definitely cases where a subscription service can and should be an option. Otherwise you're basically saying Netflix shouldn't be allowed to have an iOS app. You can argue whether you personally like the idea of a Netflix Subscription, but many people value it and services like it.

Please don't call other users shills just because they disagree with your opinion.

What added value does netflix app bring that couldn’t be served by safari?

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, Spindel said:

What added value does netflix app bring that couldn’t be served by safari?

 

 

downloads.

tou can’t download a movie to watch offline with the web version. The app can do that.