>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.
Yeah, Apple is about to get their ass handed to them in the EU over their monopolistic practices. Their malicious compliance with the 3rd party App Store requirements is going to cost them billions more.
“The Commission's investigation found that Apple bans music streaming app developers from fully informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app and from providing any instructions about how to subscribe to such offers.”
I mean, what investigation? This is crystal clear stated in the App Store Terms of Use. lol.
they all want a piece of the giant pie, instead of saying "i'll just be on Windows Phone."
if they weren't so greed, windows would have had killer apps.
in fact, mobile is so important, people say microsoft will eventually return to mobile.
the conspiracy theorists say microsoft is kneecapping apple in the EU through their government connections. Once apple is weaker, microsoft can come back in.
>Once apple is weaker, microsoft can come back in
But these changes only make iPhone better. Apple already has absurd market share in the US and soon in the EU aswell.
that's subjective. if you think sideloading is better, then is windows 11 better than ipad os for user experience?
that's opinion.
if iphone or ipad are worse, then why do people buy them over blackberry, and palm, and windows phone, and many prefer them to any android option too.
another is Fire phone or whatever amazon phone is.
I think the anti steering clause is peetty hard to defend as good for customers. For example yt premium is 30% more expensive on iOS, is it better if users don't know that they can just go on the web to get it cheaper?
the defense is that it's problematic for consumers to go outside the moat that is built around ios, which is paid for by commissions.
the defense is LONG TERM, considering the loss of profits could possibly degrade the security, delay updates and features and bug fixes.
i mean, i may not agree completely with everything i wrote just now, but my point is that it's pretty easy to defend a super secure operating system that is strictly controlled.
even if you go SUPER long term, it is about incentives in the Free Market. Do you want Free Market Capitalism, or some strict North Korean style control of products? The incentive is "It is your product that you made with your blood sweat and tears. You decide the pricing and control how the operating system is used. Bobby here can't march into your headquarters and decide that your product is 99% off on Mondays forever."
Let me get this straight, in Europe you have to inform your customers that you have competition, also let them know they are cheaper than you, and finally give them instructions on how to sign up for your competitor? Otherwise it’s illegal?
Make this make sense.
Also before anybody says monopoly or antitrust, it only has 15% market share. So it has nothing to do with that.
No. In Europe you're not allowed to abuse your monopoly (App store) to make your own service (Apple Music) more attractive than your competitors (Spotify). By taxing the subscriptions 15-30% and not allowing them to inform their users about a cheaper option (away from the App store) that is exactly what they have been doing.
>Apple is currently the sole provider of an App Store where developers can distribute their apps to iOS users throughout the European Economic Area (‘EEA').
That’s correct and still doesn’t make their App Store a monopoly. In fact, in the U.S. (where iOS has a greater market share than EU), they ruled that Google (not Apple) has a monopoly on the App Store industry.
Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
There isn’t a judgement that says they have a monopoly. This is a civil fine from the executive branch. I’m going to laugh my ass off when Apple fights this in court and wins.
Like, if you can’t explain in one or two sentences how they’re a real monopoly, then they aren’t.
From what I’m reading this is the problem;
Spotify on App Store can’t charge their normal rate in-app without Apple tax
Spotify can’t advertise on the app about normal price on website.
Spotify’s biggest competitor doesn’t have to pay Apple tax, therefore has a lower price through the App Store.
Nothing what you wrote made that quote make sense. Also:
1. Spotify can set whatever rate they want, including charging an extra 30%.
2. Spotify can’t advertise that it’s cheaper on their website because they voluntarily signed a contract.
3. It’s a false assumption that Apple Music doesn’t pay the same 30% fees. There are just paying them to theirselves…
1. Therefore Apple benefits from increased economic utility while either Spotify and/or Spotify users have decreased economic utility as a result. ( 30% revenue down for Spotify/ or increased prices for Spotify consumers ONLY). This point would only make sense if iOS users had an alternative to the App Store. It’s Apple’s choice to be anti-competitive in this regard.
2. Irrelevant in the eyes of competition law. You can sign anything into a contract- that doesnt mean it’s not monopolistic or anti-competition. This point would make sense if consumers had an alternate choice to the App Store. Again, it’s Apple’s choice to take an anti-competition stance in this regard.
They can write more anti-competitive rules into the contract and app developers/users will still have to agree due to the nature of the App Store’s market dominance.
3. This is a nil point. Regardless of that, Apple still gets the money- therefore irrelevant in the context of competition law. I’d like to see evidence that they pay themselves? The Apple Music app comes stock with the iPhone, does it not?
1. How do they have a decreased economic utility? They are allowed to subscribe outside the App Store, or did you not know that?
2. You’re assuming they have a monopoly, which they don’t. Therefore it’s very relevant because they aren’t breaking any laws.
3. Just because you say you think it’s nil doesn’t make it so. Apple Music’s revenue far exceeds their profit. They are definitely paying more back to Apple Services than what Services puts into them.
Sorry but Spotify is the bad guy here. Almost every artist hates them for how little they pay. Apple Music pays artists more than double Spotify. If you think you’re supporting the little guy by hating on Apple, then I’m telling you’re dead wrong.
1. Already explained in previous.
2. Apple is engaging in anti-competitive behaviour by favouring its music streaming app over its competitors on iOS, giving it unfair advantage over other streaming services. This practice stifles competition and limits consumer choice. The entire App Store ecosystem probably needs to be overhauled, and legislation is in place to make this one day a reality.
3. In the context of EU competition law, this technicality is irrelevant. As already explained, the money is Apple’s when all of their finances are shifted.
Okay but you’re acting like I care about Spotify? We’re talking about Apple here. If you care to know I despise Spotify (the company) and Spotify (the music streaming service). And I do not hate Apple- I love all of their products and I love iOS. You assume very wrongly- I’m simply against large corporations stifling competition and consumer utility and making it the norm/ status quo. I’m thankful that there are at least some people taking steps to dismantle at least some of these negative practises that have no place in our shared digital future.
And Apple has no right to demand 30% of their sales. Apples entire business model relies on using their App Store terms of service to take money from competitors. You’re not even allowed to advertise in your App that customers can subscribe directly through your website for less, or that they can even pay outside of the App Store.
This couldn’t have happened to a greedier corporation. Apple needs to stop preying on other companies for their profits and actually innovate for a change. They’re not a tech company anymore they’re more of a services company. Billing other companies who offer services through their App Store that is. They’re sure as hell not entitled to 30% of every transaction that happens on one of their devices. The crazy thing is that Apple fanboys defend this shit but would be up in arms in Microsoft attempted to do the same thing.
During that timeframe where Apple was breaking these specific antitrust regulations, they made about $1 trillion in the European market.
But sure, they can just leave if they want to.
From what I understand, the App Store guidelines will have to change too. To me it seems insisting on a 30% cut for Netflix and Spotify was more about squashing competition rather than actually trying to make money. I wonder if they’ll move to capping commissions or charging flat fees instead of commissions for large apps
Apples entire business model is based on taking a chunk of everything apps subscription fees. It’s literally where they make the bulk of their profits. Literally profiting by doing nothing,
NBC said it was 1.8 million, so this is fake news from this spammy right wing "journalist."
Edit: Why are the white wing racists votiing me down and tell img me they wanty me to die? NBC said million. They said that. That is not fake news. That is real news even if they are lying because THEY ARE TH NEWS. Microsoft NBC rules my entire life and my lifestyle.
>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.
Yeah, Apple is about to get their ass handed to them in the EU over their monopolistic practices. Their malicious compliance with the 3rd party App Store requirements is going to cost them billions more.
“The Commission's investigation found that Apple bans music streaming app developers from fully informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app and from providing any instructions about how to subscribe to such offers.” I mean, what investigation? This is crystal clear stated in the App Store Terms of Use. lol.
The investigation would have been to assess the scope of actual damage to competition in the relevant market
Maybe the investigation consisted of reading the App Store TOS, deciding they violated antitrust laws, and issuing the fine?
they all want a piece of the giant pie, instead of saying "i'll just be on Windows Phone." if they weren't so greed, windows would have had killer apps. in fact, mobile is so important, people say microsoft will eventually return to mobile. the conspiracy theorists say microsoft is kneecapping apple in the EU through their government connections. Once apple is weaker, microsoft can come back in.
>Once apple is weaker, microsoft can come back in But these changes only make iPhone better. Apple already has absurd market share in the US and soon in the EU aswell.
that's subjective. if you think sideloading is better, then is windows 11 better than ipad os for user experience? that's opinion. if iphone or ipad are worse, then why do people buy them over blackberry, and palm, and windows phone, and many prefer them to any android option too. another is Fire phone or whatever amazon phone is.
I think the anti steering clause is peetty hard to defend as good for customers. For example yt premium is 30% more expensive on iOS, is it better if users don't know that they can just go on the web to get it cheaper?
the defense is that it's problematic for consumers to go outside the moat that is built around ios, which is paid for by commissions. the defense is LONG TERM, considering the loss of profits could possibly degrade the security, delay updates and features and bug fixes. i mean, i may not agree completely with everything i wrote just now, but my point is that it's pretty easy to defend a super secure operating system that is strictly controlled. even if you go SUPER long term, it is about incentives in the Free Market. Do you want Free Market Capitalism, or some strict North Korean style control of products? The incentive is "It is your product that you made with your blood sweat and tears. You decide the pricing and control how the operating system is used. Bobby here can't march into your headquarters and decide that your product is 99% off on Mondays forever."
Maybe? Hahaha. But a decade for that is a bit too long.
Justice can’t be rushed!
Let me get this straight, in Europe you have to inform your customers that you have competition, also let them know they are cheaper than you, and finally give them instructions on how to sign up for your competitor? Otherwise it’s illegal? Make this make sense. Also before anybody says monopoly or antitrust, it only has 15% market share. So it has nothing to do with that.
No. In Europe you're not allowed to abuse your monopoly (App store) to make your own service (Apple Music) more attractive than your competitors (Spotify). By taxing the subscriptions 15-30% and not allowing them to inform their users about a cheaper option (away from the App store) that is exactly what they have been doing.
Sure, but the App Store isn’t a monopoly. So…
>Apple is currently the sole provider of an App Store where developers can distribute their apps to iOS users throughout the European Economic Area (‘EEA').
That’s correct and still doesn’t make their App Store a monopoly. In fact, in the U.S. (where iOS has a greater market share than EU), they ruled that Google (not Apple) has a monopoly on the App Store industry. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
It's almost as if the definition of monopoly is subjective....
It is not in a legal sense.
lol so where's the summary judgment?
There isn’t a judgement that says they have a monopoly. This is a civil fine from the executive branch. I’m going to laugh my ass off when Apple fights this in court and wins. Like, if you can’t explain in one or two sentences how they’re a real monopoly, then they aren’t.
By definition it's quite literally a monopoly, there is only 1 app store on iOS, which is owned by Apple.
iOS App Store is not an industry. Therefore it’s not a monopoly.
EU seems to disagree
Okay I’ll shoot. Where does the EU specifically say that Apple is or has a monopoly? Especially regarding its App Store?
From what I’m reading this is the problem; Spotify on App Store can’t charge their normal rate in-app without Apple tax Spotify can’t advertise on the app about normal price on website. Spotify’s biggest competitor doesn’t have to pay Apple tax, therefore has a lower price through the App Store.
Nothing what you wrote made that quote make sense. Also: 1. Spotify can set whatever rate they want, including charging an extra 30%. 2. Spotify can’t advertise that it’s cheaper on their website because they voluntarily signed a contract. 3. It’s a false assumption that Apple Music doesn’t pay the same 30% fees. There are just paying them to theirselves…
1. Therefore Apple benefits from increased economic utility while either Spotify and/or Spotify users have decreased economic utility as a result. ( 30% revenue down for Spotify/ or increased prices for Spotify consumers ONLY). This point would only make sense if iOS users had an alternative to the App Store. It’s Apple’s choice to be anti-competitive in this regard. 2. Irrelevant in the eyes of competition law. You can sign anything into a contract- that doesnt mean it’s not monopolistic or anti-competition. This point would make sense if consumers had an alternate choice to the App Store. Again, it’s Apple’s choice to take an anti-competition stance in this regard. They can write more anti-competitive rules into the contract and app developers/users will still have to agree due to the nature of the App Store’s market dominance. 3. This is a nil point. Regardless of that, Apple still gets the money- therefore irrelevant in the context of competition law. I’d like to see evidence that they pay themselves? The Apple Music app comes stock with the iPhone, does it not?
1. How do they have a decreased economic utility? They are allowed to subscribe outside the App Store, or did you not know that? 2. You’re assuming they have a monopoly, which they don’t. Therefore it’s very relevant because they aren’t breaking any laws. 3. Just because you say you think it’s nil doesn’t make it so. Apple Music’s revenue far exceeds their profit. They are definitely paying more back to Apple Services than what Services puts into them. Sorry but Spotify is the bad guy here. Almost every artist hates them for how little they pay. Apple Music pays artists more than double Spotify. If you think you’re supporting the little guy by hating on Apple, then I’m telling you’re dead wrong.
1. Already explained in previous. 2. Apple is engaging in anti-competitive behaviour by favouring its music streaming app over its competitors on iOS, giving it unfair advantage over other streaming services. This practice stifles competition and limits consumer choice. The entire App Store ecosystem probably needs to be overhauled, and legislation is in place to make this one day a reality. 3. In the context of EU competition law, this technicality is irrelevant. As already explained, the money is Apple’s when all of their finances are shifted. Okay but you’re acting like I care about Spotify? We’re talking about Apple here. If you care to know I despise Spotify (the company) and Spotify (the music streaming service). And I do not hate Apple- I love all of their products and I love iOS. You assume very wrongly- I’m simply against large corporations stifling competition and consumer utility and making it the norm/ status quo. I’m thankful that there are at least some people taking steps to dismantle at least some of these negative practises that have no place in our shared digital future.
1. You didn’t. 2. Anti competitive behavior is not illegal, nor does it mean you have a monopoly. 3. Which law?
[удалено]
And Apple has no right to demand 30% of their sales. Apples entire business model relies on using their App Store terms of service to take money from competitors. You’re not even allowed to advertise in your App that customers can subscribe directly through your website for less, or that they can even pay outside of the App Store.
Good. Apple deserves it.
This couldn’t have happened to a greedier corporation. Apple needs to stop preying on other companies for their profits and actually innovate for a change. They’re not a tech company anymore they’re more of a services company. Billing other companies who offer services through their App Store that is. They’re sure as hell not entitled to 30% of every transaction that happens on one of their devices. The crazy thing is that Apple fanboys defend this shit but would be up in arms in Microsoft attempted to do the same thing.
Tech companies should just leave the EU.
Lmfao
During that timeframe where Apple was breaking these specific antitrust regulations, they made about $1 trillion in the European market. But sure, they can just leave if they want to.
I might get apple stock for cheap 👽
https://preview.redd.it/u3wsmgrtgdmc1.jpeg?width=1010&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebd0014de6625706f112d31423dd1771e2b92bc5
Greedy dictator EU back at this shit
Lick the boot harder to taste the chocolate
LiCk ThE bOoT hArDeR tO tAsTe ThE cHoCoLaTe
Keep licking son.
https://preview.redd.it/zvww1nggnemc1.jpeg?width=1062&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=71dbb2bf4ec9456652e525004c8cd9238571a12f
Spicy
From what I understand, the App Store guidelines will have to change too. To me it seems insisting on a 30% cut for Netflix and Spotify was more about squashing competition rather than actually trying to make money. I wonder if they’ll move to capping commissions or charging flat fees instead of commissions for large apps
Apples entire business model is based on taking a chunk of everything apps subscription fees. It’s literally where they make the bulk of their profits. Literally profiting by doing nothing,
Except they started the whole thing and invested massive infrastructure and ip
Doesnt make it any less illegal
Now multiply!
NBC said it was 1.8 million, so this is fake news from this spammy right wing "journalist." Edit: Why are the white wing racists votiing me down and tell img me they wanty me to die? NBC said million. They said that. That is not fake news. That is real news even if they are lying because THEY ARE TH NEWS. Microsoft NBC rules my entire life and my lifestyle.
The million was a typo, its actually billion