This reminds of the whole browser war situation with Microsoft many years ago which Microsoft was forced to allow other browsers. It, however, feels different from Apple who seem to be able to just get away with this behaviour unchallenged.
Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
351–360 of 865 posts
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#352Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#353Can someone help me stop playing the world's smallest violin here? Spotify knowingly built a low margin business living in the pocket of the labels (who force Spotify towards razor thin margins) and Apple/Google (who have, since before Spotify launched, operated app stores for their platforms which are to some extent curated and which are not free market economies). Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow i…
> Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible? Because Apple+Android = de facto monopoly.
Technically that's called a duopoly.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#354I agree that Spotify is taking the right stance. In their position, working on whatever team is responsible for fighting Apple, I would also do anything in my power to fight. Having said this, Apple can do as they please. They control the hardware, the OS, the App Store, and the user accounts. The same was true of Twitter who effectively squeezed access to their API until one or two desktop clients remained. The only…
"Imagine if Spotify offered a lower rate for Android users... Wouldn't that send a very clear message to Apple?" - That is exactly what Spotify should do. They need to use the fact that Apple is married to its platform against them. Charge Apple users 12.99 and Android users 9.99 and then beat them by offering superior content. If Apple users want to sign up online then they can get the 9.99 price.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#355European Commission is the only antitrust regulator with teeth, I'm glad that single market area is coming into its own. The regulator for the 21st century that corporations actually listen to. Without them, we would be here debating how this doesn't satisfy antitrust laws to the American standard, which would be beyond the point but a typical discussion.
Going to take another 50 years before that succumbs to regulatory capture.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
More than a decade ago, the EU forced Microsoft to let people choose their browser on a Windows machine with a fresh install. Not only that but the list of choices was randomly sorted so that IE would not be the first listed. > Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible? Of course if you were Apple, you would not want to do it. But, that’s what a…
On my opinion there is no comparison with the dominance MS in the OS market and Apple, I think Apple’ market share is very far from the 90+% windows enjoyed
EU antitrust law doesn't require dominance. It requires the ability to materially affect market pricing, and companies with minority market share have previously been found against.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless "everyone" also includes Apple Music, then it's anti-competitive.
That’s like demanding newpapers pay full price for ad space on their own pages. Just absurd. What does it even mean, Apple owns Apple Music.
Not absurd. Different departments in the same company have budgets of their own. If a department wants to buy an ad from their own paper, it should affect their remaining budget, just as it should show up on the Ad department's revenue.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's not entirely true, Apple can't exactly do what it wants. As other comments point out regarding Microsoft, Microsoft were forced to allow IE to be debundled and other competing browsers installed, because having a monopoly on a platform and using that platform to enforce anti-competitive practices is illegal under anti-trust law. So given Apple's marketshare (not a monopoly per se though pretty substantia…
Is Apple unfairly leveraging the app store the same way Microsoft leveraged IE? I don't even see this being an anti-competitive concern
> Is Apple unfairly leveraging the app store (...)
.. yes, for many of the reasons described in Spotify's microsite.
They have a monopoly, and they are unfairly favouring their own products.
This should be enough to bring anti-trust concerns to the table.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#359Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. You cant move to another platform without losing access to all your "purchases" - there is no free market. They have monopolies within ecosystems they created. They should be FORCED to have an open platform, with users able to access multiple 3rd party storefronts on multiple pla…
> Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS.
Microsoft had a monopoly, Apple doesn't. It's as simple as that.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The issue of the 30% cut alone is enough for further investigation, Not really, it's 30% for everyone, not just Spotify.
> Not really, it's 30% for everyone, not just Spotify. As they mention on the website. That's not true. It's not 30% for Uber or Deliveroo. And most importantly, it's not 30% for Apple Music.
It seems that 30% is for features that are delivery in app, since Uber and Deliveroo are delivered outside app they have a lower cut. It's just commission cut rules by Apple.
Regarding Apple Music I'm not sure what that supposed to mean. I'm pretty sure that Spotify doesn't charge the same for "Spotify Premium" and "McDonalds" ads.