How's this different than physical retail? https://www.entrepreneur.com/answer/222356
EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint
541–550 of 825 posts
Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem is with 'internally'. As I understand it, the antitrust regulations could force Apple to spin Apple Music out.
Let's take a step and ponder wouldn't you find it bizarre to have this sequence of events: 1. Apple creates iPod, and iTunes serves as its music store. 2. Apple creates iPhone, which has an iPod app. 3. Apple introduces App Store so other apps can be used on the iPhone. 4. iPod (Apple Music) competitors emerge. 5. EU says "that's it, Apple can't have iPod anymore on the phone unless iPod (Apple Music) becomes a separ…
> because once you're market place, you lose control over your own products to the government.
This is bog standard anti-trust. Yes, if you become massively successful, in a market, then you are now no longer allowed to do certain things. That is how anti-trust law works.
If you take over a market, or become massively successful, you become a monopoly/duopoly, and have to follow certain laws.
These laws aren't hard to follow though. You just have to allow competitors to use your stuff, and you can't use your market power against them.
Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, the percentage of Apple's cut isn't the key part of this EU case. Certainly doesn't help that it's the current 30% but it being 15% won't change the fundamental issues being argued - whether Apple is abusing its market power and shutting competitors out of or subjecting them to unfair practices in its iOS ecosystem. E.g. unfairly favoring its own Music app. I think it's a fairly straightforward case similar to…
The main difference with Microsoft is that Apple does not have a monopoly in phones like Microsoft had with PCs. Apple phones make up only 13% of the phone market.
[deleted]
Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, the percentage of Apple's cut isn't the key part of this EU case. Certainly doesn't help that it's the current 30% but it being 15% won't change the fundamental issues being argued - whether Apple is abusing its market power and shutting competitors out of or subjecting them to unfair practices in its iOS ecosystem. E.g. unfairly favoring its own Music app. I think it's a fairly straightforward case similar to…
The main difference with Microsoft is that Apple does not have a monopoly in phones like Microsoft had with PCs. Apple phones make up only 13% of the phone market.
[deleted]
Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently had a change of heart on this issue when the prevalence of fraudulent apps on the App Store was documented[1]. It's hard to argue that Apple is providing significant benefit to either consumers or developers for their 30% cut when they seem incapable of reigning in obvious fraud. In addition, I think Apple pushing subscriptions as a solution for long term app funding (instead of upgrade pricing or other op…
> has resulted in apps as simple as text editors or todo apps needlessly becoming subscription services I'm torn on this. Of course I prefer to pay once for software but that's not really realistic in today's world where iOS (or Android) development is rarely "Write once, post online, walk away". It's an ongoing process and there aren't very many apps out there that are "done" (even the big players). I understand tha…
> I'm torn on this. Of course I prefer to pay once for software but that's not really realistic in today's world where iOS (or Android) development is rarely "Write once, post online, walk away". It's an ongoing process and there aren't very many apps out there that are "done" (even the big players).
Why is that? The user interface hasn't significantly changed since the iPhone was launched. Why do apps need to be rewritten so many times?
Why should users pay once for software and then... need to pay for the same software again in 2 years even though there's really nothing that has improved?
Pay for a text editor? Why the hell wasn't a text editor well written on the first iPhone?
Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should take whatever percentage they want, even 100%, as long as they allow alternative ways to get apps onto the iPhone and to charge for in-app purchases. The problem isn’t that their price is too high, it’s that it’s the only game in town. Allow alternatives and then the price they choose can compete with the rest of them. We can see exactly how valuable of a service it really is.
People will always take the cheaper option, so might as well make that the only option instead of causing what will surely be claimed in the future as a decision trap for consumers. Hey, maybe 30% already was the cheaper option and they did just that? Allowing sideloading apps or alternative app stores will send the platform straight to hell, by opening up new exploit vectors in an already insanely complex system, an…
The iPhone itself is never the cheaper option.
Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
Original article didn’t make that case, or present this side of the EU’s argument. If that were the EU Commission’s line of thought, it would be wrong on the basis of its presuppositions alone by trying to categorize these two companies into what businesses they are in and screwing up the timeline. Apple has been in the music business longer than the iPhone has existed, even in prototype form, and longer than Spotify…
As said elsewhere, who was there first is not relevant, whereas having prefered treatment because of your monopoly at any stage is. Some are mentioning the App Store being the root of the monopoly, and that is probably true. But speaking from a legal EU point of view, especially as the EU is stating their case in the streaming music area only, wouldn't the simplest way for Apple to get away with it be to externalize…
> As said elsewhere, who was there first is not relevant
You want to go back and re-read the comment I directly replied to where bullet point 1 was the EU (hypothetically at this point) making determinations about who was in what market and laid the foundations for bullet point 2 based on its own flawed presupposition and then tell me that the timeline is irrelevant?
I didn’t point this out to make an argument against the claims that Apple has any sort of claim to monopoly status (or that the EU has any basis for making that claim), but that any legal argument at all made on that foundation would crumble because bad facts make bad law.
> whereas having prefered treatment because of your monopoly at any stage is.
Except Apple does not have market dominance, let alone a monopoly, in Music or Phones.
> Some are mentioning the App Store being the root of the monopoly, and that is probably true.
Not having market dominance, let alone a monopoly, in phones, software, or software retail and distribution, that is actually not true.
They have a monopoly on iPhone features, including the App Store, insofar as the iPhone is researched, developed and sold by Apple as a cohesive product, and it does not have out of the box functionality that Apple does not add themselves. You might as well claim Google has a monopoly on YouTube channels or that Amazon has a monopoly on Whole Foods shelves; more accurately, that Nintendo has a monopoly on the eShop and Sony has a monopoly on the PlayStation Store. It was a bad argument 13 years ago, and it is a bad argument today that doesn’t even pass the sniff test.
> especially as the EU is stating their case in the streaming music area only
Why only streaming music? Spotify was originally an upstart competitor to iTunes and the iTunes Music Store, and the iTunes Music Store was originally a competitor to record stores.
Music itself is part of the larger News and Entertainment industry where ultimately the resource is someone else’s leisure time and you want to be the one to fill it. Spotify knows this; that’s why they experimented with video and they’re huge into podcasts now.
> wouldn't the simplest way for Apple to get away with it be to externalize 'enough' Apple Music and to have them pay the same fees as Spotify?
Why should they have to? Because they have a competitive advantage? Businesses always look to edge out their competitors by accumulating advantages. Spotify was successfully out-competing iTunes, so Apple acquired Beats and folded Beats Music into iTunes and called it Apple Music.
Spotify has almost 5 times the global market share of streaming music as Apple does, and has almost as many EU subscribers as Apple has total subscribers, that is globally, give or take 10 million.
What Spotify is doing here is trying to lower their costs because they have massive overhead in licensing fees, same as everyone else that licenses music. Part of their growth story is exactly being on the iPhone at the right time to capitalize on its growth, and being featured in the App Store. In order to compete, they offer an ad-supported tier from which Apple sees exactly none of that money. I don’t think you can even subscribe to Spotify from within the iPhone app anymore so Apple is still footing the bill for distribution and any money that Apple sees from prior subscriptions is now at the lower 15% rate that all subscription apps see for customers after their first year subscribed.
> Therefore, the only way to restrict anticompetitive practices here would be as others like Epic are doing: by proving the monopoly in enough different domains covered by the App Store? Would the antitrust laws in the US similar, that is proving monopoly has to be done by domain, or would a more global view be possible there?
I don’t know how to parse this. Clarify and I’ll get back to you.
Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint
#548I think a lot of people are missing the important development here. This is not about having a monopoly in phones, or in the music industry. This is about a monopoly within the market Apple has created.
> Our preliminary finding is that Apple exercises considerable market power in the distribution of music streaming apps to owners of Apple devices. On that market, Apple has a monopoly
Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand your point. If you're serving a file from AWS to ten people or to a massive userbase what happens ? Does AWS pricing change once you have a certain amount of traffic ? No, you pay per GB delivered. Apple should offer that kind of pricing, or a price per user (download) if they want. And Apple should also be free to offer the % as an alternative if they wish, "don't want to bother with details ? Jus…
AWS price per GB actually goes down as you reach different monthly checkpoints. To me it seems like payment processors are a more direct comparison and they usually do a combination of flat fee + percentage.
Note however that payment processors are actually charging in proportion to their costs, because one of their major costs is fraud for which the cost (if it occurs) is proportional to the amount of the charge.
Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s good for internal bookkeeping but it’s not enough to prevent the unfair advantage. Take this example: Apple Music “pays” 30% to parent Apple Corp. That 30% payment cuts into Music’s revenue and now they’re operating at a 25% loss. However, that rough calculation still allows parent Apple Corp to consider Music to be profitable, since it’s a net profit for Apple Corp. It’s happy to take the 25% “loss” in the mu…
I don't think you considered the loss of the 30% from each apple music customer's previous subscription to a competitor. There's no unfair advantage, the maximum profit apple can make by switching a customer away from spotify is spotify's profit.
What if spotify can get 1 customer at $1, but apple can get 2 customers at $0.7, to get $1.4.
Alternatively, if for some reason there's just a single lump of music streaming revenue to be earned, maybe it's still shitty if Apple steals spotify's business but breaks even on the opportunity cost.