Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

beuc.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#31

Post by smoldesu »

xvector wrote: post #20
smoldesu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems much more plausible to me that America is guilty of protectionism by neglecting to regulate their domestic tech businesses. Europe stands to lose nothing if Spotify goes bankrupt, but disrupting the mobile duopoly threatens America's iron grip on exported surveillance.

I'm glad the US does not adopt EU policies. Else we might see the dearth of progress in consumer technology that the EU has experienced over the past 20 years. Someone actually has to incentivize building things and getting shit done , and the EU is clearly not it, as the last two decades show. (There is probably a middle ground between the US and the EU but I'd rather err on the side of not shutting down consumer te…

> Someone actually has to incentivize building things and getting shit done

America will incentivize actual monopolies to massacre their employees before admitting they're wrong and need to stop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike

Say what you will about the free market, but assuming that businesses will always make the right decision is a good way of ensuring your food is rotten and your warranties go un-honored. Or worse.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#32

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

granzymes wrote: post #28

Hard to see what harm to competition there is in a market that has steadily grown, with Spotify at the top, during the entire period in which Apple was allegedly harming the market. Spotify doesn’t pay the Apple tax and yet charges the same as all the other market participants. Going to be very interesting to see what the EU courts say in a few years.

This seems to carry with it the implicit assumption that if one competitor is growing, no harm has been done.

I don't see any reason this must be true. It's totally possible, and indeed reality, that both harm has been done, and at least 1 competitor is growing. So there seems to be no mutual exclusivity there in real life.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#33

Post by xvector »

smoldesu wrote: post #31
xvector wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad the US does not adopt EU policies. Else we might see the dearth of progress in consumer technology that the EU has experienced over the past 20 years. Someone actually has to incentivize building things and getting shit done , and the EU is clearly not it, as the last two decades show. (There is probably a middle ground between the US and the EU but I'd rather err on the side of not shutting down consumer te…

> Someone actually has to incentivize building things and getting shit done America will incentivize actual monopolies to massacre their employees before admitting they're wrong and need to stop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike Say what you will about the free market, but assuming that businesses will always make the right decision is a good way of ensuring your food is rotten and your warranties go un…

You can theorize all you want given a strike in 1892, but in the last 20 years demonstrate this is not the case. Hundreds of disruptive startups have emerged and become successful. Now compare this same ones to the EU.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#34

Post by rantee »

Someone1234 wrote: post #23
rantee wrote: post #11

Lost in all coverage of this battle of the middlemen is the effect on the artists actually making the product. How would lower prices make any difference in Spotify’s royalty rate bullying in a market saturated with alternatives that they already dominate? Are there really that many more consumers who want but aren’t already paying for a streaming service or using free alternatives? There are legit discussions to be…

Fairer App Store policies allows more streaming choice for consumers, including potentially opting for "fair trade"-style offerings that give more to artists. Right now, both Apple AND Spotify have an anti-competitive advantage due to the app store (with Apple Music getting a massive advantage, and Spotify getting a better deal than new competition entering the market). Although a lot of streaming payment rates are s…

Yes, agree that like any other technology, the artists typically get the short end of the stick regardless of the delivery platform. Even for the megastars, more money is raked in from sources other than streaming. (With notable exceptions, like megastars owning their own masters instead of a label, or blockbuster established songwriters.)

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#36

Post by jgeada »

piva00 wrote: post #22
anonymouse008 wrote: post #14

[flagged]

Apple Music subscription can even be purchased in the System Settings of Apple's OSs (through Apple One); it doesn't pay 30% to Apple when subscribed in the OS or through the Music app; it's distributed embedded into iOS, macOS, iPadOS without you downloading the app. It's anti-competitive, clearly, which harms consumers. I really want to understand, what's the actual argument for Apple here?

Spotify pays nothing to Apple: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify...

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#37

Post by lotsofpulp »

Someone1234 wrote: post #23
rantee wrote: post #11

Lost in all coverage of this battle of the middlemen is the effect on the artists actually making the product. How would lower prices make any difference in Spotify’s royalty rate bullying in a market saturated with alternatives that they already dominate? Are there really that many more consumers who want but aren’t already paying for a streaming service or using free alternatives? There are legit discussions to be…

Fairer App Store policies allows more streaming choice for consumers, including potentially opting for "fair trade"-style offerings that give more to artists. Right now, both Apple AND Spotify have an anti-competitive advantage due to the app store (with Apple Music getting a massive advantage, and Spotify getting a better deal than new competition entering the market). Although a lot of streaming payment rates are s…

What policies need to be made more fair? It makes no sense to make Apple pay itself. And surely, Spotify is subject to the same fees as any other music streaming business.

And all fees can be avoided by not taking payment via the App Store. A streaming service can even accept payment in the Safari browser in iOS via Apple Pay, and it would not cost them anything.

99% of musicians being paid small amounts has only to do with the population at large liking a very, very small percentage of music much more than the vast majority of music.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#39

Post by piva00 »

mort96 wrote: post #26
piva00 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple Music subscription can even be purchased in the System Settings of Apple's OSs (through Apple One); it doesn't pay 30% to Apple when subscribed in the OS or through the Music app; it's distributed embedded into iOS, macOS, iPadOS without you downloading the app. It's anti-competitive, clearly, which harms consumers. I really want to understand, what's the actual argument for Apple here?

> It doesn't pay 30% to Apple Isn't that because it pays 100% to Apple? I get that there's a competitive advantage to not having to siphon off 30% of revenue to another entity... but how do you actually solve this here? One option would be to split up Apple and require the services division to be an entirely separate company, and maybe that would be a good solution... but if we assume that Apple will be allowed to se…

> Isn't that because it pays 100% to Apple?

I didn't expect I'd have to make this point clearer but given the pedantry in HN: Apple Music doesn't have to pay 30% of its revenue and survive with the rest of 70%, it has potential access to 100% of Apple Corp's revenue, which is vastly larger than the revenue that Apple Music brings to Apple Corp... Apple Corp can subsidise multiple Apple Music if they so wish to maintain an advantage.

> but how do you actually solve this here? One option would be to split up Apple and require the services division to be an entirely separate company, and maybe that would be a good solution...

That's exactly why anti-trust exists. And yes, splitting a company into its components if it gets big enough to engage in anti-competitive behaviour is a completely valid solution applied quite a few times in history [0][1].

Usually in international trade a competitor subsidising a product through other product lines to engage in price dumping is considered illegal. Apple Music not having to pay 30% of its revenues to Apple when other competitors would have to provide the same level of access to their subscriptions is just price dumping with a few more layers of indirection.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey...

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#40

Post by granzymes »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #32
granzymes wrote: post #28

Hard to see what harm to competition there is in a market that has steadily grown, with Spotify at the top, during the entire period in which Apple was allegedly harming the market. Spotify doesn’t pay the Apple tax and yet charges the same as all the other market participants. Going to be very interesting to see what the EU courts say in a few years.

This seems to carry with it the implicit assumption that if one competitor is growing, no harm has been done. I don't see any reason this must be true. It's totally possible, and indeed reality, that both harm has been done, and at least 1 competitor is growing. So there seems to be no mutual exclusivity there in real life.

That’s true. In the same vein, competitors stagnating is not necessarily proof of anticompetitive harm.

But it’s a strong clue that maybe the EU got this one wrong. The fact that Spotify doesn’t pay the Apple tax and yet still is the market leader shows you that, at the very least, Apple is not foreclosing competition.

Post reply on HN