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

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#41

Post by berkes »

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…

By changing those assumptions?

Either not accepting that Apple takes a cut of competitors, or by not allowing them to compete in certain areas?

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#42

Post by blackbear_ »

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…

Regulations are often touted as the reason why EU can't compete (which is anyways a narrow perspective), but nobody ever considers the fact that the US had such a huge early mover advantage thanks to the decades after world war II, during which Europe was busy rebuilding after being bombed to rubbles. Thanks to network effects and compounding growth, being the early mover determines most of later outcomes, IMHO.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#43

Post by piva00 »

jgeada wrote: post #36
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?

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

Nothing? It definitely pays all the fees to have access to Apple Development Program for all its iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, tvOS developers, it pays for all the Mac machines required to develop for iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, tvOS. Those are required to develop for Apple's platforms.

It pays nothing because it cannot pay 30% of subscriptions to Apple and be a viable business, Spotify already pays out 70+% for royalties, if it had to pay another 30% for every subscription through the App Store it would be bankrupt.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#45

Post by Hikikomori »

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…

Let Spotify pay for services rendered, like app downloads, rather than a flat fee completely unrelated to cost of producing services rendered. Could even let Spotify host their own downloads, if the Appstore and apples service is so good they shouldn't be afraid of some competition.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#46

Post by berkes »

jgeada wrote: post #36
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?

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

> calculated that, in the European Economic Area, around 1.5 million subscribers to the main music streaming apps—other than Apple Music—on iPhones and iPads ended up paying 2–3 euros per month more as of July 2023 and throughout the entire duration of the subscription, compared to what they could have paid outside of the app. This was due to the in-app commissions imposed by Apple on developers, which were then passed on to consumers through higher subscription fees.

As per the spokesperson of the ruling in the EU.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/03/apple-to-pay-2b-...

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#47

Post by StewardMcOy »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #37
Someone1234 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

That was the crux of the case. Spotify was accepting payment through their web site in addition to taking payment via the App Store. And because they were processing their own payments, they could offer the same subscriptions for a lower price than on the App Store.

The issue was that Apple was not allowing them to inform App Store users that they could pay through a browser.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#48

Post by mort96 »

piva00 wrote: post #39
mort96 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mainta…

> I didn't expect I'd have to make this point clearer but given the pedantry in HN

I wasn't being pedantic. I understood exactly what problem you were pointing at, as I hoped the rest of my comment would make clear (but maybe I was wrong). Spotify needs to survive on 70% of Spotify's revenue, Apple needs to survive on 100% of Apple Music's revenue + 30% of Spotify's revenue. Of course that's unfair.

What I was trying to point out with the "it pays 100% to Apple" comment was exactly that you can't "just" say that "Apple Music must also be required to pay 30% of its revenue to the platform owner", for obvious reasons.

> [The other stuff]

I would certainly not be against splitting up Apple and making the services division its own company which can't get special favors. I just didn't get the impression that that's what you were advocating for, since your comment didn't call for it (hence the (genuine, not rhetorical) question of "how would you achieve fairness without splitting up Apple").

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#49

Post by mort96 »

berkes wrote: post #41
mort96 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

By changing those assumptions? Either not accepting that Apple takes a cut of competitors, or by not allowing them to compete in certain areas?

I wouldn't be against either splitting up Apple or outlawing the 30% cut, I just didn't get the impression that my parent comment was going for something that drastic. I might've misread them.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#50

Post by blackbear_ »

zx10rse wrote: post #38

The conversation here is really degrading, when EU is mentioned. People down vote for the sake of down vote every opinion that is not in favor of EU, so they can silence it? It is really disappointing to see such behavior here on HN.

I think many are just tired of American "exceptionalism" being pushed with the same fallacies every time.
Post reply on HN