If you sell things on Amazon, the company can sell a knockoff white label version of your products. Is that wrong? Every store has its own brand that it sells against third-party brand names. Nothing wrong with that.
You've never railed against knock-off products, right?
I think a lot of people think there is something wrong with that.
There’s a big difference between a knock-off and a generic house brand. Kirkland green beans are not a knock-off, it’s just one more brand of canned beans that is cheaper because Costco saves from, for example, not having to promote the brand in expensive TV commercials the way Green Giant does.
From my perspective, it should be a hard case for Spotify to win.
Spotify has other distribution methods (i.e. a customer can sign up on their website and then download the app)
Spotify chooses to use Apple's App Store as one of its distribution methods
Apple gives Spotify the same terms as everybody else
Of course, the EC can be a little crazy with their antitrust decisions.
Your point 3 is just wrong. Apple Music has clearly
different terms then Spotify. In fact it is the main reason why Spotify is
going to the EU commission
I estimate that Spotify will not necessarily win, but that Apple will definitely loose. Meaning, the EU commission will look very carefully at the App Store guidelines and will take measures that Apple won't like, but that won't necessarily benefit Spotify in the short term.
From an app developer point of view - I am an app developer - , the App Store guidelines are business wise a nightmare. All the risks are at your side. There are numerous cases where Apple changed the App Store guidelines or changed its interpretation of the guidelines to make the life of an app developer very difficult, especially if the app developer is competing against an Apple app. And if the app developer wants to complain, Apple is judge
and involved party. Because the app developer is forced to follow the App Store guidelines if he want to reach an iOS customer, the whole set up smells like anti-competitive behaviour. The EU commission does not like that at all.
You are aware that without apples App Store you would likely not have the opportunity to be a mobile app developer in the first place right? You optionally choose to sell in the App Store so you play be the rules, if they change well sometimes life is tough and you are free to peddle your killer app elsewhere. I here the Google play store has less stringent rules, perhaps just develop and sell their since they have the larger amount of market share.
The 'optionally choose to sell in the App Store' doesn't really tell the whole story and misses the most important aspect.
There is no alternative to the Apple App Store, so providing apps for iOS means using that App Store and that is where the 'optional' part comes in. It boils down to providing an app for iOS or not.
The argument of some is that doesn't represent choice at all.
If the EU decides to investigate, this is one of the issues that will be looked at.
Providing the platform, taking a cut and competing directly in the process, will probably be frowned upon.
That’s a bit like saying there’s no alternative to Monsanto seeds. You might not like Monsanto’s Licensing, requiring you to buy fresh each season and not getting seed from your last season’s harvest, but there certainly is an alternative to Monsanto’s seeds. Just not one that gets you Monsanto seeds.
From my perspective, it should be a hard case for Spotify to win.
Spotify has other distribution methods (i.e. a customer can sign up on their website and then download the app)
Spotify chooses to use Apple's App Store as one of its distribution methods
Apple gives Spotify the same terms as everybody else
Of course, the EC can be a little crazy with their antitrust decisions.
Your point 3 is just wrong. Apple Music has clearly
different terms then Spotify. In fact it is the main reason why Spotify is
going to the EU commission
I estimate that Spotify will not necessarily win, but that Apple will definitely loose. Meaning, the EU commission will look very carefully at the App Store guidelines and will take measures that Apple won't like, but that won't necessarily benefit Spotify in the short term.
From an app developer point of view - I am an app developer - , the App Store guidelines are business wise a nightmare. All the risks are at your side. There are numerous cases where Apple changed the App Store guidelines or changed its interpretation of the guidelines to make the life of an app developer very difficult, especially if the app developer is competing against an Apple app. And if the app developer wants to complain, Apple is judge
and involved party. Because the app developer is forced to follow the App Store guidelines if he want to reach an iOS customer, the whole set up smells like anti-competitive behaviour. The EU commission does not like that at all.
You are aware that without apples App Store you would likely not have the opportunity to be a mobile app developer in the first place right? You optionally choose to sell in the App Store so you play be the rules, if they change well sometimes life is tough and you are free to peddle your killer app elsewhere. I here the Google play store has less stringent rules, perhaps just develop and sell their since they have the larger amount of market share.
FWIW while Google Play also takes a 30% cut of developer sales and the rules are pretty similar to the App Store overall Spotify is not (yet) making the same formal complaint The reason "according to company sources" is because the Play Store allows developers to link to the developer's own site for subscriptions within the app. Apple reportedly does not allow it.
And there you go... Spotify has a competive market it can play in if it doesn’t like the Apple way.
The EU might agree with that. Or not.
All of our reasons for agreeing with you really won't matter, nor will the EU Commission visit AI to see what we have to say about it.
From my perspective, it should be a hard case for Spotify to win.
Spotify has other distribution methods (i.e. a customer can sign up on their website and then download the app)
Spotify chooses to use Apple's App Store as one of its distribution methods
Apple gives Spotify the same terms as everybody else
Of course, the EC can be a little crazy with their antitrust decisions.
Your point 3 is just wrong. Apple Music has clearly
different terms then Spotify. In fact it is the main reason why Spotify is
going to the EU commission
I estimate that Spotify will not necessarily win, but that Apple will definitely loose. Meaning, the EU commission will look very carefully at the App Store guidelines and will take measures that Apple won't like, but that won't necessarily benefit Spotify in the short term.
From an app developer point of view - I am an app developer - , the App Store guidelines are business wise a nightmare. All the risks are at your side. There are numerous cases where Apple changed the App Store guidelines or changed its interpretation of the guidelines to make the life of an app developer very difficult, especially if the app developer is competing against an Apple app. And if the app developer wants to complain, Apple is judge
and involved party. Because the app developer is forced to follow the App Store guidelines if he want to reach an iOS customer, the whole set up smells like anti-competitive behaviour. The EU commission does not like that at all.
You are aware that without apples App Store you would likely not have the opportunity to be a mobile app developer in the first place right? You optionally choose to sell in the App Store so you play be the rules, if they change well sometimes life is tough and you are free to peddle your killer app elsewhere. I here the Google play store has less stringent rules, perhaps just develop and sell their since they have the larger amount of market share.
The 'optionally choose to sell in the App Store' doesn't really tell the whole story and misses the most important aspect.
There is no alternative to the Apple App Store, so providing apps for iOS means using that App Store and that is where the 'optional' part comes in. It boils down to providing an app for iOS or not.
The argument of some is that doesn't represent choice at all.
If the EU decides to investigate, this is one of the issues that will be looked at.
Providing the platform, taking a cut and competing directly in the process, will probably be frowned upon.
That’s a bit like saying there’s no alternative to Monsanto seeds. You might not like Monsanto’s Licensing, requiring you to buy fresh each season and not getting seed from your last season’s harvest, but there certainly is an alternative to Monsanto’s seeds. Just not one that gets you Monsanto seeds.
If Montsanto sold seeds from other producers, perhaps. And if the Monsanto store was the only place to get those seeds, there could be an issue.
From my perspective, it should be a hard case for Spotify to win.
Spotify has other distribution methods (i.e. a customer can sign up on their website and then download the app)
Spotify chooses to use Apple's App Store as one of its distribution methods
Apple gives Spotify the same terms as everybody else
Of course, the EC can be a little crazy with their antitrust decisions.
Your point 3 is just wrong. Apple Music has clearly
different terms then Spotify. In fact it is the main reason why Spotify is
going to the EU commission
I estimate that Spotify will not necessarily win, but that Apple will definitely loose. Meaning, the EU commission will look very carefully at the App Store guidelines and will take measures that Apple won't like, but that won't necessarily benefit Spotify in the short term.
From an app developer point of view - I am an app developer - , the App Store guidelines are business wise a nightmare. All the risks are at your side. There are numerous cases where Apple changed the App Store guidelines or changed its interpretation of the guidelines to make the life of an app developer very difficult, especially if the app developer is competing against an Apple app. And if the app developer wants to complain, Apple is judge
and involved party. Because the app developer is forced to follow the App Store guidelines if he want to reach an iOS customer, the whole set up smells like anti-competitive behaviour. The EU commission does not like that at all.
You are aware that without apples App Store you would likely not have the opportunity to be a mobile app developer in the first place right? You optionally choose to sell in the App Store so you play be the rules, if they change well sometimes life is tough and you are free to peddle your killer app elsewhere. I here the Google play store has less stringent rules, perhaps just develop and sell their since they have the larger amount of market share.
The 'optionally choose to sell in the App Store' doesn't really tell the whole story and misses the most important aspect.
There is no alternative to the Apple App Store, so providing apps for iOS means using that App Store and that is where the 'optional' part comes in. It boils down to providing an app for iOS or not.
The argument of some is that doesn't represent choice at all.
If the EU decides to investigate, this is one of the issues that will be looked at.
Providing the platform, taking a cut and competing directly in the process, will probably be frowned upon.
That’s a bit like saying there’s no alternative to Monsanto seeds. You might not like Monsanto’s Licensing, requiring you to buy fresh each season and not getting seed from your last season’s harvest, but there certainly is an alternative to Monsanto’s seeds. Just not one that gets you Monsanto seeds.
If Montsanto sold seeds from other producers, perhaps. And if the Monsanto store was the only place to get those seeds, there could be an issue.
Your statement falls apart. It’s not true that Spotify cannot be bought elsewhere. It just can’t be bought for use on iOS (16% market share) elsewhere. Wait, I’m wrong about that. Spotify can be bought elsewhere; direct from the Spotify website, then used for no additional charge on an Apple device.
From my perspective, it should be a hard case for Spotify to win.
Spotify has other distribution methods (i.e. a customer can sign up on their website and then download the app)
Spotify chooses to use Apple's App Store as one of its distribution methods
Apple gives Spotify the same terms as everybody else
Of course, the EC can be a little crazy with their antitrust decisions.
Your point 3 is just wrong. Apple Music has clearly
different terms then Spotify. In fact it is the main reason why Spotify is
going to the EU commission
I estimate that Spotify will not necessarily win, but that Apple will definitely loose. Meaning, the EU commission will look very carefully at the App Store guidelines and will take measures that Apple won't like, but that won't necessarily benefit Spotify in the short term.
From an app developer point of view - I am an app developer - , the App Store guidelines are business wise a nightmare. All the risks are at your side. There are numerous cases where Apple changed the App Store guidelines or changed its interpretation of the guidelines to make the life of an app developer very difficult, especially if the app developer is competing against an Apple app. And if the app developer wants to complain, Apple is judge
and involved party. Because the app developer is forced to follow the App Store guidelines if he want to reach an iOS customer, the whole set up smells like anti-competitive behaviour. The EU commission does not like that at all.
You are aware that without apples App Store you would likely not have the opportunity to be a mobile app developer in the first place right? You optionally choose to sell in the App Store so you play be the rules, if they change well sometimes life is tough and you are free to peddle your killer app elsewhere. I here the Google play store has less stringent rules, perhaps just develop and sell their since they have the larger amount of market share.
The 'optionally choose to sell in the App Store' doesn't really tell the whole story and misses the most important aspect.
There is no alternative to the Apple App Store, so providing apps for iOS means using that App Store and that is where the 'optional' part comes in. It boils down to providing an app for iOS or not.
The argument of some is that doesn't represent choice at all.
If the EU decides to investigate, this is one of the issues that will be looked at.
Providing the platform, taking a cut and competing directly in the process, will probably be frowned upon.
That’s a bit like saying there’s no alternative to Monsanto seeds. You might not like Monsanto’s Licensing, requiring you to buy fresh each season and not getting seed from your last season’s harvest, but there certainly is an alternative to Monsanto’s seeds. Just not one that gets you Monsanto seeds.
If Montsanto sold seeds from other producers, perhaps. And if the Monsanto store was the only place to get those seeds, there could be an issue.
Your statement falls apart. It’s not true that Spotify cannot be bought elsewhere. It just can’t be bought for use on iOS (16% market share) elsewhere. Wait, I’m wrong about that. Spotify can be bought elsewhere; direct from the Spotify website, then used for no additional charge on an Apple device.
Nothing fell apart.
Montsanto sells its own seeds. It doesn't sell seeds from others - and take a cut from the sale.
There are alternatives to Montsanto in the marketplace. Thousands.
On iOS, the marketplace is limited to one store - the Apple App Store.
If Apple allowed for choice/competition and it was possible to establish third party stores, Spotify probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Spotify being available elsewhere is irrelevant. This is about the iOS app store marketplace and Apple's sole grip on it.
Where you are, things may be different but in the EU, when choice and competition (or lack of it) come into play, you can expect a review of your setup if someone complains. And owning the whole shebang doesn't necessarily make you immune from anything.
I think the mall analogy is a bit off. It's more like if one company owned 50% of the malls in the entire US, and then started it's own stores while jacking up the rent on competing stores.
Yes, customers can always go to Spotify's website to subscribe, but that's always going to leave Spotify in a disadvantageous position relative to Apple Music.
Spotify's historical revisionism insists that Apple didn't initially allow apps, but that's not true.
I minor issue, but you are wrong. Apple initially had zero intention of allowing native 3rd party apps. Jobs famously stated web apps could do anything native apps could and there was no need to allow developers to make native apps. Only after public outcry from Mac developers, and seeing the popularity of jailbreaking to install native apps did Apple shift gears and start work on the App Store.
He made it clear that Apple was working through a series of issues, including Nokia style app signing. It was obvious that native apps were coming. It wasn't something Apple was blindsided by.
It's nuts to think that Apple had no interest in making an SDK for the iPhone to support 3rd-party apps even just looking at the time frame. The original iPhone launched on J29 June and the first iOS SDK launched for developers on 26 October 2007. To think Apple could whip that together in just a few months is crazy. It was quietly obviously planned, but not ready for launch with the original iPhone. How could it be when the lead up from the announcement to the iPhone launch was even considerably shorter than the lead up for the iOS SDK and the iPhone 3G running the now named iOS 2.0. And that's only the front end for developers without any knowledge of where Apple was with the signing and App Store in which to distribute apps to all iPhone users.
Comments
That’s a bit like saying there’s no alternative to Monsanto seeds. You might not like Monsanto’s Licensing, requiring you to buy fresh each season and not getting seed from your last season’s harvest, but there certainly is an alternative to Monsanto’s seeds. Just not one that gets you Monsanto seeds.
All of our reasons for agreeing with you really won't matter, nor will the EU Commission visit AI to see what we have to say about it.
Montsanto sells its own seeds. It doesn't sell seeds from others - and take a cut from the sale.
There are alternatives to Montsanto in the marketplace. Thousands.
On iOS, the marketplace is limited to one store - the Apple App Store.
If Apple allowed for choice/competition and it was possible to establish third party stores, Spotify probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Spotify being available elsewhere is irrelevant. This is about the iOS app store marketplace and Apple's sole grip on it.
Where you are, things may be different but in the EU, when choice and competition (or lack of it) come into play, you can expect a review of your setup if someone complains. And owning the whole shebang doesn't necessarily make you immune from anything.