How is this different than the Microsoft IE vs Netscape battles of the 90's. I think in Europe today Apple is even more likely to come out on the bottom here but I may be missing something.
Netscape wasn’t using Microsoft for secure distribution of their application (for free) or using Microsoft’s secure, in-app point of sale system to generate revenue from digital content and then demanding that Microsoft provide that for free as well.
Also, Apple doesn’t have a stranglehold on the OS market such that they could prevent Spotify from reaching most of their customers.
Spotify has an absolute point under European law. It is comparable to a telecom that owns an infrastructure and provides the services. They are obliged to allow competitors on their wires and can't create an unfair advantage. They can make money on those services, but even that is regulated.
So I can see the verdict going towards Spotify (and others).
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the case that Spotify's internal data shows that 1) its iOS users are more likely to switch to paid subscriptions than users on other platforms, and 2) iOS users who can subscribe via Apple's in-app system (or could, before Spotify dropped out of that system) are the most likely of all to sign up and remain as paid subscribers. So they're in a catch-22. Apple's full system is the key to their most lucrative customers, and those customers come at a price that must be paid to Apple.
Spotify has an absolute point under European law. It is comparable to a telecom that owns an infrastructure and provides the services. They are obliged to allow competitors on their wires and can't create an unfair advantage. They can make money on those services, but even that is regulated.
So I can see the verdict going towards Spotify (and others).
I agree. Whether it be Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft or Apple, things get problematic when your company has created a marketplace / platform, but is also competing within that marketplace / platform. You can tweak the rules or and your positioning within the marketplace / platform in order to maintain a competitive advantage. This stifles innovation and it often results in crappier experiences for the customer.
So you have a problem with every single grocery and pharmacy selling in-house clones of products, while charging the name brands slotting fees for access to shelf space? Moral outrage?
Spotify needs to shut up and if they don't like Apple's App Store they should build their own. They are by no means being held hostage by anyone. Apple's App Stores rules applies to everyone. Apple is in full control of their store and Spotify should shut up when they don't know what they are talking about.
Spotify has an absolute point under European law. It is comparable to a telecom that owns an infrastructure and provides the services. They are obliged to allow competitors on their wires and can't create an unfair advantage. They can make money on those services, but even that is regulated.
So I can see the verdict going towards Spotify (and others).
If only that the various Governments didn't license the RF spectrums to the carriers/telecoms, and further, regulate the operation of same, you might have a point, but that's exactly what they do.
Spotify has an absolute point under European law. It is comparable to a telecom that owns an infrastructure and provides the services. They are obliged to allow competitors on their wires and can't create an unfair advantage. They can make money on those services, but even that is regulated.
So I can see the verdict going towards Spotify (and others).
If only that the various Governments didn't license the RF spectrums to the carriers/telecoms, and further, regulate the operation of same, you might have a point, but that's exactly what they do.
So no, not comparable.
I'm not sure I follow you. In the EU, the RF spectrum is licenced to telecoms companies but they are forced to share their infrastructure with other telecoms companies and even carriers that have no infrastructure of their own.
As part of the regulation, the amounts each company pays to another for use of its infrastructure are established.
I think this is the same issue as net neutrality. If you are a dominant platform on the internet, there should be rules about not favoring your own content. I actually think it's short sighted of Apple to take such a large cut from major services that enhance their devices. For example, not being able to buy Kindle books in the Kindle App just makes the iPhone that much less useful. Perhaps a solution would be for Apple to tier its subscription revenue, so that when services grow large enough they take a much smaller cut.
So going to the Amazon app is too much work for you? 😢
This is just an issue of convenience. If a media seller is big enough and popular enough that it's worth while for them to not offer direct purchase of media within their app, in order to avoid fees, then the fee is probably too high. Lower it, get some revenue for Apple rather than none, and make life more convenient for the user.
Comments
Also, Apple doesn’t have a stranglehold on the OS market such that they could prevent Spotify from reaching most of their customers.
So no, not comparable.
As part of the regulation, the amounts each company pays to another for use of its infrastructure are established.