EU winding down Apple Music antitrust investigation, charges expected

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 4
The European Commission is expected to shortly announce that Apple will face antitrust charges after investigating Spotify's accusation that Apple unfairly puts Apple Music competitors at a disadvantage.

Spotify VS Apple Music


Since May 2019, the European Union's antitrust body has been investigating a claim by Spotify that Apple treats competitors unfairly. Now it's reported that a decision against Apple may be made in the coming weeks.

According to Reuters, two sources say that Apple may be sent what's called a statement of objections. This so-called charge sheet typically includes a fine, but also what measures the party has to do to stop its anti-competitive practices.

There is no confirmation yet of a fine, or of charges. Nor is there any indication of what any required action from Apple would be. Reuters, however, reports that its sources say the EU could force changes to Apple's business model.

Spotify's original complaint included criticism of how Apple limited access to its technologies, such as Siri. Speaking in 2020, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said that the company was now being allowed to "finally use Siri as a way of building in voice support."

News of the EU's reported decision comes shortly after the UK announced a similar anti-competition investigation. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority is the latest to launch anti-trust investigations against Apple.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,011member
    If I were Apple I would start off by asking the EU: "Under what EU law does Apple even need to sell third party software that competes directly with Apple's own software?"
    viclauyyccdarlington1magman1979Wavelan_312n2itivguyuraharastevenozericthehalfbee
  • Reply 2 of 39
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,412member
    1. Apple builds a platform (at great expense).
    2. Apple opens up its platform to allow 3rd party content.
    3. Third party joins the platform by agreeing to the terms & conditions defined by the platform owner, i.e., Apple.
    4. Third party content provider decides they no longer like being treated as a guest in the owner's home.
    5. Third party content provider runs crying to their daddy, the EU protectionism squad.
    6. Daddy comes over, sues the platform owner, and beats them up with the protectionism stick of justice.

    Maybe I'm living in a warped reality, but this is like inviting a guest into your home and then having them sue you because you didn't allow them to sleep in your bed, use your bathroom, soil your towels, play with your dog, drink your booze, or drive your car. The court then intervenes and forces you to grant your "first party" or "owner" privileges to the third party.

    There used to be a time when ownership had its privileges. Apparently, or at least within the scope of EU protectionist policies, ownership means nothing. The EU thinks they own it all and the creators, architects, builders, and investors in platforms that cost huge sums of time, money, and resources are there merely to serve the state and its hapless minions who cannot create anything by themselves.

    This is nothing more than a culture of pathetic losers.


    lolliveragilealtitudeteejay2012yojimbo007radarthekatmagman1979williamlondonanantksundaramn2itivguypscooter63
  • Reply 3 of 39
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,011member
    dewme said:
    1. Apple builds a platform (at great expense).
    2. Apple opens up its platform to allow 3rd party content.
    3. Third party joins the platform by agreeing to the terms & conditions defined by the platform owner, i.e., Apple.
    4. Third party content provider decides they no longer like being treated as a guest in the owner's home.
    5. Third party content provider runs crying to their daddy, the EU protectionism squad.
    6. Daddy comes over, sues the platform owner, and beats them up with the protectionism stick of justice.

    Maybe I'm living in a warped reality, but this is like inviting a guest into your home and then having them sue you because you didn't allow them to sleep in your bed, use your bathroom, soil your towels, play with your dog, drink your booze, or drive your car. The court then intervenes and forces you to grant your "first party" or "owner" privileges to the third party.

    There used to be a time when ownership had its privileges. Apparently, or at least within the scope of EU protectionist policies, ownership means nothing. The EU thinks they own it all and the creators, architects, builders, and investors in platforms that cost huge sums of time, money, and resources are there merely to serve the state and its hapless minions who cannot create anything by themselves.

    This is nothing more than a culture of pathetic losers.
    Of course you are correct, but the services Apple provides are actually a lot more than you indicate in bullet 2. There are approximately 50 major services that Apple provides developers, which are all included in the 0%-15%-30% fee schedule. And the third party content providers want the other 49 to remain free while no longer paying 0%-15%-30%.
    cdarlington1sbwolvesmagman1979n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 39
    viclauyycviclauyyc Posts: 628member
    dewme said:
    1. Apple builds a platform (at great expense).
    2. Apple opens up its platform to allow 3rd party content.
    3. Third party joins the platform by agreeing to the terms & conditions defined by the platform owner, i.e., Apple.
    4. Third party content provider decides they no longer like being treated as a guest in the owner's home.
    5. Third party content provider runs crying to their daddy, the EU protectionism squad.
    6. Daddy comes over, sues the platform owner, and beats them up with the protectionism stick of justice..


    Please don’t use logic with EU
    yojimbo007elijahgwilliamlondonMacProwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 39
    everyone wants a piece of apple pie. 
    magman1979n2itivguyMacProwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 39
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 891member
    dewme said:
    1. Apple builds a platform (at great expense).
    2. Apple opens up its platform to allow 3rd party content.
    3. Third party joins the platform by agreeing to the terms & conditions defined by the platform owner, i.e., Apple.
    4. Third party content provider decides they no longer like being treated as a guest in the owner's home.
    5. Third party content provider runs crying to their daddy, the EU protectionism squad.
    6. Daddy comes over, sues the platform owner, and beats them up with the protectionism stick of justice.

    Maybe I'm living in a warped reality, but this is like inviting a guest into your home and then having them sue you because you didn't allow them to sleep in your bed, use your bathroom, soil your towels, play with your dog, drink your booze, or drive your car. The court then intervenes and forces you to grant your "first party" or "owner" privileges to the third party.

    There used to be a time when ownership had its privileges. Apparently, or at least within the scope of EU protectionist policies, ownership means nothing. The EU thinks they own it all and the creators, architects, builders, and investors in platforms that cost huge sums of time, money, and resources are there merely to serve the state and its hapless minions who cannot create anything by themselves.

    This is nothing more than a culture of pathetic losers.


    Socialists don’t believe in private ownership, nor individuality. 
    yojimbo007elijahgmagman1979williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 39
    yojimbo007yojimbo007 Posts: 1,123member
    EU = the land of the Self Entitled Freeloading Losers....
    and US seems to want to follow suit in total ignorance! 


    edited March 4 the1maximusmagman1979williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 39
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,595member
    dewme said:
    1. Apple builds a platform (at great expense).
    2. Apple opens up its platform to allow 3rd party content.
    3. Third party joins the platform by agreeing to the terms & conditions defined by the platform owner, i.e., Apple.
    4. Third party content provider decides they no longer like being treated as a guest in the owner's home.
    5. Third party content provider runs crying to their daddy, the EU protectionism squad.
    6. Daddy comes over, sues the platform owner, and beats them up with the protectionism stick of justice.

    Maybe I'm living in a warped reality, but this is like inviting a guest into your home and then having them sue you because you didn't allow them to sleep in your bed, use your bathroom, soil your towels, play with your dog, drink your booze, or drive your car. The court then intervenes and forces you to grant your "first party" or "owner" privileges to the third party.

    There used to be a time when ownership had its privileges. Apparently, or at least within the scope of EU protectionist policies, ownership means nothing. The EU thinks they own it all and the creators, architects, builders, and investors in platforms that cost huge sums of time, money, and resources are there merely to serve the state and its hapless minions who cannot create anything by themselves.

    This is nothing more than a culture of pathetic losers.


    The iDevice ecosystem is what it is today because of the apps that are offered on it. 

    Those apps mostly are not Apple apps. The moment Apple opened up a store to do business with the 'outside world', things changed dramatically and other factors came into play.

    If the investigations don't go favourably for Apple you could say Apple had a damn good ride - to the tune of billions. 

    Of course, Apple, in that case could simply shut down the App Store altogether and provide everything itself. It's problems with the 'outside world' would probably vanish overnight. 

    However, a new set of major issues would beset Apple as a result. It's success was founded on third party apps. Without them what would happen?

    More than 'guests' , in your analogy, app developers are what are keeping your house viable in the first place. 




    elijahgmuthuk_vanalingamgatorguy
  • Reply 9 of 39
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,011member
    avon b7 said:
    dewme said:
    1. Apple builds a platform (at great expense).
    2. Apple opens up its platform to allow 3rd party content.
    3. Third party joins the platform by agreeing to the terms & conditions defined by the platform owner, i.e., Apple.
    4. Third party content provider decides they no longer like being treated as a guest in the owner's home.
    5. Third party content provider runs crying to their daddy, the EU protectionism squad.
    6. Daddy comes over, sues the platform owner, and beats them up with the protectionism stick of justice.

    Maybe I'm living in a warped reality, but this is like inviting a guest into your home and then having them sue you because you didn't allow them to sleep in your bed, use your bathroom, soil your towels, play with your dog, drink your booze, or drive your car. The court then intervenes and forces you to grant your "first party" or "owner" privileges to the third party.

    There used to be a time when ownership had its privileges. Apparently, or at least within the scope of EU protectionist policies, ownership means nothing. The EU thinks they own it all and the creators, architects, builders, and investors in platforms that cost huge sums of time, money, and resources are there merely to serve the state and its hapless minions who cannot create anything by themselves.

    This is nothing more than a culture of pathetic losers.


    The iDevice ecosystem is what it is today because of the apps that are offered on it. 

    Those apps mostly are not Apple apps. The moment Apple opened up a store to do business with the 'outside world', things changed dramatically and other factors came into play.

    If the investigations don't go favourably for Apple you could say Apple had a damn good ride - to the tune of billions. 

    Of course, Apple, in that case could simply shut down the App Store altogether and provide everything itself. It's problems with the 'outside world' would probably vanish overnight. 

    However, a new set of major issues would beset Apple as a result. It's success was founded on third party apps. Without them what would happen?

    More than 'guests' , in your analogy, app developers are what are keeping your house viable in the first place. 
    I don't know if I have a single app on my iPhone that doesn't also have a web interface that provides the same features. So for me, nothing much would happen if the app store shut down. Many apps have an alternate web interface to get the same data as the app. Even Apple's apps like Pages, Mail, Keynote and Numbers have web apps that work the same. Right?

    And the fact that Apple has made billions from its 0% to 30% cut on apps is not justification to shut them down. You provided no justification at all for your opinions in this post.
    n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 39
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,412member
    Rather than talking about Apple shutting down the App Store, in retaliation I assume, we should really be asking why other big players are not starting up their own app stores built around their own line of app execution platforms.

     Amazon clearly has the technical, financial, and intellectual capability and capacity to do everything that Apple has done with the iPhone, iPad, and Mac product lines and the App Store. They took a stab at doing a phone. Their first attempt failed. So like any highly motivated and “eyes on the prize” innovator they would regroup, refocus, and keep plugging away, unwilling to accept defeat. Nope. They threw in the towel and let Apple and Google own a piece of their fate.

     You could say the same thing about Facebook. They have within their own abilities and resources the opportunity to “own” the vital infrastructure upon which they depend for a huge piece of their livelihood, the mobile space. They chose not to own their own platform but instead to depend on others like Apple and Google. That’s Facebook’s problem, not Apple’s or Google’s problem.

     Imagine what the personal computer market would be like today if IBM had thrown in the towel and conceded the personal computer market to Apple back in the Apple II era. No guts, no glory - except where you have government agencies stepping in to award participation trophies.

     I’m not minimizing the benefits that app developers bring to Apple’s ecosystem. The fact that they get to extract at least 70% of the selling price of their wares by riding on Apple’s global platform reflects Apple’s recognition for the value they bring to the ecosystem. The 30% at-most fee they pay for the privilege of using the vast (global) distribution and payment system that Apple has created and maintains in good working order 24x7x365 is a small price to pay and probably much less than what they’d have to pay to reach a tiny fraction of the market that they get exposed to through their business relationship with Apple.
    edited March 4 coolfactormobirdmontrosemacspscooter63n2itivguywatto_cobraradarthekat
  • Reply 11 of 39
    litoloop said:
    everyone wants a piece of apple pie. 
    Nah they want the whole pie for free. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 39
    doggonedoggone Posts: 270member
    avon b7 said:
    dewme said:
    1. Apple builds a platform (at great expense).
    2. Apple opens up its platform to allow 3rd party content.
    3. Third party joins the platform by agreeing to the terms & conditions defined by the platform owner, i.e., Apple.
    4. Third party content provider decides they no longer like being treated as a guest in the owner's home.
    5. Third party content provider runs crying to their daddy, the EU protectionism squad.
    6. Daddy comes over, sues the platform owner, and beats them up with the protectionism stick of justice.

    Maybe I'm living in a warped reality, but this is like inviting a guest into your home and then having them sue you because you didn't allow them to sleep in your bed, use your bathroom, soil your towels, play with your dog, drink your booze, or drive your car. The court then intervenes and forces you to grant your "first party" or "owner" privileges to the third party.

    There used to be a time when ownership had its privileges. Apparently, or at least within the scope of EU protectionist policies, ownership means nothing. The EU thinks they own it all and the creators, architects, builders, and investors in platforms that cost huge sums of time, money, and resources are there merely to serve the state and its hapless minions who cannot create anything by themselves.

    This is nothing more than a culture of pathetic losers.


    The iDevice ecosystem is what it is today because of the apps that are offered on it. 

    Those apps mostly are not Apple apps. The moment Apple opened up a store to do business with the 'outside world', things changed dramatically and other factors came into play.

    If the investigations don't go favourably for Apple you could say Apple had a damn good ride - to the tune of billions. 

    Of course, Apple, in that case could simply shut down the App Store altogether and provide everything itself. It's problems with the 'outside world' would probably vanish overnight. 

    However, a new set of major issues would beset Apple as a result. It's success was founded on third party apps. Without them what would happen?

    More than 'guests' , in your analogy, app developers are what are keeping your house viable in the first place. 



    The iDevice ecosystem is what it is today because of the apps that are offered on it. 
    Correct but the iPhone was already a resounding success even before the App Store came on the scene.  The App Store certainly boosted sales once it was launched.

    Of course, Apple, in that case could simply shut down the App Store altogether and provide everything itself. It's problems with the 'outside world' would probably vanish overnight. 
    Maybe change the way the App Store works.  For example no longer host free Apps. Make the minimum App price 99 cents. Or ban in app purchases.  The latter would work for me.

    More than 'guests' , in your analogy, app developers are what are keeping your house viable in the first place. 
    Apple make a most of their profit on phone sales.  The App Store profit has been increasing in the last few years which is why the leeches are starting on want to feed off it.
    Rather than consider this Apple's home.  It's more like Apple's hotel. Of course guests should pay to stay there.

    watto_cobraradarthekat
  • Reply 13 of 39
    Apple should sue the EU. 

    They haven’t broken any laws. 

    Apple makes the products and services. 

    Charging competitors and partners money to reach apple customers is normal business for any business. 

    What this really is - is governme
    td wanting more access to people protected by the way apple guards them. 

    If it were up to epic, Facebook, Spotify, etc., we would have zero privacy, be or Ed up to malware galore, and have to pay them for every little bit of service. 

    People must have forgotten how Apple and iTunes saved the entire music industry from the free mp3 collapse. 

    I guess they want Superman to rescue their cat from a tree for free every day. 

    Stupidity. 
    watto_cobraradarthekat
  • Reply 14 of 39
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 1,790member
    dewme said:
    Rather than talking about Apple shutting down the App Store, in retaliation I assume, we should really be asking why other big players are not starting up their own app stores built around their own line of app execution platforms.

     Amazon clearly has the technical, financial, and intellectual capability and capacity to do everything that Apple has done with the iPhone, iPad, and Mac product lines and the App Store. They took a stab at doing a phone. Their first attempt failed. So like any highly motivated and “eyes on the prize” innovator they would regroup, refocus, and keep plugging away, unwilling to accept defeat. Nope. They threw in the towel and let Apple and Google own a piece of their fate.

     You could say the same thing about Facebook. They have within their own abilities and resources the opportunity to “own” the vital infrastructure upon which they depend for a huge piece of their livelihood, the mobile space. They chose not to own their own platform but instead to depend on others like Apple and Google. That’s Facebook’s problem, not Apple’s or Google’s problem.

     Imagine what the personal computer market would be like today if IBM had thrown in the towel and conceded the personal computer market to Apple back in the Apple II era. No guts, no glory - except where you have government agencies stepping in to award participation trophies.

     I’m not minimizing the benefits that app developers bring to Apple’s ecosystem. The fact that they get to extract at least 70% of the selling price of their wares by riding on Apple’s global platform reflects Apple’s recognition for the value they bring to the ecosystem. The 30% at-most fee they pay for the privilege of using the vast (global) distribution and payment system that Apple has created and maintains in good working order 24x7x365 is a small price to pay and probably much less than what they’d have to pay to reach a tiny fraction of the market that they get exposed to through their business relationship with Apple.
    Excellent response.

    Apple got into this hot water by (a) building and controlling the platform, (b) building and controlling the only App distribution facility on that platform, and (c) having their own Music service. If they didn't have their own Music service, Spotify would have no valid argument here, but Apple is a clear position of control and power, so I think that's the root of the issue. The iOS platform has become so ubiquitous, Apple will eventually need to surrender some control to the marketplace.

    It's a pricing issue, plain and simple. Spotify just feels disadvantaged for having to either (a) hike their price, or (b) generate less revenue.

    Does Spotify complain to VISA or MasterCard for having to give up a percentage of the selling price to them when they sell directly? No.

    radarthekat
  • Reply 15 of 39
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,595member
    avon b7 said:
    dewme said:
    1. Apple builds a platform (at great expense).
    2. Apple opens up its platform to allow 3rd party content.
    3. Third party joins the platform by agreeing to the terms & conditions defined by the platform owner, i.e., Apple.
    4. Third party content provider decides they no longer like being treated as a guest in the owner's home.
    5. Third party content provider runs crying to their daddy, the EU protectionism squad.
    6. Daddy comes over, sues the platform owner, and beats them up with the protectionism stick of justice.

    Maybe I'm living in a warped reality, but this is like inviting a guest into your home and then having them sue you because you didn't allow them to sleep in your bed, use your bathroom, soil your towels, play with your dog, drink your booze, or drive your car. The court then intervenes and forces you to grant your "first party" or "owner" privileges to the third party.

    There used to be a time when ownership had its privileges. Apparently, or at least within the scope of EU protectionist policies, ownership means nothing. The EU thinks they own it all and the creators, architects, builders, and investors in platforms that cost huge sums of time, money, and resources are there merely to serve the state and its hapless minions who cannot create anything by themselves.

    This is nothing more than a culture of pathetic losers.


    The iDevice ecosystem is what it is today because of the apps that are offered on it. 

    Those apps mostly are not Apple apps. The moment Apple opened up a store to do business with the 'outside world', things changed dramatically and other factors came into play.

    If the investigations don't go favourably for Apple you could say Apple had a damn good ride - to the tune of billions. 

    Of course, Apple, in that case could simply shut down the App Store altogether and provide everything itself. It's problems with the 'outside world' would probably vanish overnight. 

    However, a new set of major issues would beset Apple as a result. It's success was founded on third party apps. Without them what would happen?

    More than 'guests' , in your analogy, app developers are what are keeping your house viable in the first place. 
    I don't know if I have a single app on my iPhone that doesn't also have a web interface that provides the same features. So for me, nothing much would happen if the app store shut down. Many apps have an alternate web interface to get the same data as the app. Even Apple's apps like Pages, Mail, Keynote and Numbers have web apps that work the same. Right?

    And the fact that Apple has made billions from its 0% to 30% cut on apps is not justification to shut them down. You provided no justification at all for your opinions in this post.
    The scenario you describe has already happened. Google was banned from allowing Huawei to use its GMS and that meant Google apps would not run on newer Huawei phones and users would only be able to access them via the web.

    As the web versions are slower and less capable, the situation became an issue. 

    It would become an issue on iDevices too.

    I am not saying the App Store should be shut down so why would you expect me to justify asking for that?

    I used the idea of Apple voluntarily shutting down the App Store to make clear that developers were far more the 'guests' in the Apple house. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 16 of 39
    croprcropr Posts: 1,034member
    dewme said:


     I’m not minimizing the benefits that app developers bring to Apple’s ecosystem. The fact that they get to extract at least 70% of the selling price of their wares by riding on Apple’s global platform reflects Apple’s recognition for the value they bring to the ecosystem. The 30% at-most fee they pay for the privilege of using the vast (global) distribution and payment system that Apple has created and maintains in good working order 24x7x365 is a small price to pay and probably much less than what they’d have to pay to reach a tiny fraction of the market that they get exposed to through their business relationship with Apple.
    A company like Spotify is paying for a secure payment system around 2% for credit cards transactions and 0.5% for debit cards transactions.  The marginal cost for a global software distribution center for its iOS app is about zero, Spotify has already set up a secured distribution center for the Windows, Linux and Mac versions of its app.  Comparing this to the 15% to 30% Apple is charging, I cannot call this a small price. 

    Combining this with the fact Apple has a monopoly (the App Store) for the distribution of the iOS apps, Apple will have a very difficult task to explain to the EU that its way of working is in line with the EU rules of fair competition.
    avon b7williamlondongatorguy
  • Reply 17 of 39
    cropr said: A company like Spotify is paying for a secure payment system around 2% for credit cards transactions and 0.5% for debit cards transactions.  The marginal cost for a global software distribution center for its iOS app is about zero, Spotify has already set up a secured distribution center for the Windows, Linux and Mac versions of its app.  Comparing this to the 15% to 30% Apple is charging, I cannot call this a small price.  
    As many people have explained before, the App Store isn't just providing a payment system or a distribution system. Apple created the OS and the hardware too. They created the tools for developers to create the apps with. They're not a middleman like a credit card company or an internet host. Trying to use those kinds of comparisons is disingenuous. 
    pscooter63n2itivguywatto_cobraradarthekat
  • Reply 18 of 39
    coolfactor said: (b) building and controlling the only App distribution facility on that platform
    Web apps that operate via the internet are also available. Apple doesn't control that or take a cut. That was the solution for the game streaming kerfuffle per the App Store: just provide it via the web instead. 
    n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 39
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,160member
    Apple is the smaller-sized competitor here, yet they are the threat?

    The EU should be more focused on getting its people vaccinated than on this pathetic nonsense. 
    elijahgpscooter63n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 39
    longfanglongfang Posts: 210member
    Apple is the smaller-sized competitor here, yet they are the threat?

    The EU should be more focused on getting its people vaccinated than on this pathetic nonsense. 
    Well they need to find some way to subsidize those vaccinations. 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.