"Not only is the process likely to take years, but it can appeal any decision made."
Maybe we can revisit this topic in 2028 or so to see how things are going. By then there will probably be a few more very large players in this problem domain, not to mention a plethora of new customers in other parts of the world, and a lot of global companies won't really care a whole lot about what the EU and its shrinking economy thinks about much of anything.
At some point the cost of doing business in the EU with its parasitic taxation schemes, intrusive oversight, and blatant protectionism may inspire global players to simply take a pass on dealing with any of it at all. The clock is ticking on EU's relevancy if they don't become a competitive producer in more parts of the world's economy. If Apple was based in France would the tick we call Spotify be granted any special privileges to try to bolster its ability to compete by attaching itself to a French based Apple? I don't think so.
Odd take, there. I am not in favour of the EU rulings here, but the corporation tax rate in the EU is up to the member states - it is the US that is calling foul there. as the US has a higher corporation Tax The other case against Apple is also against Ireland, so there's no unity.
The EU is far from being protectionist, it has trade deals with most of the globe. To my mind, as someone who thinks globalisation is over played, the EU has too many deals. The latest deal with Mercursor is an example of a step too far.
And the US is turning towards protectionism re China, after years of elites thinking that China would get rich and become a liberal democracy, positions have hardened.
As I predicted this will have little impact on Apple. Apple could simply make a change that specifically allows subscription services that compete with their own (meaning Apple Music and Apple TV+) to post a link within the App explaining how to sign up. Apple could also drop in-App subscription fees to a low figure (like 5%) that only applies to competitors.
That is, if this even goes anywhere. This is just the preliminary ruling and isn’t actually a binding final decision. We still have a court case to go through. And then the appeals. The final result will be, IMO, minor changes for Apple.
edited: One more thing. How does the EU think they have jurisdiction to demand 10% of global revenues as a penalty? They should only be allowed to apply a fine that’s a percentage of revenues in the EU?
As I predicted this will have little impact on Apple. Apple could simply make a change that specifically allows subscription services that compete with their own (meaning Apple Music and Apple TV+) to post a link within the App explaining how to sign up. Apple could also drop in-App subscription fees to a low figure (like 5%) that only applies to competitors.
That is, if this even goes anywhere. This is just the preliminary ruling and isn’t actually a binding final decision. We still have a court case to go through. And then the appeals. The final result will be, IMO, minor changes for Apple.
edited: One more thing. How does the EU think they have jurisdiction to demand 10% of global revenues as a penalty? They should only be allowed to apply a fine that’s a percentage of revenues in the EU?
it's a very minor ruling on one specific case, I can't see the stock dropping.
Pathetic Epic and their App Coalition are acting like they won the war today.
This doesn’t even apply to them. Fortnite doesn’t qualify for a subscription, Apple doesn’t develop games (no competition) and this won’t result in Apple being forced to allow third party stores.
Well, so far the EU hasn’t scored a big hit to Apple. Remember the $15 billion tax controversy involving Ireland’s tax deal with Apple? The EU’s highest court ruled against them but they’re tenacious when it comes to extorting money from corporations.
It might be a detail but technically seen the case was EU vs Ireland, Apple being an involved third party.
On the other hand the term "extorting money from corporations" is incorrect. If the EU would have won the case, Ireland would have been forced to collect 13B Euro taxes from Apple, while the EU would not have received a single Euro.
So Apple is forced to be in the business of making devices for Spotify to make a living from. Ok…?
If Apple wants to be product + platform + store then they're inviting these kinds of challenges. I'm not saying that they're totally wrong, or that the EU are totally right, but this entire situation has come about because Apple are trying to control everything, and when you're as powerful as Apple are and you try and control everything there will be powerful people and institutions that stand up and say no to you. And I'm glad for that, because if there weren't then we'd be in a lot of trouble.
Apple can take a few knocks, and it will probably be good for them in the long run. It was definitely good for Microsoft.
I think the operating system part of the business model that is confusing for some people.
Apple should offer the option to buy their devices without any preinstalled software (e.g. no operating system, etc.) for the same price as with the software, and others would be welcome to provide a competing experience on their own terms. Good luck with that!
When you run Fortnite within iOS, it’s essentially software running within software, and Apple has spent tremendous resources on developing that experience. They no longer charge for their operating systems, but they make the money in other ways. Epic doesn’t allow Apple to advertise or sell competing games or in-app purchases within Fortnite, and Spotify doesn’t allow Apple to advertise or sell competing products within the Spotify app either. Just because Apple does allow some competitors’ products to run within iOS doesn’t mean that they have any obligation to relinquish control.
avon b7 said: This case is about a possible instance of abusing a dominant position.
Can Apple stop someone from using the internet browser on their phone to query "what's the best way to subscribe to Spotify" or "what are the pros and cons of Spotify versus Apple Music"? Weren't consumers expected to shop around for the best prices or deals prior to the internet? It seems completely obvious that the App Store isn't the only way a consumer could get information about competing products when the phone also provides internet search.
In this case, presuming something isn't going to achieve anything. The complaint didn't have its origins in what people may or may not be aware of.
As I said, this is about a possible abuse of dominant position.
Even the very basic tweet made that crystal clear:
"But @Apple charges high commission fees on rivals in the App store & forbids them to inform of alternative subscription options. Consumers losing out."
If we are going to presume things I'd say there is more to be revealed that didn't fit in a Tweet and that customers were not aware that Apple was actively preventing iOS users from receiving the information via the apps.
Apple can do that only because there is no alternative App Store on Apple mobile devices and is therefore able to 'abuse' its dominant position.
Simply forbidding developers from including information on cheaper competing payment methods in their apps is probably more than enough anyway.
So Apple is forced to be in the business of making devices for Spotify to make a living from. Ok…?
If Apple wants to be product + platform + store then they're inviting these kinds of challenges. I'm not saying that they're totally wrong, or that the EU are totally right, but this entire situation has come about because Apple are trying to control everything, and when you're as powerful as Apple are and you try and control everything there will be powerful people and institutions that stand up and say no to you. And I'm glad for that, because if there weren't then we'd be in a lot of trouble.
Apple can take a few knocks, and it will probably be good for them in the long run. It was definitely good for Microsoft.
Microsoft and Android are different. They chose to license their software platforms to other manufacturers so they are telling someone else what to do on something they don’t manufacture. Apple’s store is more like building a Walmart on property they own. Samsung sells Smart TVs. Are they required to allow me to open a competing store? Does this extend to websites. How about the Spotify platform itself.
If I were Apple I would demand the ability to able to sell Apple Music subscriptions with a link to the App directly in the Spotify App, because they currently have a real monopoly in streaming music. I would then included a free subscription to any Apple user with 3 or more active Apple devices. Then create specialty skins that are templates allowing AM to behave like a different type of service including one specifically for Spotify.
Remove any need for Spotify. I would then purchase a gaming company set it up a subsidiary and pour billions into it. I would make gaming real on the Mac and target Microsoft and Epic full scale with out mercy and market it in ways they could never compete against. I’m too petty to run Apple.
Well, so far the EU hasn’t scored a big hit to Apple. Remember the $15 billion tax controversy involving Ireland’s tax deal with Apple? The EU’s highest court ruled against them but they’re tenacious when it comes to extorting money from corporations.
The tax-systems works just fine in a good many countries in Europe, thank you. Normally the tax level in a country is not the problem. The problem is what's going on between the payment of tax until it's payed out for actual services. In some countries the overhead is acceptable, in others not.
USA is quite another story. And that's why there's been an opioid crisis for years. That's the ultimate consequence of how USA handles big corporations, bureaucracy and taxes.
High stakes for Ms. Vestager and the EU, as they attempt to take some sort of consumer protectionist high road, without establishing a precedent that will affect EU businesses as well. The US is no doubt watching closely as targeting US tech mega corps seems to be an EU sport these days. EU vs Apple in Irish tax case did not go as Vestager planned. If she loses on this one, good chance she will be gone. Few would shed a tear for her.
Haha not surprised in the slightest, it was obvious they would find Apple guilty because Apple has breached their regulations and laws, it is the job of any company to know and understand the laws and regulations of your select market no matter the size.
What will be interesting is the penalty that will be imposed, the EU will hit hard if required in any company with penalties, I suspect they will force Apple to change its store policy in Europe. Spotify did have a point too over this though and the heat was obviously building up against Apple, need to share the wealth fairly.
avon b7 said: This case is about a possible instance of abusing a dominant position.
Can Apple stop someone from using the internet browser on their phone to query "what's the best way to subscribe to Spotify" or "what are the pros and cons of Spotify versus Apple Music"? Weren't consumers expected to shop around for the best prices or deals prior to the internet? It seems completely obvious that the App Store isn't the only way a consumer could get information about competing products when the phone also provides internet search.
In this case, presuming something isn't going to achieve anything. The complaint didn't have its origins in what people may or may not be aware of.
As I said, this is about a possible abuse of dominant position.
Even the very basic tweet made that crystal clear:
"But @Apple charges high commission fees on rivals in the App store & forbids them to inform of alternative subscription options. Consumers losing out."
If we are going to presume things I'd say there is more to be revealed that didn't fit in a Tweet and that customers were not aware that Apple was actively preventing iOS users from receiving the information via the apps.
Apple can do that only because there is no alternative App Store on Apple mobile devices and is therefore able to 'abuse' its dominant position.
Simply forbidding developers from including information on cheaper competing payment methods in their apps is probably more than enough anyway.
Incorrect. Apple blocks those kinds of communications because it's a general standard for e-commerce. Go ahead and try to give an example of a major e-commerce web site or app that allows it in their contracts for sellers. It isn't really unique to Apple at all, just like the commission charges are not unique. That tweet from the EU essentially combines two things that are routinely done in e-commerce by a wide variety of companies: charge commissions and forbid sellers from informing users about alternate places to make purchases.
Why didn't the EU complain when the first iPhone didn't have any App Store at all?
Show me the EU law that says all computing devices must have any app store, and indeed also a third party app store. Will Volkswagen be required to put a third party app store into its infotainment system?
If Apple capitulates and installs third party app stores, I'd be as angry with Apple as if it had moved its headquarters to Pyongyang or Beijing. Basically I'd abandon Apple.
At some point the cost of doing business in the EU with its parasitic taxation schemes, intrusive oversight, and blatant protectionism may inspire global players to simply take a pass on dealing with any of it at all.
Of course it won't. Money talks and bullshit walks and there's too much money to be made in the EU for Apple or any other company to give even passing consideration to quitting it altogether. This is a fantasy that far too many people on this board indulge in. It won't happen.
So you think that the EU could demand anything and Apple wouldn't even "give passing consideration" to quitting the EU altogether. On the contrary, there are prices that Apple would never pay to stay in the EU. For example, changing the source code's license for iOS to public domain. I presume you are a flat-Earther because you enjoy making statements that are obviously incorrect.
You don't understand that the EU and its citizens makes money from Apple too (eg, increased productivity) when they buy and use Apple's products. They have as much to lose from Apple leaving their market as Apple does.
avon b7 said: This case is about a possible instance of abusing a dominant position.
Can Apple stop someone from using the internet browser on their phone to query "what's the best way to subscribe to Spotify" or "what are the pros and cons of Spotify versus Apple Music"? Weren't consumers expected to shop around for the best prices or deals prior to the internet? It seems completely obvious that the App Store isn't the only way a consumer could get information about competing products when the phone also provides internet search.
In this case, presuming something isn't going to achieve anything. The complaint didn't have its origins in what people may or may not be aware of.
As I said, this is about a possible abuse of dominant position.
Even the very basic tweet made that crystal clear:
"But @Apple charges high commission fees on rivals in the App store & forbids them to inform of alternative subscription options. Consumers losing out."
If we are going to presume things I'd say there is more to be revealed that didn't fit in a Tweet and that customers were not aware that Apple was actively preventing iOS users from receiving the information via the apps.
Apple can do that only because there is no alternative App Store on Apple mobile devices and is therefore able to 'abuse' its dominant position.
Simply forbidding developers from including information on cheaper competing payment methods in their apps is probably more than enough anyway.
Incorrect. Apple blocks those kinds of communications because it's a general standard for e-commerce. Go ahead and try to give an example of a major e-commerce web site or app that allows it in their contracts for sellers. It isn't really unique to Apple at all, just like the commission charges are not unique. That tweet from the EU essentially combines two things that are routinely done in e-commerce by a wide variety of companies: charge commissions and forbid sellers from informing users about alternate places to make purchases.
It isn't incorrect. There is only one way to get an app onto a consumer iDevice: the Apple App Store.
That means there is a lack of app store competition and, by definition, Apple is free to 'abuse' its dominant position if it sees fit and it will be government, legislation and the courts that have the final say (along with Apple).
It is irrelevant what other e-commerce do or don't do although they are also open to investigation too.
My guess though would be that those vendors exist on multiple platforms and therefore competition exists. That is a major difference but in no way means this kind of situation is limited to Apple.
At some point the cost of doing business in the EU with its parasitic taxation schemes, intrusive oversight, and blatant protectionism may inspire global players to simply take a pass on dealing with any of it at all.
Of course it won't. Money talks and bullshit walks and there's too much money to be made in the EU for Apple or any other company to give even passing consideration to quitting it altogether. This is a fantasy that far too many people on this board indulge in. It won't happen.
So you think that the EU could demand anything and Apple wouldn't even "give passing consideration" to quitting the EU altogether. On the contrary, there are prices that Apple would never pay to stay in the EU. For example, changing the source code's license for iOS to public domain. I presume you are a flat-Earther because you enjoy making statements that are obviously incorrect.
You don't understand that the EU and its citizens makes money from Apple too (eg, increased productivity) when they buy and use Apple's products. They have as much to lose from Apple leaving their market as Apple does.
The EU cannot demand 'anything' . There are rules and they apply to everyone. It is up to companies to not only abide by them but, as Tim Cook would say, to abide by the spirit of the law too.
Apple would never pull out of one of its major markets for something like this. Would you expect them to pull out of the US market too if things turn dark there?
It would be suicide for Apple because the EU would simply fill the gap left by Apple with a homegrown system or any non-Apple system from other vendors, ironically leading to even more competition.
Comments
Odd take, there. I am not in favour of the EU rulings here, but the corporation tax rate in the EU is up to the member states - it is the US that is calling foul there. as the US has a higher corporation Tax The other case against Apple is also against Ireland, so there's no unity.
The EU is far from being protectionist, it has trade deals with most of the globe. To my mind, as someone who thinks globalisation is over played, the EU has too many deals. The latest deal with Mercursor is an example of a step too far.
And the US is turning towards protectionism re China, after years of elites thinking that China would get rich and become a liberal democracy, positions have hardened.
As I predicted this will have little impact on Apple. Apple could simply make a change that specifically allows subscription services that compete with their own (meaning Apple Music and Apple TV+) to post a link within the App explaining how to sign up. Apple could also drop in-App subscription fees to a low figure (like 5%) that only applies to competitors.
That is, if this even goes anywhere. This is just the preliminary ruling and isn’t actually a binding final decision. We still have a court case to go through. And then the appeals. The final result will be, IMO, minor changes for Apple.
edited: One more thing. How does the EU think they have jurisdiction to demand 10% of global revenues as a penalty? They should only be allowed to apply a fine that’s a percentage of revenues in the EU?
This doesn’t even apply to them. Fortnite doesn’t qualify for a subscription, Apple doesn’t develop games (no competition) and this won’t result in Apple being forced to allow third party stores.
Apple can take a few knocks, and it will probably be good for them in the long run. It was definitely good for Microsoft.
Apple should offer the option to buy their devices without any preinstalled software (e.g. no operating system, etc.) for the same price as with the software, and others would be welcome to provide a competing experience on their own terms. Good luck with that!
When you run Fortnite within iOS, it’s essentially software running within software, and Apple has spent tremendous resources on developing that experience. They no longer charge for their operating systems, but they make the money in other ways. Epic doesn’t allow Apple to advertise or sell competing games or in-app purchases within Fortnite, and Spotify doesn’t allow Apple to advertise or sell competing products within the Spotify app either. Just because Apple does allow some competitors’ products to run within iOS doesn’t mean that they have any obligation to relinquish control.
As I said, this is about a possible abuse of dominant position.
Even the very basic tweet made that crystal clear:
"But @Apple charges high commission fees on rivals in the App store & forbids them to inform of alternative subscription options. Consumers losing out."
If we are going to presume things I'd say there is more to be revealed that didn't fit in a Tweet and that customers were not aware that Apple was actively preventing iOS users from receiving the information via the apps.
Apple can do that only because there is no alternative App Store on Apple mobile devices and is therefore able to 'abuse' its dominant position.
Simply forbidding developers from including information on cheaper competing payment methods in their apps is probably more than enough anyway.
USA is quite another story. And that's why there's been an opioid crisis for years. That's the ultimate consequence of how USA handles big corporations, bureaucracy and taxes.
Show me the EU law that says all computing devices must have any app store, and indeed also a third party app store. Will Volkswagen be required to put a third party app store into its infotainment system?
If Apple capitulates and installs third party app stores, I'd be as angry with Apple as if it had moved its headquarters to Pyongyang or Beijing. Basically I'd abandon Apple.
You don't understand that the EU and its citizens makes money from Apple too (eg, increased productivity) when they buy and use Apple's products. They have as much to lose from Apple leaving their market as Apple does.
That means there is a lack of app store competition and, by definition, Apple is free to 'abuse' its dominant position if it sees fit and it will be government, legislation and the courts that have the final say (along with Apple).
It is irrelevant what other e-commerce do or don't do although they are also open to investigation too.
My guess though would be that those vendors exist on multiple platforms and therefore competition exists. That is a major difference but in no way means this kind of situation is limited to Apple.
Apple would never pull out of one of its major markets for something like this. Would you expect them to pull out of the US market too if things turn dark there?
It would be suicide for Apple because the EU would simply fill the gap left by Apple with a homegrown system or any non-Apple system from other vendors, ironically leading to even more competition.