Why do so many AppleInsider members cheer on "malicious compliance" when Apple is essentially begging developers to create Vision Pro apps? Are the developer's contributions to the success of the iPhone so soon forgotten?
Malicious complaints is more like it.
Spotify and Epic have no real competitive issues with Apple. 1% of iOS subscribers for Spotify are subject to the 15% commission. The other 99% are subject to 0% since they paid online. Spotify also has a 30% global share for music streaming while Apple is effectively tied with Amazon and Tencent at around 13-14%. Epic ported Fortnite to mobile to make some extra cash. The game was developed for consoles and Windows PCs and that's where Epic got 85% of their revenue. Epic was also perfectly fine with paying a 30% commission on consoles which was their #1 revenue source.
Yes, just like Apple there will be a certain amount of spin.
That aside, you do not need to have competitive issues to file a complaint. Just believing a complaint is justified is enough.
Let me know when the acknowledged gatekeeper in digital music, Spotify, is actually treated as such by the EU, and Spotify is decidedly not better for artists and creators...
How does Spotify fit the gatekeeper tag?
Ask the artists that barely generate any income from Spotify...
Oh wait, there can only be hardware gatekeepers in the EU...
Ah! You haven't answered.
I'm not going to defend Spotify and I know a lot of artists complain about it but both artists and consumers have plenty of routes to do business outside the reach of the service.
Actually, both artists and Spotify are looking for the same thing; exposure to a larger audience, and in the case of Spotify on iPhone, Spotify doesn't want to have a cost associated with that exposure. Artists do have more options for that exposure, but attaching themselves to the the largest digital music providers is almost a necessity, and hence, acceptance of a very small share of the revenue.
I can understand all of this, since Spotify is such a low margin business, but is it fair to receive that exposure at no cost?
Why do so many AppleInsider members cheer on "malicious compliance" when Apple is essentially begging developers to create Vision Pro apps? Are the developer's contributions to the success of the iPhone so soon forgotten?
Malicious complaints is more like it.
Spotify and Epic have no real competitive issues with Apple. 1% of iOS subscribers for Spotify are subject to the 15% commission. The other 99% are subject to 0% since they paid online. Spotify also has a 30% global share for music streaming while Apple is effectively tied with Amazon and Tencent at around 13-14%. Epic ported Fortnite to mobile to make some extra cash. The game was developed for consoles and Windows PCs and that's where Epic got 85% of their revenue. Epic was also perfectly fine with paying a 30% commission on consoles which was their #1 revenue source.
Yes, just like Apple there will be a certain amount of spin.
That aside, you do not need to have competitive issues to file a complaint. Just believing a complaint is justified is enough.
Let me know when the acknowledged gatekeeper in digital music, Spotify, is actually treated as such by the EU, and Spotify is decidedly not better for artists and creators...
How does Spotify fit the gatekeeper tag?
Ask the artists that barely generate any income from Spotify...
Oh wait, there can only be hardware gatekeepers in the EU...
Ah! You haven't answered.
I'm not going to defend Spotify and I know a lot of artists complain about it but both artists and consumers have plenty of routes to do business outside the reach of the service.
Actually, both artists and Spotify are looking for the same thing; exposure to a larger audience, and in the case of Spotify on iPhone, Spotify doesn't want to have a cost associated with that exposure. Artists do have more options for that exposure, but attaching themselves to the the largest digital music providers is almost a necessity, and hence, acceptance of a very small share of the revenue.
I can understand all of this, since Spotify is such a low margin business, but is it fair to receive that exposure at no cost?
No.
Yet, fair or not, nothing to do with gatekeepers.
The power of gatekeepers to limit choice goes far beyond whatever Spotify can achieve.
Why do so many AppleInsider members cheer on "malicious compliance" when Apple is essentially begging developers to create Vision Pro apps? Are the developer's contributions to the success of the iPhone so soon forgotten?
Malicious complaints is more like it.
Spotify and Epic have no real competitive issues with Apple. 1% of iOS subscribers for Spotify are subject to the 15% commission. The other 99% are subject to 0% since they paid online. Spotify also has a 30% global share for music streaming while Apple is effectively tied with Amazon and Tencent at around 13-14%. Epic ported Fortnite to mobile to make some extra cash. The game was developed for consoles and Windows PCs and that's where Epic got 85% of their revenue. Epic was also perfectly fine with paying a 30% commission on consoles which was their #1 revenue source.
Yes, just like Apple there will be a certain amount of spin.
That aside, you do not need to have competitive issues to file a complaint. Just believing a complaint is justified is enough.
Let me know when the acknowledged gatekeeper in digital music, Spotify, is actually treated as such by the EU, and Spotify is decidedly not better for artists and creators...
How does Spotify fit the gatekeeper tag?
Ask the artists that barely generate any income from Spotify...
Oh wait, there can only be hardware gatekeepers in the EU...
Ah! You haven't answered.
I'm not going to defend Spotify and I know a lot of artists complain about it but both artists and consumers have plenty of routes to do business outside the reach of the service.
Actually, both artists and Spotify are looking for the same thing; exposure to a larger audience, and in the case of Spotify on iPhone, Spotify doesn't want to have a cost associated with that exposure. Artists do have more options for that exposure, but attaching themselves to the the largest digital music providers is almost a necessity, and hence, acceptance of a very small share of the revenue.
I can understand all of this, since Spotify is such a low margin business, but is it fair to receive that exposure at no cost?
No.
Yet, fair or not, nothing to do with gatekeepers.
The power of gatekeepers to limit choice goes far beyond whatever Spotify can achieve.
Reactionshave been swift: from “a shameless insult” to “malicious compliance”, along with “junk fees” and “extortion regime”. The company is introducing new fees for all European Union requirements, ranging from installing apps outside the App Store (€0.50 per install from 1 million installs per year) or proposing payments through other platforms (17% instead of 30% for payments that Apple will not process), to registering new app stores, which will have to be approved by the company. Claiming the need to retain its control in order to maintain its security guarantees, the company offers the European Union a model that complies with its requirements, but which gives rise to models that are practically unfeasible or heavily penalized.
This is a textbook case of what happens when politicians insist on meddling in things that work reasonably well, creating a situation that makes everybody unhappy without really solving the problem they intended to solve. Apple’s average market share in the smartphone market in the European Union varies between 15% and 31% (Q2, 2019 and Q4, 2020 respectively) with a peak of 56.22% in Sweden. The point here is that nobody had really complained about Apple’s ecosystem, other than a few companiessimply seeking to make more money.
Spotify is one of those "few companies", along with Epic, that feels entitled to no cost access to tech "gatekeepers", and Epic is certainly an example of a "gatekeeper" in Games, as is Microsoft, that employ analogs of Apple's app store and payment system.
Perhaps the EU should focus on investing in innovation, instead of very ill conceived legislation.
What if M$ and Apple BOTH pulled out of the EU?!? That would be awesome! Just goto war. Either that or Apple, Microsoft, and Google are going to have to keep funding the EU regime, with billions every year, that goes who knows where... Just all three PULL OUT!! And leave um to their own facilities.
Serious, this is huge, first the EU demotes the European monarchies, changes most of the currency, lately they are trying to extort American companies... and the EU Dictators could care less...
How? just keep making stuff/penalties up!
It’s fascinating how much our own experiences shape our views. There’s a whole world of perspectives out there to explore, each with something unique to offer. Have you ever lived in any of the 27 EU countries?
Why do so many AppleInsider members cheer on "malicious compliance" when Apple is essentially begging developers to create Vision Pro apps? Are the developer's contributions to the success of the iPhone so soon forgotten?
Malicious complaints is more like it.
Spotify and Epic have no real competitive issues with Apple. 1% of iOS subscribers for Spotify are subject to the 15% commission. The other 99% are subject to 0% since they paid online. Spotify also has a 30% global share for music streaming while Apple is effectively tied with Amazon and Tencent at around 13-14%. Epic ported Fortnite to mobile to make some extra cash. The game was developed for consoles and Windows PCs and that's where Epic got 85% of their revenue. Epic was also perfectly fine with paying a 30% commission on consoles which was their #1 revenue source.
Yes, just like Apple there will be a certain amount of spin.
That aside, you do not need to have competitive issues to file a complaint. Just believing a complaint is justified is enough.
Let me know when the acknowledged gatekeeper in digital music, Spotify, is actually treated as such by the EU, and Spotify is decidedly not better for artists and creators...
How does Spotify fit the gatekeeper tag?
Ask the artists that barely generate any income from Spotify...
Oh wait, there can only be hardware gatekeepers in the EU...
Ah! You haven't answered.
I'm not going to defend Spotify and I know a lot of artists complain about it but both artists and consumers have plenty of routes to do business outside the reach of the service.
Actually, both artists and Spotify are looking for the same thing; exposure to a larger audience, and in the case of Spotify on iPhone, Spotify doesn't want to have a cost associated with that exposure. Artists do have more options for that exposure, but attaching themselves to the the largest digital music providers is almost a necessity, and hence, acceptance of a very small share of the revenue.
I can understand all of this, since Spotify is such a low margin business, but is it fair to receive that exposure at no cost?
No.
Yet, fair or not, nothing to do with gatekeepers.
The power of gatekeepers to limit choice goes far beyond whatever Spotify can achieve.
Reactionshave been swift: from “a shameless insult” to “malicious compliance”, along with “junk fees” and “extortion regime”. The company is introducing new fees for all European Union requirements, ranging from installing apps outside the App Store (€0.50 per install from 1 million installs per year) or proposing payments through other platforms (17% instead of 30% for payments that Apple will not process), to registering new app stores, which will have to be approved by the company. Claiming the need to retain its control in order to maintain its security guarantees, the company offers the European Union a model that complies with its requirements, but which gives rise to models that are practically unfeasible or heavily penalized.
This is a textbook case of what happens when politicians insist on meddling in things that work reasonably well, creating a situation that makes everybody unhappy without really solving the problem they intended to solve. Apple’s average market share in the smartphone market in the European Union varies between 15% and 31% (Q2, 2019 and Q4, 2020 respectively) with a peak of 56.22% in Sweden. The point here is that nobody had really complained about Apple’s ecosystem, other than a few companiessimply seeking to make more money.
Spotify is one of those "few companies", along with Epic, that feels entitled to no cost access to tech "gatekeepers", and Epic is certainly an example of a "gatekeeper" in Games, as is Microsoft, that employ analogs of Apple's app store and payment system.
Perhaps the EU should focus on investing in innovation, instead of very ill conceived legislation.
Can't you see a problem with that linked article?
I've stated on more than one occasion (regarding Apple's plan) that we will have to wait and see.
This is because the plan has yet to be viewed officially. No one knows if it will be valid or not.
No one except, it seems, your linked author who is already stating it complies.
Secondly, the EU has stated that it will take strong action of anyone does not comply.
Take that as an early warning against any 'silly business'.
We've spoken about the 'spirit of the law' in some threads and that is pertinent here. Right from the first lines of the preamble the EU makes the goals of the DMA/DSA crystal clear.
It re-states those goals time and time again.
And what does your author claim?
That Apple will wilfully create a situation that gives rise to a system that is practically unfeasible or where players are heavily penalized while complying with the regulation.
Remind me what that preamble said?
"to level the digital playing field"
Has Apple completely misunderstood what is being asked of it?
The author knows!
But how is deliberately tilting the playing field against others' interests going to pass the sniff test?
And yet the author believes Apple's plan complies.
That itself whiffs of something very iffy and of course the cat eventually gets out of the bag. The author sees the DMA/DSA as political meddling.
Like I said. On compliance we have to wait and see.
Why do so many AppleInsider members cheer on "malicious compliance" when Apple is essentially begging developers to create Vision Pro apps? Are the developer's contributions to the success of the iPhone so soon forgotten?
Malicious complaints is more like it.
Spotify and Epic have no real competitive issues with Apple. 1% of iOS subscribers for Spotify are subject to the 15% commission. The other 99% are subject to 0% since they paid online. Spotify also has a 30% global share for music streaming while Apple is effectively tied with Amazon and Tencent at around 13-14%. Epic ported Fortnite to mobile to make some extra cash. The game was developed for consoles and Windows PCs and that's where Epic got 85% of their revenue. Epic was also perfectly fine with paying a 30% commission on consoles which was their #1 revenue source.
Yes, just like Apple there will be a certain amount of spin.
That aside, you do not need to have competitive issues to file a complaint. Just believing a complaint is justified is enough.
Let me know when the acknowledged gatekeeper in digital music, Spotify, is actually treated as such by the EU, and Spotify is decidedly not better for artists and creators...
How does Spotify fit the gatekeeper tag?
Ask the artists that barely generate any income from Spotify...
Oh wait, there can only be hardware gatekeepers in the EU...
Ah! You haven't answered.
I'm not going to defend Spotify and I know a lot of artists complain about it but both artists and consumers have plenty of routes to do business outside the reach of the service.
Actually, both artists and Spotify are looking for the same thing; exposure to a larger audience, and in the case of Spotify on iPhone, Spotify doesn't want to have a cost associated with that exposure. Artists do have more options for that exposure, but attaching themselves to the the largest digital music providers is almost a necessity, and hence, acceptance of a very small share of the revenue.
I can understand all of this, since Spotify is such a low margin business, but is it fair to receive that exposure at no cost?
No.
Yet, fair or not, nothing to do with gatekeepers.
The power of gatekeepers to limit choice goes far beyond whatever Spotify can achieve.
Reactionshave been swift: from “a shameless insult” to “malicious compliance”, along with “junk fees” and “extortion regime”. The company is introducing new fees for all European Union requirements, ranging from installing apps outside the App Store (€0.50 per install from 1 million installs per year) or proposing payments through other platforms (17% instead of 30% for payments that Apple will not process), to registering new app stores, which will have to be approved by the company. Claiming the need to retain its control in order to maintain its security guarantees, the company offers the European Union a model that complies with its requirements, but which gives rise to models that are practically unfeasible or heavily penalized.
This is a textbook case of what happens when politicians insist on meddling in things that work reasonably well, creating a situation that makes everybody unhappy without really solving the problem they intended to solve. Apple’s average market share in the smartphone market in the European Union varies between 15% and 31% (Q2, 2019 and Q4, 2020 respectively) with a peak of 56.22% in Sweden. The point here is that nobody had really complained about Apple’s ecosystem, other than a few companiessimply seeking to make more money.
Spotify is one of those "few companies", along with Epic, that feels entitled to no cost access to tech "gatekeepers", and Epic is certainly an example of a "gatekeeper" in Games, as is Microsoft, that employ analogs of Apple's app store and payment system.
Perhaps the EU should focus on investing in innovation, instead of very ill conceived legislation.
Can't you see a problem with that linked article?
I've stated on more than one occasion (regarding Apple's plan) that we will have to wait and see.
This is because the plan has yet to be viewed officially. No one knows if it will be valid or not.
No one except, it seems, your linked author who is already stating it complies.
Secondly, the EU has stated that it will take strong action of anyone does not comply.
Take that as an early warning against any 'silly business'.
We've spoken about the 'spirit of the law' in some threads and that is pertinent here. Right from the first lines of the preamble the EU makes the goals of the DMA/DSA crystal clear.
It re-states those goals time and time again.
And what does your author claim?
That Apple will wilfully create a situation that gives rise to a system that is practically unfeasible or where players are heavily penalized while complying with the regulation.
Remind me what that preamble said?
"to level the digital playing field"
Has Apple completely misunderstood what is being asked of it?
The author knows!
But how is deliberately tilting the playing field against others' interests going to pass the sniff test?
And yet the author believes Apple's plan complies.
That itself whiffs of something very iffy and of course the cat eventually gets out of the bag. The author sees the DMA/DSA as political meddling.
Like I said. On compliance we have to wait and see.
You need to learn brevity.
My point is that the EU has determined that "gatekeepers" equal "big tech" when in fact, "gatekeepers" exist all up and down the food chain. Better that the EU implement a program of innovation to increase competition, because otherwise, the EU will continue falling behind.
Why do so many AppleInsider members cheer on "malicious compliance" when Apple is essentially begging developers to create Vision Pro apps? Are the developer's contributions to the success of the iPhone so soon forgotten?
Malicious complaints is more like it.
Spotify and Epic have no real competitive issues with Apple. 1% of iOS subscribers for Spotify are subject to the 15% commission. The other 99% are subject to 0% since they paid online. Spotify also has a 30% global share for music streaming while Apple is effectively tied with Amazon and Tencent at around 13-14%. Epic ported Fortnite to mobile to make some extra cash. The game was developed for consoles and Windows PCs and that's where Epic got 85% of their revenue. Epic was also perfectly fine with paying a 30% commission on consoles which was their #1 revenue source.
Yes, just like Apple there will be a certain amount of spin.
That aside, you do not need to have competitive issues to file a complaint. Just believing a complaint is justified is enough.
Let me know when the acknowledged gatekeeper in digital music, Spotify, is actually treated as such by the EU, and Spotify is decidedly not better for artists and creators...
How does Spotify fit the gatekeeper tag?
Ask the artists that barely generate any income from Spotify...
Oh wait, there can only be hardware gatekeepers in the EU...
Ah! You haven't answered.
I'm not going to defend Spotify and I know a lot of artists complain about it but both artists and consumers have plenty of routes to do business outside the reach of the service.
Actually, both artists and Spotify are looking for the same thing; exposure to a larger audience, and in the case of Spotify on iPhone, Spotify doesn't want to have a cost associated with that exposure. Artists do have more options for that exposure, but attaching themselves to the the largest digital music providers is almost a necessity, and hence, acceptance of a very small share of the revenue.
I can understand all of this, since Spotify is such a low margin business, but is it fair to receive that exposure at no cost?
No.
Yet, fair or not, nothing to do with gatekeepers.
The power of gatekeepers to limit choice goes far beyond whatever Spotify can achieve.
Reactionshave been swift: from “a shameless insult” to “malicious compliance”, along with “junk fees” and “extortion regime”. The company is introducing new fees for all European Union requirements, ranging from installing apps outside the App Store (€0.50 per install from 1 million installs per year) or proposing payments through other platforms (17% instead of 30% for payments that Apple will not process), to registering new app stores, which will have to be approved by the company. Claiming the need to retain its control in order to maintain its security guarantees, the company offers the European Union a model that complies with its requirements, but which gives rise to models that are practically unfeasible or heavily penalized.
This is a textbook case of what happens when politicians insist on meddling in things that work reasonably well, creating a situation that makes everybody unhappy without really solving the problem they intended to solve. Apple’s average market share in the smartphone market in the European Union varies between 15% and 31% (Q2, 2019 and Q4, 2020 respectively) with a peak of 56.22% in Sweden. The point here is that nobody had really complained about Apple’s ecosystem, other than a few companiessimply seeking to make more money.
Spotify is one of those "few companies", along with Epic, that feels entitled to no cost access to tech "gatekeepers", and Epic is certainly an example of a "gatekeeper" in Games, as is Microsoft, that employ analogs of Apple's app store and payment system.
Perhaps the EU should focus on investing in innovation, instead of very ill conceived legislation.
Can't you see a problem with that linked article?
I've stated on more than one occasion (regarding Apple's plan) that we will have to wait and see.
This is because the plan has yet to be viewed officially. No one knows if it will be valid or not.
No one except, it seems, your linked author who is already stating it complies.
Secondly, the EU has stated that it will take strong action of anyone does not comply.
Take that as an early warning against any 'silly business'.
We've spoken about the 'spirit of the law' in some threads and that is pertinent here. Right from the first lines of the preamble the EU makes the goals of the DMA/DSA crystal clear.
It re-states those goals time and time again.
And what does your author claim?
That Apple will wilfully create a situation that gives rise to a system that is practically unfeasible or where players are heavily penalized while complying with the regulation.
Remind me what that preamble said?
"to level the digital playing field"
Has Apple completely misunderstood what is being asked of it?
The author knows!
But how is deliberately tilting the playing field against others' interests going to pass the sniff test?
And yet the author believes Apple's plan complies.
That itself whiffs of something very iffy and of course the cat eventually gets out of the bag. The author sees the DMA/DSA as political meddling.
Like I said. On compliance we have to wait and see.
You need to learn brevity.
My point is that the EU has determined that "gatekeepers" equal "big tech" when in fact, "gatekeepers" exist all up and down the food chain. Better that the EU implement a program of innovation to increase competition, because otherwise, the EU will continue falling behind.
We are talking Spotify and the EU definition of gatekeeper. Not some willy nilly definition that is going to potentially change with every opinion given.
The EU definition along with the core services defined is clear.
Comments
I can understand all of this, since Spotify is such a low margin business, but is it fair to receive that exposure at no cost?
No.
The power of gatekeepers to limit choice goes far beyond whatever Spotify can achieve.
Spotify is one of those "few companies", along with Epic, that feels entitled to no cost access to tech "gatekeepers", and Epic is certainly an example of a "gatekeeper" in Games, as is Microsoft, that employ analogs of Apple's app store and payment system.
Perhaps the EU should focus on investing in innovation, instead of very ill conceived legislation.
I've stated on more than one occasion (regarding Apple's plan) that we will have to wait and see.
This is because the plan has yet to be viewed officially. No one knows if it will be valid or not.
No one except, it seems, your linked author who is already stating it complies.
Secondly, the EU has stated that it will take strong action of anyone does not comply.
Take that as an early warning against any 'silly business'.
We've spoken about the 'spirit of the law' in some threads and that is pertinent here. Right from the first lines of the preamble the EU makes the goals of the DMA/DSA crystal clear.
It re-states those goals time and time again.
And what does your author claim?
That Apple will wilfully create a situation that gives rise to a system that is practically unfeasible or where players are heavily penalized while complying with the regulation.
Remind me what that preamble said?
"to level the digital playing field"
Has Apple completely misunderstood what is being asked of it?
The author knows!
But how is deliberately tilting the playing field against others' interests going to pass the sniff test?
And yet the author believes Apple's plan complies.
That itself whiffs of something very iffy and of course the cat eventually gets out of the bag. The author sees the DMA/DSA as political meddling.
Like I said. On compliance we have to wait and see.
My point is that the EU has determined that "gatekeepers" equal "big tech" when in fact, "gatekeepers" exist all up and down the food chain. Better that the EU implement a program of innovation to increase competition, because otherwise, the EU will continue falling behind.
The EU definition along with the core services defined is clear.