explicitly accepting that Apple will take a cut (commission, fee or whatever you want to call it) of every transaction the consumer makes. That, after all is what Apple wants: its part of the pie.
Like EVERY major retailer on the face of the planet.
Except EVERY major retailer does not try to take a cut from every transaction in the mall (to use a well worn but often flawed analogy).
The well-worn analogy is comparing the App Store to a store, not a mall. Most stores do prefer to take a cut from every transaction in the store. Perhaps this is surprising, but that's actually how retail stores work. Apart from occasionally letting Girl Scouts sell cookies out front, most stores do not allow independent businesses to set up shop inside their store with a separate point of sale system. Starbucks and CVS happen inside your local Target, but you'll notice that you can ring up your Target purchases at their registers, because they're using the main store's system for their transactions. Though technology could easily make it possible, few retail stores would let you pick up merchandise, scan the UPC code to pay the manufacturer directly and walk out of the store with the item.
As for malls, they don't generally take a cut from each transaction, but they sure as heck charge rent. Even those little kiosks selling phone cases and cologne pay rent to the mall owner. Also, the mall owner sets rules, requirements and standards of operation for its tenants, in order to assure that they're not abusing customers or selling things that will damage or destroy the mall. So the mall analogy might relate to what the EU is forcing Apple to do, but you'll see from that analogy that Apple is absolutely justified in setting high standards and collecting revenue from third-party app stores setting up shop on their platform.
The point was That, depending on which analogy you run with, Apple owns the mall, and takes a cut out of every transaction within it because all the 'stores' are Apple Stores.
so flawed.
The market is the mall. Apple is just one store in the mall.
Apple doesn’t own the mall. It has simply created the store that everyone likes. No harm no foul. No need to get shaken down and extorted. That’s just called good old fashioned success. It’s not a crime. What the eu has been doing is.
explicitly accepting that Apple will take a cut (commission, fee or whatever you want to call it) of every transaction the consumer makes. That, after all is what Apple wants: its part of the pie.
Like EVERY major retailer on the face of the planet.
Except EVERY major retailer does not try to take a cut from every transaction in the mall (to use a well worn but often flawed analogy).
The well-worn analogy is comparing the App Store to a store, not a mall. Most stores do prefer to take a cut from every transaction in the store. Perhaps this is surprising, but that's actually how retail stores work. Apart from occasionally letting Girl Scouts sell cookies out front, most stores do not allow independent businesses to set up shop inside their store with a separate point of sale system. Starbucks and CVS happen inside your local Target, but you'll notice that you can ring up your Target purchases at their registers, because they're using the main store's system for their transactions. Though technology could easily make it possible, few retail stores would let you pick up merchandise, scan the UPC code to pay the manufacturer directly and walk out of the store with the item.
As for malls, they don't generally take a cut from each transaction, but they sure as heck charge rent. Even those little kiosks selling phone cases and cologne pay rent to the mall owner. Also, the mall owner sets rules, requirements and standards of operation for its tenants, in order to assure that they're not abusing customers or selling things that will damage or destroy the mall. So the mall analogy might relate to what the EU is forcing Apple to do, but you'll see from that analogy that Apple is absolutely justified in setting high standards and collecting revenue from third-party app stores setting up shop on their platform.
The point was That, depending on which analogy you run with, Apple owns the mall, and takes a cut out of every transaction within it because all the 'stores' are Apple Stores.
You’re the only one with that analogy, and to mix my metaphors, that dog don’t hunt.
For decades, Apple prices in Europe are usually about 20% higher than in the US (That is taking Apple US price in USD, convert at market rates to Euro, add EU sales taxes ~20% ... you end up with a price that is still about 20% lower than the end user prices Apple charges in the EU). So yeah cost of doing business. The EU still needs a way to finance their tax gifts to farmers.
Is that just Apple or any American company that sells products in Europe? I have heard while shopping at an AppleStore a U.K. citizen complaining about all products from the US are much much higher and not just Apple’s. They have mentioned that the reason is the local government has had tarrifs on foreign products to make their citizens buy local. Same reason why here in the US EU products are more expensive. Also because they don’t put a lot of artificial stuff in their consumable products.
In Germany the MBA M3 15" starts at €1333 excl. sales tax = $1448. In US the price is $1299. That is +11.5%, and there is no customs tariff in EU on laptops from US. It is 0%. Even the polishing cloth is €21 (23 USD) while in US it is $19 (+21% in EU). All without taxes. There is no cost of warranty or localization on a polishing cloth. This Apple charging European customers more.
It’s called the Apple tax A generous interpretation is it is how Apple manages exchange rate risk. A cynical interpretation is it is how Apple milks OS consumers..
The US should really should be targeting European companies that do significant business in the US and start finding (or making up) reasons to issue significant fines and other penalties. Every time the EU targets an American-based company, the US should do the same. Time to start putting some retaliatory pressure on the EU.
Our market is much too important to the US.
Our iPhones will work differently from the US iPhones.
We'll have more options and more freedom to choose.
Sorry. The European market is not a major consumer of US-based products outside of food and tech. Not sure how well BMW or Daimler or Airbus or Siemens or the French wine industry would feel about being targeted in one way or another. I generally dislike the idea of tariffs as they only hurt consumers, but inflicting retaliatory pain on European companies so they begin to influence EU decisions is fair game.
a) Europe accounts for about a QUARTER of Apple's global revenue. Not sure how you consider that "not major".
The EU market represents roughly 7% of Apple's global app store revenue.
a) Europe accounts for about a QUARTER of Apple's global revenue. Not sure how you consider that "not major".
The EU market represents roughly 7% of Apple's global app store revenue.
Apple is more than apps. You need to read the 10-K report as it seems the 25% originates from that report. However, the 10-K report adds some countries to Europe that clearly aren't European or in the EU. The EU is 1/6 of the global GDP. measured in USD. It would be an exceptional bad performance to only get 7% from that market.
explicitly accepting that Apple will take a cut (commission, fee or whatever you want to call it) of every transaction the consumer makes. That, after all is what Apple wants: its part of the pie.
Like EVERY major retailer on the face of the planet.
Except EVERY major retailer does not try to take a cut from every transaction in the mall (to use a well worn but often flawed analogy).
The well-worn analogy is comparing the App Store to a store, not a mall. Most stores do prefer to take a cut from every transaction in the store. Perhaps this is surprising, but that's actually how retail stores work. Apart from occasionally letting Girl Scouts sell cookies out front, most stores do not allow independent businesses to set up shop inside their store with a separate point of sale system. Starbucks and CVS happen inside your local Target, but you'll notice that you can ring up your Target purchases at their registers, because they're using the main store's system for their transactions. Though technology could easily make it possible, few retail stores would let you pick up merchandise, scan the UPC code to pay the manufacturer directly and walk out of the store with the item.
As for malls, they don't generally take a cut from each transaction, but they sure as heck charge rent. Even those little kiosks selling phone cases and cologne pay rent to the mall owner. Also, the mall owner sets rules, requirements and standards of operation for its tenants, in order to assure that they're not abusing customers or selling things that will damage or destroy the mall. So the mall analogy might relate to what the EU is forcing Apple to do, but you'll see from that analogy that Apple is absolutely justified in setting high standards and collecting revenue from third-party app stores setting up shop on their platform.
The point was That, depending on which analogy you run with, Apple owns the mall, and takes a cut out of every transaction within it because all the 'stores' are Apple Stores.
so flawed.
The market is the mall. Apple is just one store in the mall.
Apple doesn’t own the mall. It has simply created the store that everyone likes. No harm no foul. No need to get shaken down and extorted. That’s just called good old fashioned success. It’s not a crime. What the eu has been doing is.
The analogy is flawed, like I said, but rolled out over and over and in that sense it's valid to use it.
The problem with the 'market being the mall' is that you don't pay to access malls.
As an iDevice is the only way to access the App Store, iPhones and iPads are the only way in (and at a pretty price). That makes Apple (and only Apple) 'the mall' and with complete control over it and the sole owner of all the stores in it.
That remains the case even today, although that will change soon.
explicitly accepting that Apple will take a cut (commission, fee or whatever you want to call it) of every transaction the consumer makes. That, after all is what Apple wants: its part of the pie.
Like EVERY major retailer on the face of the planet.
Except EVERY major retailer does not try to take a cut from every transaction in the mall (to use a well worn but often flawed analogy).
The well-worn analogy is comparing the App Store to a store, not a mall. Most stores do prefer to take a cut from every transaction in the store. Perhaps this is surprising, but that's actually how retail stores work. Apart from occasionally letting Girl Scouts sell cookies out front, most stores do not allow independent businesses to set up shop inside their store with a separate point of sale system. Starbucks and CVS happen inside your local Target, but you'll notice that you can ring up your Target purchases at their registers, because they're using the main store's system for their transactions. Though technology could easily make it possible, few retail stores would let you pick up merchandise, scan the UPC code to pay the manufacturer directly and walk out of the store with the item.
As for malls, they don't generally take a cut from each transaction, but they sure as heck charge rent. Even those little kiosks selling phone cases and cologne pay rent to the mall owner. Also, the mall owner sets rules, requirements and standards of operation for its tenants, in order to assure that they're not abusing customers or selling things that will damage or destroy the mall. So the mall analogy might relate to what the EU is forcing Apple to do, but you'll see from that analogy that Apple is absolutely justified in setting high standards and collecting revenue from third-party app stores setting up shop on their platform.
The point was That, depending on which analogy you run with, Apple owns the mall, and takes a cut out of every transaction within it because all the 'stores' are Apple Stores.
so flawed.
The market is the mall. Apple is just one store in the mall.
Apple doesn’t own the mall. It has simply created the store that everyone likes. No harm no foul. No need to get shaken down and extorted. That’s just called good old fashioned success. It’s not a crime. What the eu has been doing is.
The analogy is flawed, like I said, but rolled out over and over and in that sense it's valid to use it.
The problem with the 'market being the mall' is that you don't pay to access malls.
As an iDevice is the only way to access the App Store, iPhones and iPads are the only way in (and at a pretty price). That makes Apple (and only Apple) 'the mall' and with complete control over it and the sole owner of all the stores in it.
That remains the case even today, although that will change soon.
Again, flawed. No one pays to access the market (mall). You pay to buy something from the store in the mall.
Likewise, developers don’t pay mall rent. They pay a chunk of their sales to their partner retail store in the mall. That’s how these partnerships have always worked. No one opens a store to make nothing. And developers want to be in the cool kid store so they gladly give a cut of their sales to the store owner. Simple math.
if you don’t want to buy from apples store, you have the freedom of choice to go to googles store and get the same apps or similar. That’s how the market works.
explicitly accepting that Apple will take a cut (commission, fee or whatever you want to call it) of every transaction the consumer makes. That, after all is what Apple wants: its part of the pie.
Like EVERY major retailer on the face of the planet.
Except EVERY major retailer does not try to take a cut from every transaction in the mall (to use a well worn but often flawed analogy).
The well-worn analogy is comparing the App Store to a store, not a mall. Most stores do prefer to take a cut from every transaction in the store. Perhaps this is surprising, but that's actually how retail stores work. Apart from occasionally letting Girl Scouts sell cookies out front, most stores do not allow independent businesses to set up shop inside their store with a separate point of sale system. Starbucks and CVS happen inside your local Target, but you'll notice that you can ring up your Target purchases at their registers, because they're using the main store's system for their transactions. Though technology could easily make it possible, few retail stores would let you pick up merchandise, scan the UPC code to pay the manufacturer directly and walk out of the store with the item.
As for malls, they don't generally take a cut from each transaction, but they sure as heck charge rent. Even those little kiosks selling phone cases and cologne pay rent to the mall owner. Also, the mall owner sets rules, requirements and standards of operation for its tenants, in order to assure that they're not abusing customers or selling things that will damage or destroy the mall. So the mall analogy might relate to what the EU is forcing Apple to do, but you'll see from that analogy that Apple is absolutely justified in setting high standards and collecting revenue from third-party app stores setting up shop on their platform.
The point was That, depending on which analogy you run with, Apple owns the mall, and takes a cut out of every transaction within it because all the 'stores' are Apple Stores.
so flawed.
The market is the mall. Apple is just one store in the mall.
Apple doesn’t own the mall. It has simply created the store that everyone likes. No harm no foul. No need to get shaken down and extorted. That’s just called good old fashioned success. It’s not a crime. What the eu has been doing is.
The analogy is flawed, like I said, but rolled out over and over and in that sense it's valid to use it.
The problem with the 'market being the mall' is that you don't pay to access malls.
As an iDevice is the only way to access the App Store, iPhones and iPads are the only way in (and at a pretty price). That makes Apple (and only Apple) 'the mall' and with complete control over it and the sole owner of all the stores in it.
That remains the case even today, although that will change soon.
Again, flawed. No one pays to access the market (mall). You pay to buy something from the store in the mall.
Likewise, developers don’t pay mall rent. They pay a chunk of their sales to their partner retail store in the mall. That’s how these partnerships have always worked. No one opens a store to make nothing. And developers want to be in the cool kid store so they gladly give a cut of their sales to the store owner. Simple math.
if you don’t want to buy from apples store, you have the freedom of choice to go to googles store and get the same apps or similar. That’s how the market works.
You are ignoring why all these investigations were initiated.
If you buy an iPhone, how are you going to buy anything from Google's store?
It has been forbidden by Apple for years. Buying an iPhone/iPad gets you access to the mall. In that mall you will only find Apple Stores.
In a regular mall you can walk out as easily as you walked in.
That isn't the case with iPhones and iPads.
You don't need to tell me these analogies are flawed. I know. I said that from the outset but that doesn't stop a huge amount of people here rolling it out over and over again so let's roll with it (flaws included).
The reality has been that Apple has expressly banned other malls/stores from existing on its mobile platforms. It is in the situation it is in because of that fact (among others like anti-steering).
Of course the App Store situation is about to change in the EU very soon but Apple could still find itself on the hook for potentially abusing that situation too. We are waiting on news from the EU on compliance in the face of complaints.
The US should really should be targeting European companies that do significant business in the US and start finding (or making up) reasons to issue significant fines and other penalties. Every time the EU targets an American-based company, the US should do the same. Time to start putting some retaliatory pressure on the EU.
Our market is much too important to the US.
Our iPhones will work differently from the US iPhones.
We'll have more options and more freedom to choose.
Unless you want to choose a product with better privacy and security, or with better integration of hardware and software.
I don't think my privacy is better when Apple is pushing me to buy its products
The EU does not generate enough profit for Apple to be happy about a $2B fine. That is going to hurt. Why for all this, when Apple was responding to DMA and making accommodations for their anti steering practices?... Because Margrethe Vestager is still very angry from losing the Irish tax case, which was over ruled on appeal as it did not provide proof of wrong doing. I think on appeal the same could happen here, as the EU commission is not the same as EU courts which adhere to the law and not vendetta driven. Apple could have allowed more information to music customers of course, but Spotify and Daniel Ek are nasty pieces in this. US tech companies have every right to become paranoid about future business in the EU, as clearly they are being targeted, to the advantage of EU companies. The corruption is obvious imo, but I suppose that is what businesses are all about. In the future, I doubt Apple will leave the EU, but certainly the products and services in the EU will differ, and likely will be more expensive.
I've long held that Apple should begin to manufacture devices for highly regulated markets like the EU which comply with EC regulations and are released some time after Apple releases their world market devices at a higher price to accommodate the additional engineering costs. They could also tack on regulatory fine costs and spread them over the EU devices uniformly.
This would mean that when the EC comes up with bonkers design decisions like all devices need replaceable batteries the whole world won't have to suffer with phones that aren't waterproof or lack inductive charging because a battery and cover being where the inductive charging coil currently sit today.
Of course, Europeans could still try and smuggle in grey market world phones, but that's a matter for the EU and their enforcement agencies to try to stop.
Everyone outside of these regulated countries could also buy the regulated phone but chances are they'd opt for the cheaper world phone (unless for some perverse reason you had the need to carry around a phone with a bunch of replaceable batteries).
IOW, just treat the Europeans and their demands as a cost of doing business, and have a side engineering department whose sole job is refitting a higher cost European iPhone to satisfy the more restrictive European market. Heck, the European phones could even be manufactured in the EU which would contribute to an even higher cost but would keep EU regulators happy.
Good thing the market of smartphones is pretty competitive.
explicitly accepting that Apple will take a cut (commission, fee or whatever you want to call it) of every transaction the consumer makes. That, after all is what Apple wants: its part of the pie.
Like EVERY major retailer on the face of the planet.
Except EVERY major retailer does not try to take a cut from every transaction in the mall (to use a well worn but often flawed analogy).
Apple is not the mall. They are a major department store in the mall (which has Google, Microsoft, Meta, Sony, and all countless others with their own shops selling sometimes different, sometime similar products and services.
And every department store absolutelydoes take a cut from every single transaction (product margin). Or they cease to exist. And the mall takes its cut from every sale, indirectly, as they lease the space for profit, so product sell prices are in part influenced by that cost of doing business. Ultimately every commercial entity pays for its retail presence in the mall.
Yet Spotify and Epic want to squat. But have no right to sell or promote their products for free through Apple's developed, maintained and funded ecosystem. That is as inane a thought as a physical manufacturer, who doesn't want to pay a cent of margin to a department store, demanding and being granted free counter space in the store to sell and keep 100% of the profits. But this does not happen. They instead must open their own store, pay all the associated fees of leasing, staffing, insurance, fixtures, point of sale processing, returns/support, marketing, advertising, etc. and compete on their own. And many retailers to this, or do both. There is not one kangaroo court in the world that would "side" with the manufacturer in such a once sided demand, But here, it happened.
And I am bemused how "anti-steering" is even a thing. Every single commercial entity who sells products or services is constantly making every effort possible to be the best or singular choice of the consumer. Marketing, advertising, social influencing, financially incentivizing, etc. It's all - without question - designed to steer consumers to you, and you only. Does BMW provide their website visitors or dealer showroom visitors choices to consider Mercedes' or Audi's? I don't see Hermes explaining to customers the options of Louis Vuitton or Gucci.
Actually, Apple's App Store provides far more exposure to third-party (competitive) options than nearly any other equivalent for-profit company than I can think of.
The EU & the EU commission are just anti consumer corrupt bureaucrats.
Same tired story. Last year EU politicians were "modern communists" (Apple is selling a lot to those... in China). Now they are "corrupt bureaucrats". 11 EU countries are ahead of US when it comes to corruption and the 2 least corrupt countries globally are both members of the EU. It isn't even about US companies: https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust-and-cartels/cartels-cases-and-statistics_en - year by year... from ethanol to batteries in cars.
Would be nice if Apple could stop this behavior and do the right thing. Fighting Spotify and other app developers is stupid. iOS wouldn't be a great platform without app developers. Great apps help sell devices.
Likewise, Spotify would not be nearly as popular as it is without the ecosystem that Apple has spent billions of dollars developing. Spotify has access to hundreds of millions of users, thousands of APIs and frameworks, hosting, and support from Apple engineers for a mere $99 a year. The vast majority of developers are very happy with this arrangement. Notice it’s mostly a few of the larger companies that are consistently whining about Apple being “unfair”.
The “right thing” would be Spotify leaves the App Store, since it’s apparently so terrible, and goes to one of the third-party marketplaces that will be available. Then they can pay Apple a licensing fee for the APIs they use and pay for the developer tools like Xcode. And Apple can stop helping Spotify test and debug their app for free.
Funny how Spotify never mentions the special treatment they get. No word about expedited app reviews or having Apple engineers fly out to Stockholm for in-person support. I don’t hear any complaints about how unfair that is to smaller companies.
The US should really should be targeting European companies that do significant business in the US and start finding (or making up) reasons to issue significant fines and other penalties. Every time the EU targets an American-based company, the US should do the same. Time to start putting some retaliatory pressure on the EU.
Our market is much too important to the US.
Our iPhones will work differently from the US iPhones.
We'll have more options and more freedom to choose.
Sorry. The European market is not a major consumer of US-based products outside of food and tech. Not sure how well BMW or Daimler or Airbus or Siemens or the French wine industry would feel about being targeted in one way or another. I generally dislike the idea of tariffs as they only hurt consumers, but inflicting retaliatory pain on European companies so they begin to influence EU decisions is fair game.
a) Europe accounts for about a QUARTER of Apple's global revenue. Not sure how you consider that "not major".
b) Every single European manufacturer is subject to US market regulations when they wish to sell anything there. That's how laws work.
EU 7% Apple Store and 19% hardware worldwide, USA, China, Japan by themselves are bigger than the EU, and the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand combined are not that far behind.
The EU is falling further behind the rest of the world their actions won't save tech in Europe not the way they are going about it propping up Spotify is the wrong way.
The EU does not generate enough profit for Apple to be happy about a $2B fine. That is going to hurt. Why for all this, when Apple was responding to DMA and making accommodations for their anti steering practices?... Because Margrethe Vestager is still very angry from losing the Irish tax case, which was over ruled on appeal as it did not provide proof of wrong doing. I think on appeal the same could happen here, as the EU commission is not the same as EU courts which adhere to the law and not vendetta driven. Apple could have allowed more information to music customers of course, but Spotify and Daniel Ek are nasty pieces in this. US tech companies have every right to become paranoid about future business in the EU, as clearly they are being targeted, to the advantage of EU companies. The corruption is obvious imo, but I suppose that is what businesses are all about. In the future, I doubt Apple will leave the EU, but certainly the products and services in the EU will differ, and likely will be more expensive.
I've long held that Apple should begin to manufacture devices for highly regulated markets like the EU which comply with EC regulations and are released some time after Apple releases their world market devices at a higher price to accommodate the additional engineering costs. They could also tack on regulatory fine costs and spread them over the EU devices uniformly.
This would mean that when the EC comes up with bonkers design decisions like all devices need replaceable batteries the whole world won't have to suffer with phones that aren't waterproof or lack inductive charging because a battery and cover being where the inductive charging coil currently sit today.
Of course, Europeans could still try and smuggle in grey market world phones, but that's a matter for the EU and their enforcement agencies to try to stop.
Everyone outside of these regulated countries could also buy the regulated phone but chances are they'd opt for the cheaper world phone (unless for some perverse reason you had the need to carry around a phone with a bunch of replaceable batteries).
IOW, just treat the Europeans and their demands as a cost of doing business, and have a side engineering department whose sole job is refitting a higher cost European iPhone to satisfy the more restrictive European market. Heck, the European phones could even be manufactured in the EU which would contribute to an even higher cost but would keep EU regulators happy.
It will happen because the EU won't stop there will be a Euro fork in the road.....
Hahaha. The EU still missing the UK contribution so finding new ways to steal off successful companies. How else will they pay for the waves of illegal immigration? Putrid organisation, well rid.
Financially speaking the UK shot themselves in the head following Thatcher, Boris, and Rishi.
Comments
Being able to afford giving away your services to drive competitors out of business is LITERALLY why these laws exist.
A generous interpretation is it is how Apple manages exchange rate risk. A cynical interpretation is it is how Apple milks OS consumers..
The problem with the 'market being the mall' is that you don't pay to access malls.
As an iDevice is the only way to access the App Store, iPhones and iPads are the only way in (and at a pretty price). That makes Apple (and only Apple) 'the mall' and with complete control over it and the sole owner of all the stores in it.
That remains the case even today, although that will change soon.
if you don’t want to buy from apples store, you have the freedom of choice to go to googles store and get the same apps or similar. That’s how the market works.
If you buy an iPhone, how are you going to buy anything from Google's store?
It has been forbidden by Apple for years. Buying an iPhone/iPad gets you access to the mall. In that mall you will only find Apple Stores.
In a regular mall you can walk out as easily as you walked in.
That isn't the case with iPhones and iPads.
You don't need to tell me these analogies are flawed. I know. I said that from the outset but that doesn't stop a huge amount of people here rolling it out over and over again so let's roll with it (flaws included).
The reality has been that Apple has expressly banned other malls/stores from existing on its mobile platforms. It is in the situation it is in because of that fact (among others like anti-steering).
Of course the App Store situation is about to change in the EU very soon but Apple could still find itself on the hook for potentially abusing that situation too. We are waiting on news from the EU on compliance in the face of complaints.
And every department store absolutely does take a cut from every single transaction (product margin). Or they cease to exist. And the mall takes its cut from every sale, indirectly, as they lease the space for profit, so product sell prices are in part influenced by that cost of doing business. Ultimately every commercial entity pays for its retail presence in the mall.
Yet Spotify and Epic want to squat. But have no right to sell or promote their products for free through Apple's developed, maintained and funded ecosystem. That is as inane a thought as a physical manufacturer, who doesn't want to pay a cent of margin to a department store, demanding and being granted free counter space in the store to sell and keep 100% of the profits. But this does not happen. They instead must open their own store, pay all the associated fees of leasing, staffing, insurance, fixtures, point of sale processing, returns/support, marketing, advertising, etc. and compete on their own. And many retailers to this, or do both.
There is not one kangaroo court in the world that would "side" with the manufacturer in such a once sided demand, But here, it happened.
And I am bemused how "anti-steering" is even a thing. Every single commercial entity who sells products or services is constantly making every effort possible to be the best or singular choice of the consumer. Marketing, advertising, social influencing, financially incentivizing, etc. It's all - without question - designed to steer consumers to you, and you only. Does BMW provide their website visitors or dealer showroom visitors choices to consider Mercedes' or Audi's? I don't see Hermes explaining to customers the options of Louis Vuitton or Gucci.
Actually, Apple's App Store provides far more exposure to third-party (competitive) options than nearly any other equivalent for-profit company than I can think of.
The “right thing” would be Spotify leaves the App Store, since it’s apparently so terrible, and goes to one of the third-party marketplaces that will be available. Then they can pay Apple a licensing fee for the APIs they use and pay for the developer tools like Xcode. And Apple can stop helping Spotify test and debug their app for free.
EU 7% Apple Store and 19% hardware worldwide, USA, China, Japan by themselves are bigger than the EU, and the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand combined are not that far behind.
The EU is falling further behind the rest of the world their actions won't save tech in Europe not the way they are going about it propping up Spotify is the wrong way.
It will happen because the EU won't stop there will be a Euro fork in the road.....
Financially speaking the UK shot themselves in the head following Thatcher, Boris, and Rishi.