Specifically, the EU claims that Apple has failed to comply with an obligation to allow developers in its App Store to freely inform customers of alternative offers, "steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases.
That's like walking into a small corner store with them posting a sign next to the milk saying that the store next door has the same product, possibly at a cheaper price. What store would do that? Why is the App Store required to help advertise alternative sources?
Developers are free to have websites and billboards advertising their apps anywhere they want *outside* the App Store.
Am I reading it wrong? Apple should not be forced to have their own store serve as a marketing platform for other stores.
Ok, had to delete some incredibly off topic and rule breaking threads that are just useless screaming matches. Let's chill out.
And as a reminder: It isn't illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal (or at least heavily regulated globally) if a monopoly uses its power of a specific market to manipulate that market or others. The EU has a right to govern how it sees fit, even if some of its policy seems unfairly targeted towards Apple. It is up to Apple to work through the litigation and arrive at a happy medium. These things take time, and the world leaders having pissing matches won't help either.
Patience. This fine was a pittance for the affected companies. We'll see where it goes from here.
Avoid insulting each other, politically charged comments, or leaving the topic entirely to make some kind of random point. There's no need for that.
There also needs to be some safeguards where political regions can't just "change the rules" or implement new rules, and then claim companies are breaking those very same rules. It can take years, even decades, for a large company to build up their sales ecosystem, and then governments come along and just make new rules? One interpretation is that it's a convenient money-grab. Where does this fine money end up in the end? There should be some regulation over that, too.
Ok, had to delete some incredibly off topic and rule breaking threads that are just useless screaming matches. Let's chill out.
And as a reminder: It isn't illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal (or at least heavily regulated globally) if a monopoly uses its power of a specific market to manipulate that market or others. The EU has a right to govern how it sees fit, even if some of its policy seems unfairly targeted towards Apple. It is up to Apple to work through the litigation and arrive at a happy medium. These things take time, and the world leaders having pissing matches won't help either.
Patience. This fine was a pittance for the affected companies. We'll see where it goes from here.
Avoid insulting each other, politically charged comments, or leaving the topic entirely to make some kind of random point. There's no need for that.
There also needs to be some safeguards where political regions can't just "change the rules" or implement new rules, and then claim companies are breaking those very same rules. It can take years, even decades, for a large company to build up their sales ecosystem, and then governments come along and just make new rules? One interpretation is that it's a convenient money-grab. Where does this fine money end up in the end? There should be some regulation over that, too.
Unfortunately voters (us) are continually demanding from politicians that "something must be done" about whatever grieves us at the moment and that we are "unfairly disadvantaged" so we sort of get what we deserve (continual knee jerk responses and badly thought out changes) and not what we need.
Just getting the world use to the EU becoming a Government Monopoly, owning everything and controlling everything. Apple should pull out and let Europe enjoy Android and Chinese Phones. No Nokia left to make anything anymore.
I did not understand the Spotify - Apple Music fine. The Commission conveniently overlooked that it is Spotify that has a monopoly in the EU and is not financially harmed by Apple, even becoming profitable after many years despite Daniel Ek's extravagant CEO lifestyle. Anti steering should have been a simple thing for Apple, with a notice that the app could be purchased on the web. A url could have even have been provided, but I could not see how Apple should provide an actual link on the App Store page. That would be like Walmart arranging for an Uber to take you to Target to buy the product at a lower price. Apple was likely surprised how aggressive Vestager was, and how committed she was to promote EU industry by fining US industry. She is gone. Apple will appeal to the courts, which have in past over ruled the Commission, but the chances are small of reversing this. After all, this is 'only 500 million' and this is Apple...
A “notice” thst an app can be purchased elsewhere is such an egregious and corrupt thing to force on a company.
It’s equivalent to a popular exclusive store being forced to put up a sign next to designer jeans pointing people to a sale at wal/mart down the street.
I don't disagree with you, but the EU has dug its heels in. Being practical, I thought simply indicating "Subscription or app prices may be different on the developers site www.spotify.com" might suffice work. Nothing more and as I wrote, certainly Apple should not link the url. But... does Apple need to put in warnings about security concerns for apps downloaded from alternative stores? Does Apple need to state that any problems with transactions outside of Apple are not covered by Apple? I think it is these kinds of 'small' details that are 'big' sticking points for Apple.
I did not understand the Spotify - Apple Music fine. The Commission conveniently overlooked that it is Spotify that has a monopoly in the EU and is not financially harmed by Apple, even becoming profitable after many years despite Daniel Ek's extravagant CEO lifestyle. Anti steering should have been a simple thing for Apple, with a notice that the app could be purchased on the web. A url could have even have been provided, but I could not see how Apple should provide an actual link on the App Store page. That would be like Walmart arranging for an Uber to take you to Target to buy the product at a lower price. Apple was likely surprised how aggressive Vestager was, and how committed she was to promote EU industry by fining US industry. She is gone. Apple will appeal to the courts, which have in past over ruled the Commission, but the chances are small of reversing this. After all, this is 'only 500 million' and this is Apple...
A “notice” thst an app can be purchased elsewhere is such an egregious and corrupt thing to force on a company.
It’s equivalent to a popular exclusive store being forced to put up a sign next to designer jeans pointing people to a sale at wal/mart down the street.
I don't disagree with you, but the EU has dug its heels in. Being practical, I thought simply indicating "Subscription or app prices may be different on the developers site www.spotify.com" might suffice work. Nothing more and as I wrote, certainly Apple should not link the url. But... does Apple need to put in warnings about security concerns for apps downloaded from alternative stores? Does Apple need to state that any problems with transactions outside of Apple are not covered by Apple? I think it is these kinds of 'small' details that are 'big' sticking points for Apple.
I get that. But those same heels can be dug back out. It’s a rather clear bullying game going on. Wouldn’t be wrong to put significant economic pressure to put the bully in its place.
Of course Apple must put warnings about security risks. Because there ARE security risks. The reason is that customers are accustomed to having a rather secure system tje way it’s always been snd may not be prepared for what they’re being exposed to now that it’s been tampered with. Some people, like my mom, expect things to be handled the apple way when she installs apps. That’s what she knows. This is changing it up and will cause issues for the less savvy customers otherwise.
Likewise customers are used to apple handling everything. So now that third parties have their hands in the mix, customers are unwittingly exposed to new issues. Apple is not responsible for that and needs to let the customer know so that apple isn’t blamed or having support clogged up for non-apple issues. Especially when it’s related to money changing hands and all the ways that can go wrong with anyone selling stuff using their own way to do so.
It’s logical. And informative.
The only way apple wouldn’t do this is of it didn’t care about its customers. This way they are letting the customer make an informed decision.
Ok, had to delete some incredibly off topic and rule breaking threads that are just useless screaming matches. Let's chill out.
And as a reminder: It isn't illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal (or at least heavily regulated globally) if a monopoly uses its power of a specific market to manipulate that market or others. The EU has a right to govern how it sees fit, even if some of its policy seems unfairly targeted towards Apple. It is up to Apple to work through the litigation and arrive at a happy medium. These things take time, and the world leaders having pissing matches won't help either.
Patience. This fine was a pittance for the affected companies. We'll see where it goes from here.
Avoid insulting each other, politically charged comments, or leaving the topic entirely to make some kind of random point. There's no need for that.
There also needs to be some safeguards where political regions can't just "change the rules" or implement new rules, and then claim companies are breaking those very same rules. It can take years, even decades, for a large company to build up their sales ecosystem, and then governments come along and just make new rules? One interpretation is that it's a convenient money-grab. Where does this fine money end up in the end? There should be some regulation over that, too.
There also needs to be some safeguards where political regions can't just "change the rules" or implement new rules, and then claim companies are breaking those very same rules.
100%
You can absolutely disagree with any president, prime minister, dictator,... but safeguards against governments acting as governments? What do you propose?
This is a very foolish decision by the EU, and the suggestion in the article that the fine is 'small' to avoid retribution is naive and misguided. The fine is huge, it gives succour to Trump, and he will no doubt grab on to it, and punish the EU accordingly. And I am sorry to say, but they seem to deserve it.
I disagree. If the EU would have delayed their Tarrifs, it would have sent a message that the fines they hand out are politically motivated, and somehow tied to the Tarrifs process, which is not the case. It would have undermined the very concept of this act and suggested everything is negotiable.
The Tarrifs are a self-inflicted wound by the US. If the Orange Baboon starts to come to terms, no doubt the EU will lower their retaliatory Tarrifs accordingly, although the damage is done and the EU now considers the US no longer to be an ally.
Apple has been warned about their behavior in the EU for long enough now. They ARE the mobile economy rather than being part of it (next to Google, but Android is a more open platform). They are abusing that position. The EU wants competition. This very different from the concept of tarrifs and mixing them up would have been a disastrous choice.
I did not understand the Spotify - Apple Music fine. The Commission conveniently overlooked that it is Spotify that has a monopoly in the EU and is not financially harmed by Apple, even becoming profitable after many years despite Daniel Ek's extravagant CEO lifestyle. Anti steering should have been a simple thing for Apple, with a notice that the app could be purchased on the web. A url could have even have been provided, but I could not see how Apple should provide an actual link on the App Store page. That would be like Walmart arranging for an Uber to take you to Target to buy the product at a lower price. Apple was likely surprised how aggressive Vestager was, and how committed she was to promote EU industry by fining US industry. She is gone. Apple will appeal to the courts, which have in past over ruled the Commission, but the chances are small of reversing this. After all, this is 'only 500 million' and this is Apple...
EU wants to Apple to give away their technology and IP for free , preferably to an European company . What is the difference then between these people and China?
robbery in a suit like EU is still robbery
The difference is the Swedish owners of Spotify wanted Apple, which Apple did by the way fly out Apple programmers for free to help them use Apple’s API’s, Spotify also at the same time still refused to upgrade to the latest API’s Apple had released, this was all during their complaints about Apple to the EU, the Chinese, however would have taken advantage like they did with Oak Ridge, Tennessee, but at least they would have learned how to use the API’s so that you didn’t need to hold their hands.
PS The development of Thorium Reactor that works means that within the decade, the Chinese will be open for business selling it to the rest of the world. Just another infrastructure project the US has to worry about…. (Also coincidentally remember Nixon and Kissinger 53 years ago they prodded China to join into to modernizing and trading with the rest of the world).
Specifically, the EU claims that Apple has failed to comply with an obligation to allow developers in its App Store to freely inform customers of alternative offers, "steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases.
That's like walking into a small corner store with them posting a sign next to the milk saying that the store next door has the same product, possibly at a cheaper price. What store would do that? Why is the App Store required to help advertise alternative sources?
Developers are free to have websites and billboards advertising their apps anywhere they want *outside* the App Store.
Am I reading it wrong? Apple should not be forced to have their own store serve as a marketing platform for other stores.
Not only that, I would think that nearly every developer that have apps that involves some form of subscription payments, have the email address of their subscribers. Spotify and Epic have the email address of all their account holders and Apple in no way prevented them from informing their account holders of various pricing and specials, by using email. They did not have to rely on using the free apps that Apple allow them to have on iOS, in order to inform their users of different subscription prices.
And also, Spotify crybaby CEO was once asked why Spotify maintains a free ad supported music streaming tier, when the revenue generated from ads is only a small fraction of the revenue generated by paid subscriptions. The CEO reply was that a significant percentage of paid subscribers started by using Spotify free tier, before deciding to upgrade to the premium tier to get more features. That means that the free app that Spotify pays Apple nothing for to have on Apple devices, amounts to nothing more than free advertising to entice Apple users to pay for a Spotify subscription. Out of nearly 700 million Spotify users, over half of them are using Spotify free ad supported tier (on various platforms). Those users are the "low hanging fruits" that Spotify have the best chance of getting to convert to paid subscribers. And the irony is that because Spotify pay so little of their ad revenue to the music labels for the free streams, Spotify ad supported tier is actually profitable, unlike its paid subscription tier.
BTW- Spotify free tier is the main reason why they pay the artist a lot less than Apple, on a "per stream" basis. While both Spotify and Apple pays about the same 70% of their paid subscription revenue to the music labels (and songwriters), the streams made by Spotify over 300M user of their free tier, only gets the music label a small fraction of the ad revenue. Streams on Spotify free tier pays the artist only 1/10 of what they would get for the same streams on Spotify premium tier. This greatly reduces what Spotify "pays per stream" when their free tier streams are figured in with all their streams. So not only is Apple not getting any of the credit for providing Spotify with a free app for finding "low hanging fruits", Spotify is also screwing the artists that are providing the contents of their free tier, by paying them almost nothing to provide them (Spotify) with "low hanging fruits".
When Apple was not paying the the music labels for streams made on their Apple Music "free trial" offers, the artists complained. So Apple began paying for the streams made during their "free trial" offers. It amounted to the same amount per stream as their regular pay subscriptions streams.
Plus, if an artist wants to have their music streamed on Spotify paid subscription tier, they have to allow Spotify to stream their music on their free ad supported tier. If Spotify was a US company, the EU would surely accuse Spotify of abusing the dominate position they have with their platform.
Please inform yourself on why ATT was a monopoly. The US government handed ATT a monopoly because our government wanted everyone in the US to have an affordable telephone from which they could call anyone else in the US. Having a dozen different telephone standards did not fit that goal. Therefore, as a result of being handed a government monopoly, ATT had to allow other telephone companies to use their patents, so that all the telephones made by different companies were compatible with each other. ATT also had to run telephone lines to the least populated rural communities, so they had access to a telephone. Something smaller telephone companies could not afford to do. Eventually, the US government went on to approve ATT buying out all its competition.
You really should take our own advice, please read:
Specifically, the EU claims that Apple has failed to comply with an obligation to allow developers in its App Store to freely inform customers of alternative offers, "steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases.
That's like walking into a small corner store with them posting a sign next to the milk saying that the store next door has the same product, possibly at a cheaper price.
No, it’s not like that. The Store is not a „small corner store“; it is the only shop in town. They’re all you see, all the road signs around town lead to that one store, and because the store owners also run the town, they prohibit everybody selling in that store from putting up their own signs letting people know about other, actually „small“ shops you could buy those products from.
Ok, had to delete some incredibly off topic and rule breaking threads that are just useless screaming matches. Let's chill out.
And as a reminder: It isn't illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal (or at least heavily regulated globally) if a monopoly uses its power of a specific market to manipulate that market or others. The EU has a right to govern how it sees fit, even if some of its policy seems unfairly targeted towards Apple. It is up to Apple to work through the litigation and arrive at a happy medium. These things take time, and the world leaders having pissing matches won't help either.
Patience. This fine was a pittance for the affected companies. We'll see where it goes from here.
Avoid insulting each other, politically charged comments, or leaving the topic entirely to make some kind of random point. There's no need for that.
There also needs to be some safeguards where political regions can't just "change the rules" or implement new rules, and then claim companies are breaking those very same rules. It can take years, even decades, for a large company to build up their sales ecosystem, and then governments come along and just make new rules? One interpretation is that it's a convenient money-grab. Where does this fine money end up in the end? There should be some regulation over that, too.
Unfortunately voters (us) are continually demanding from politicians that "something must be done" about whatever grieves us at the moment and that we are "unfairly disadvantaged" so we sort of get what we deserve (continual knee jerk responses and badly thought out changes) and not what we need.
And so-called voters/citizens will pay for every charge at every step of the way indirectly, because the additional cost will be passed down to them, that pesky company is just a Clearinghouse and everyone is just a ledger/line item in their books.
Comments
I'm very confused by this...
That's like walking into a small corner store with them posting a sign next to the milk saying that the store next door has the same product, possibly at a cheaper price. What store would do that? Why is the App Store required to help advertise alternative sources?
Developers are free to have websites and billboards advertising their apps anywhere they want *outside* the App Store.
Am I reading it wrong? Apple should not be forced to have their own store serve as a marketing platform for other stores.
There also needs to be some safeguards where political regions can't just "change the rules" or implement new rules, and then claim companies are breaking those very same rules. It can take years, even decades, for a large company to build up their sales ecosystem, and then governments come along and just make new rules? One interpretation is that it's a convenient money-grab. Where does this fine money end up in the end? There should be some regulation over that, too.
Unfortunately voters (us) are continually demanding from politicians that "something must be done" about whatever grieves us at the moment and that we are "unfairly disadvantaged" so we sort of get what we deserve (continual knee jerk responses and badly thought out changes) and not what we need.
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/China-Unveils-Worlds-1st-Meltdown-Proof-Thorium-Reactor.html The Chinese wanted to learn how to make it the Swedes wanted life long hand holding for free.
PS The development of Thorium Reactor that works means that within the decade, the Chinese will be open for business selling it to the rest of the world. Just another infrastructure project the US has to worry about…. (Also coincidentally remember Nixon and Kissinger 53 years ago they prodded China to join into to modernizing and trading with the rest of the world).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_China