Isn't Spotify always gloating how many more millions of subscribers they have over AM? Seems like their numbers don't walk the their talk. Not going to look good in court.
If they can show that they've dropped or that their growth rate for iOS-baed devices has dropped since Apple Music started, I could see the EU saying that Apple had an unfair advantage. Look what they did to Microsoft long after Internet Explorer was the dominate browser engine being used.
While the EU laws aren't the same as in the USA, folks have a misperception that somehow it is "unfair" for a company to have an advantage over others when that is the essence of what every company strives for and is allowed. Microsoft's situation vis-a-vis Netscape and others is not analogous. Microsoft had a monopoly position on Operating systems and used that to harm Netscape by forcing manufacturers to feature IE at Netscape's expense, etc. In contrast, there are a multitude of music streaming services, all of whom are free to use the various App stores, the Internet for their own websites, etc., to offer their services to the public. Indeed, Spotify remains by far the largest streaming services.
With the continuing slide toward anti-capitalism in the EU, it's never a safe bet to assume they will continue to lean on free markets, but the fact is that music streaming has become a commoditized service where the differentiator is mainly price. That's a losing proposition for Spotify, as Amazon. Google, Apple and others have many other revenue streams and can bundle music streaming with other services. Spotify has lost hundreds of millions and continues to hemorrhage money with little hope to turn it around. That's their fault for not adapting to a very competitive market and now, ironically, they want government regulators to stifle competition to save them.
apple apologists out in full force. predictable. basement keyboard warriors.
Errr... I don't have a basement. I guess that makes me unable to comment.... ???? Sheesh.
Ya, My House, a Real house that I own, doesn't have a basement!!! If Spotify doesn't like it, they can leave. Hey better yet, Create their own OS and have any rules that they want. Somehow having the Majority of the Streaming Music market isn't good enough for them. How did they get that market if Apple/Google are such problems? By the way, anyone with half a brain would sign up from Spotify directly and not through Apple's App store so that they can save the $3 dollars a month. By the way, they seem to forget that Apple drops down that 30% after being signed up for 1 year. I think it then drops down to 10%. So if Spotify is still charging you $3 more a month after 1 year, it's them screwing people for a extra $2 to Apple's $1 cut!!!
I think this is inevitably going to keep on happening for as long as Apple keep trying to have their cake and eat it by vertically integrating their own products and services, while also acting as a horizontal provider of a platform (not a totally open platform, but not a totally closed one either) and marketplace. Their own lower level software products are going to repeatedly clash in competition with third parties who have utilised the platform and followed Apple's rules, but still get the hard shoulder when Apple gets wind of a new value-add they can create for their ecosystem.
Not really sure what the answer is. The complaint has some legitimacy, but Apple's position and priorities are understandable too.
"Europe's antitrust body" in typical European thinking means "Europe's anti-competition-from-America body". These snooty folks from the continent, who are always looking down their noses at the US have, in reality, never truly grasped the concepts of "free society" as they cling to their nanny state proclivities, nor the real meaning of competitive economics, with their subsidized, protectionist economies and their sport of making Americans participate in Europe's economy at an unnatural disadvantage as well as pay for the bulk of their defense while laughling at our gullibility in thinking we must protect them. This if course, allows them to divert defense dollars to domestic spending by shifting the real cost to their Allies. It is always a one-sided deal in cooperating with the Atlantic nations. And they wonder why Trump won...we know more than they think. The salad days are over.
"Europe's antitrust body" in typical European thinking means "Europe's anti-competition-from-America body". These snooty folks from the continent, who are always looking down their noses at the US have, in reality, never truly grasped the concepts of "free society" as they cling to their nanny state proclivities, nor the real meaning of competitive economics, with their subsidized, protectionist economies and their sport of making Americans participate in Europe's economy at an unnatural disadvantage as well as pay for the bulk of their defense while laughling at our gullibility in thinking we must protect them. This if course, allows them to divert defense dollars to domestic spending by shifting the real cost to their Allies. It is always a one-sided deal in cooperating with the Atlantic nations. And they wonder why Trump won...we know more than they think. The salad days are over.
What are the concepts of 'free society'?
Anyone doing business in the EU knows the rules. No one is forced to operate here. If a company feels another is abusing its position or being breaking competition rules, they can complain about it. This applies to everyone. There is no anti-competiton from America body.
If you see more big American companies getting hit, perhaps it's because they are simply breaking the rules more often than the resident EU companies or that you simply never hear about EU companies getting hit because the news remains local.
One of my clients got hit with a 50 million euro fine for simply attending an invitation to a meeting. At that meeting someone made a proposal for price fixing. They got whacked.
So long as "Apple Music" pays 30% to Apple's services division then I see no problem. If Apple Music can make it work with $7 subscriptions then Spotify is just being a sore-loser. If Apple Music takes and accounts for the full $10 when balancing the books then Spotify have a point that it's not fair - something the EU's Competition Commission will probably agree on.
"Europe's antitrust body" in typical European thinking means "Europe's anti-competition-from-America body". These snooty folks from the continent, who are always looking down their noses at the US have, in reality, never truly grasped the concepts of "free society" as they cling to their nanny state proclivities, nor the real meaning of competitive economics, with their subsidized, protectionist economies and their sport of making Americans participate in Europe's economy at an unnatural disadvantage as well as pay for the bulk of their defense while laughling at our gullibility in thinking we must protect them. This if course, allows them to divert defense dollars to domestic spending by shifting the real cost to their Allies. It is always a one-sided deal in cooperating with the Atlantic nations. And they wonder why Trump won...we know more than they think. The salad days are over.
What are the concepts of 'free society'?
Anyone doing business in the EU knows the rules. No one is forced to operate here. If a company feels another is abusing its position or being breaking competition rules, they can complain about it. This applies to everyone. There is no anti-competiton from America body.
If you see more big American companies getting hit, perhaps it's because they are simply breaking the rules more often than the resident EU companies or that you simply never hear about EU companies getting hit because the news remains local.
One of my clients got hit with a 50 million euro fine for simply attending an invitation to a meeting. At that meeting someone made a proposal for price fixing. They got whacked.
If the rules are slanted toward European companies then it is protectionist even when they "apply to everyone". That Europe can't competitive in the digital realm without protectionist rules that favor small companies that are all the EU seem to be able to create over large US companies doesn't make it a level playing field. It simply penalizes the most innovative companies because Europe can't compete with the US west coast.
It is obvious that this is a protectionist move when it offers incentives to telecom operators like DT and Orange to improve infrastructure and allow them to restrict access to competitors. Rather than going toward net neutrality they want to move in the opposite direction.
Comments
Not really sure what the answer is. The complaint has some legitimacy, but Apple's position and priorities are understandable too.
Anyone doing business in the EU knows the rules. No one is forced to operate here. If a company feels another is abusing its position or being breaking competition rules, they can complain about it. This applies to everyone. There is no anti-competiton from America body.
If you see more big American companies getting hit, perhaps it's because they are simply breaking the rules more often than the resident EU companies or that you simply never hear about EU companies getting hit because the news remains local.
One of my clients got hit with a 50 million euro fine for simply attending an invitation to a meeting. At that meeting someone made a proposal for price fixing. They got whacked.
It is obvious that this is a protectionist move when it offers incentives to telecom operators like DT and Orange to improve infrastructure and allow them to restrict access to competitors. Rather than going toward net neutrality they want to move in the opposite direction.