Wow, I like apple but the fan boy level on these comments is ridiculous. It seems the majority of you guys are pro-market place monopolies.
@RadarTheKat: This is not the same as a movie theater charging higher prices for wares as the movie theater doesn't compete against the chip and coke manufacturers. Apple is running a marketplace and completing in said market place. When I as a consumer have no other way to get the Spotify App on my phone but via Apple (marketplace owner) who then places said company at disadvantages to the marketplace owners own offering then you have an anti competitive & anti consumer model.
To others.... Spotify is beating Apple in free and paid sub numbers. I'm sure they are probably losing money but then the streaming business hasn't ever made money. Apple only does ok because its really a value add to there real product of hardware so they don't really need to.
@Genovelle: while your comment is right in the sign up process of Spotify being able to stop Apple getting 0% of the sign up dollar. The issue is around competitiveness, traditionally under monopoly laws we have not allowed the market place owner (Apple) to complete directly against the a vendor (spotify) This was due to the unfair market position the market place owner resides in. There is no difference here and we should all be concerned about Apple, Google, Amazon etc all pulling this garbage as it is not good for the consumer at all. Consumers are lazy so having extra steps one has to go through disadvantages Apple's competitors compared to the home grown offering.
@Jungmark: yes and as we are seeing the negative effects in that space. Consumers are being left with less choice, no other options to purchase different products easier or often worse products. It has also lead to abuses in negotiation of contracts for a fair price of goods from suppliers which hurts employees and other suppliers down stream...
Seriously you all need to get out of your apple fan boy bubble as this is a massive issue which goes beyond just Apple.
Companies expect to eat for free. Nothing is free. Period. This company would not have the scale it does if it were not giving away Music for free. Google has done similar with other people’s IP. Including Music books and you name it. In truth Apple provided streaming music via iTunes Radio long before there was a Spotify. The AppStore is not just a store. Walmart runs adds but there without a tremendous amount of money spent by the manufacturers to MARKET their product, no one would buy it. When was the last time you saw an add for any of the products you think should live free on Apple’s platform. You can not have a monopoly when there are other options. That’s like saying Toyota has a monopoly on audio systems offered in their cars because they don’t support CarPlay or Android Auto.
Wow, I like apple but the fan boy level on these comments is ridiculous. It seems the majority of you guys are pro-market place monopolies.
@RadarTheKat: This is not the same as a movie theater charging higher prices for wares as the movie theater doesn't compete against the chip and coke manufacturers. Apple is running a marketplace and completing in said market place. When I as a consumer have no other way to get the Spotify App on my phone but via Apple (marketplace owner) who then places said company at disadvantages to the marketplace owners own offering then you have an anti competitive & anti consumer model.
To others.... Spotify is beating Apple in free and paid sub numbers. I'm sure they are probably losing money but then the streaming business hasn't ever made money. Apple only does ok because its really a value add to there real product of hardware so they don't really need to.
@Genovelle: while your comment is right in the sign up process of Spotify being able to stop Apple getting 0% of the sign up dollar. The issue is around competitiveness, traditionally under monopoly laws we have not allowed the market place owner (Apple) to complete directly against the a vendor (spotify) This was due to the unfair market position the market place owner resides in. There is no difference here and we should all be concerned about Apple, Google, Amazon etc all pulling this garbage as it is not good for the consumer at all. Consumers are lazy so having extra steps one has to go through disadvantages Apple's competitors compared to the home grown offering.
@Jungmark: yes and as we are seeing the negative effects in that space. Consumers are being left with less choice, no other options to purchase different products easier or often worse products. It has also lead to abuses in negotiation of contracts for a fair price of goods from suppliers which hurts employees and other suppliers down stream...
Seriously you all need to get out of your apple fan boy bubble as this is a massive issue which goes beyond just Apple.
#2IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU WANT TO SELL, YOU PAY THE SAME PRICE AS EVERYONE ELSE. If you decide to sell something that Apple is also selling, that's your decision, but you can't expect to be offered a better deal than anyone else. You can't also expect a "free ride", when you're offering a service that is possibly taking revenue away from Apple. (A Spotify subscription could mean lost iTunes sales and a lost Apple Music subscription.)
#3 You do not have to sign up for Spotify via the iOS app. You can sign up on the website and then use the iOS app to access your music - Apple gets nothing from that.
#4 Apple Music does "ok", because Apple doesn't offer a free tier eating away at those profits.
#5 Apple shouldn't be allowed to compete with a 3rd party service? So, you're basically saying Apple needs to ditch iTunes, iBooks, Apple Music, iCloud Drive, etc.? FYI... Apple had to start offering their own services because their users HAD NO CHOICE. That's how iTunes started. That's why the iPod was developed. Mac users were left out in the cold because Microsoft refused to support it with their proprietary DRM scheme. Apple offers a lot of their own services because they don't want their users left out again.
#6 Consumers are left with less choice!? There's not a single competing service Apple has banned from its platform. Users can choose whatever service they want with iOS. In fact, I'd dare say iOS has the most choice. Any and every developer wants to offer their software and service on iOS, because it's been documented that those users are more likely and more willing to pay for it.
This argument is completely ridiculous when you consider Apple's products are usually the most expensive on the market. People have to make an effort and consciously decide to purchase these products and enter the platform. It's an informed decision, not something made "on a whim". Consumers who buy these products are not getting less of a choice or being forced into or remain in it. If they can afford these products, they can more easily afford something less and something that's supposedly more compatible with everything else.
I pity anyone who’s using iOS devices but using Spotify. This company is such a baby. Stop crying & do your work. Do you update your app for the X yet? When the watch app launched? I’m really no surprised people are jumping ship the way you treat iOS ecosystem. It’s not about competition. I cancelled your subscription intentionally because you’re shit. You yourself let Music be better than you.
Why should Apple get a recurring cut of subscriptions? Apple isn’t hosting the content. If I buy a subscription to a magazine I bought at Walmart should they get a cut of that subscription?
Apple is providing a platform to 100 million plus iOS devices. It's not free for Apple having an App Store.
Wow, I like apple but the fan boy level on these comments is ridiculous. It seems the majority of you guys are pro-market place monopolies.
@RadarTheKat: This is not the same as a movie theater charging higher prices for wares as the movie theater doesn't compete against the chip and coke manufacturers. Apple is running a marketplace and completing in said market place. When I as a consumer have no other way to get the Spotify App on my phone but via Apple (marketplace owner) who then places said company at disadvantages to the marketplace owners own offering then you have an anti competitive & anti consumer model.
To others.... Spotify is beating Apple in free and paid sub numbers. I'm sure they are probably losing money but then the streaming business hasn't ever made money. Apple only does ok because its really a value add to there real product of hardware so they don't really need to.
@Genovelle: while your comment is right in the sign up process of Spotify being able to stop Apple getting 0% of the sign up dollar. The issue is around competitiveness, traditionally under monopoly laws we have not allowed the market place owner (Apple) to complete directly against the a vendor (spotify) This was due to the unfair market position the market place owner resides in. There is no difference here and we should all be concerned about Apple, Google, Amazon etc all pulling this garbage as it is not good for the consumer at all. Consumers are lazy so having extra steps one has to go through disadvantages Apple's competitors compared to the home grown offering.
@Jungmark: yes and as we are seeing the negative effects in that space. Consumers are being left with less choice, no other options to purchase different products easier or often worse products. It has also lead to abuses in negotiation of contracts for a fair price of goods from suppliers which hurts employees and other suppliers down stream...
Seriously you all need to get out of your apple fan boy bubble as this is a massive issue which goes beyond just Apple.
Wow, I like apple but the fan boy level on these comments is ridiculous. It seems the majority of you guys are pro-market place monopolies.
@RadarTheKat: This is not the same as a movie theater charging higher prices for wares as the movie theater doesn't compete against the chip and coke manufacturers. Apple is running a marketplace and completing in said market place. When I as a consumer have no other way to get the Spotify App on my phone but via Apple (marketplace owner) who then places said company at disadvantages to the marketplace owners own offering then you have an anti competitive & anti consumer model.
To others.... Spotify is beating Apple in free and paid sub numbers. I'm sure they are probably losing money but then the streaming business hasn't ever made money. Apple only does ok because its really a value add to there real product of hardware so they don't really need to.
@Genovelle: while your comment is right in the sign up process of Spotify being able to stop Apple getting 0% of the sign up dollar. The issue is around competitiveness, traditionally under monopoly laws we have not allowed the market place owner (Apple) to complete directly against the a vendor (spotify) This was due to the unfair market position the market place owner resides in. There is no difference here and we should all be concerned about Apple, Google, Amazon etc all pulling this garbage as it is not good for the consumer at all. Consumers are lazy so having extra steps one has to go through disadvantages Apple's competitors compared to the home grown offering.
@Jungmark: yes and as we are seeing the negative effects in that space. Consumers are being left with less choice, no other options to purchase different products easier or often worse products. It has also lead to abuses in negotiation of contracts for a fair price of goods from suppliers which hurts employees and other suppliers down stream...
Seriously you all need to get out of your apple fan boy bubble as this is a massive issue which goes beyond just Apple.
Consumers are not stupid dude .Its thinking like this that has allowed the EU to grow up into such a powerful regulatory state.
Why should Apple get a recurring cut of subscriptions? Apple isn’t hosting the content. If I buy a subscription to a magazine I bought at Walmart should they get a cut of that subscription?
Does Walmart provide a nice lounge where you can come sit to read each issue? That’s iOS, owned by Apple, only licensed to end users. Everything delivered to an iDevice is delivered through iOS. That’s the reason a restaurant charging corkage, or a movie house marking up snacks and disallowing food to be brought in is the better analogy.
In Europe we get Windows N - which is windows without Windows Media Player. It's required under European rules. I don't use nor want Apple Music - it needs unbundling from iOS.
And yes - internally to Apple when people download and subscribe then the 'Apple Music' company should pay the same fees to 'Apple Corp.' as other App vendors do - then it's a level playing field.
I dont want Apple Music on my iPhone because it's bloat - but I can see the argument that if Microsoft has to unbundle Media Player from Windows that Apple should be required to unbundle Apple Music from iOS.
30% of Spotify’s revenue on a new sign up through iOS goes to Apple. For that 30% Apple provides a marketing platform (App store) and a delivery mechanism (the iOS APIs, etc).
100% of Apple Music’s revenues go to Apple. For that Apple provides al, it provides to Spotify, plus all the design, engineering, content, etc to create, update/enhance, run, and maintain Apple Music as a service. That’s just another way to think about the fact Apple owns Apple Music.
But the point is, Apple Music doesn’t exactly occupy an unfair position versus Spotify. People seems to think Spotify pays 30% and Apple Music pays nothing. Apple Music remits 100% of its revenue to Apple. That’s more that 30% in my book.
Why should Apple get a recurring cut of subscriptions? Apple isn’t hosting the content. If I buy a subscription to a magazine I bought at Walmart should they get a cut of that subscription?
If you buy the subscription directly from the magazine then no.
But if you are getting the subscription from Walmart itself? In that scenario wouldn't Walmart charge a cut for selling the magazine's subscription in their stores?
Take another example, you can get magazines/newspapers directly from the source through a subscription or you can get it through the local newspaper agency that offers everything. do you think the local newspaper agency doesn't get a cut?
Another example, you can buy a google chromecast or an amazon firestick from local electronic stores, or you can buy them direct from play store/amazon. The local store gets a cut even if the item is priced the same.
Wow, I like apple but the fan boy level on these comments is ridiculous. It seems the majority of you guys are pro-market place monopolies.
@RadarTheKat: This is not the same as a movie theater charging higher prices for wares as the movie theater doesn't compete against the chip and coke manufacturers. Apple is running a marketplace and completing in said market place. When I as a consumer have no other way to get the Spotify App on my phone but via Apple (marketplace owner) who then places said company at disadvantages to the marketplace owners own offering then you have an anti competitive & anti consumer model.
To others.... Spotify is beating Apple in free and paid sub numbers. I'm sure they are probably losing money but then the streaming business hasn't ever made money. Apple only does ok because its really a value add to there real product of hardware so they don't really need to.
@Genovelle: while your comment is right in the sign up process of Spotify being able to stop Apple getting 0% of the sign up dollar. The issue is around competitiveness, traditionally under monopoly laws we have not allowed the market place owner (Apple) to complete directly against the a vendor (spotify) This was due to the unfair market position the market place owner resides in. There is no difference here and we should all be concerned about Apple, Google, Amazon etc all pulling this garbage as it is not good for the consumer at all. Consumers are lazy so having extra steps one has to go through disadvantages Apple's competitors compared to the home grown offering.
@Jungmark: yes and as we are seeing the negative effects in that space. Consumers are being left with less choice, no other options to purchase different products easier or often worse products. It has also lead to abuses in negotiation of contracts for a fair price of goods from suppliers which hurts employees and other suppliers down stream...
Seriously you all need to get out of your apple fan boy bubble as this is a massive issue which goes beyond just Apple.
Wow. Missing points a bit. I’ll tell you what I’m a fanboy of. SmartFood. For those in the United States, SmartFood is a brand of incredibly delicious cheddar popcorn. The stuff is absolutely delicious. And you know what? When I go to a movie theater, there they are, popping their own popcorn, which competes with the SmartFood I’d prefer to munch while watching a movie. Does the theater sell SmartFood, which per ounce is cheaper than the price the movie theater charges for their internally popped and unbranded popcorn? No they do not! So they are indeed in competition, within their marketplace, with SmartFood and other popcorn vendors, and they go beyond charging a fee to SmartFood to allow them to sell their popcorn in the theater. They outright ban the SmartFood brand, and many other packaged popcorn brands, from their marketplace. Perhaps Apple should simply do that?
Wow, I like apple but the fan boy level on these comments is ridiculous. It seems the majority of you guys are pro-market place monopolies.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the app marketplace.
It does for iOS devices. For most android devices you can download and install apps if you so wish away other app stores or direct from vendors.
See a previous commenter who made the point of Toyota not having a monopoly position just because they control whether CarPlay or Android Auto go into Toyota vehicles. Consumers can buy a different brand of vehicle if a Toyota model doesn’t support their preferred platform. Apple is one brand among a very larger number of brands that make smartphones (that’s the market, not iOS), and consumers can get Spotify, ironically under pretty much the same terms, on other smartphones and application stores, like Google Play. Where’s the complaining about Google Play charging 30% of a new Spotify sub? Doesn’t Google’s own music service compete with that in the Play store, just like Apple Music competes in the iOS App Store?
Of course Spotify still makes a loss (they chose to do so to gain market share, you have to be pretty ignorant not to see that) The problem here is cross-subsidizing. If a trillion dollar company can freely hash their mony around in different markets, no other one can compete in such market unless he has the same momentum in others. Which effectively has the same effect as a true monopoly (which it by definition, isn't) Apple (and Google, Amazon) pay for offices, server costs, stellar salaries & promotions, and can afford to make a near-permanent, severe loss without anyone even noticing by their lack of separate reporting/financial transparency. The level playing field that Spotify is asking for is a fair deal - market regulators have to stand up more proactively.
Wow, I like apple but the fan boy level on these comments is ridiculous. It seems the majority of you guys are pro-market place monopolies.
@RadarTheKat: This is not the same as a movie theater charging higher prices for wares as the movie theater doesn't compete against the chip and coke manufacturers. Apple is running a marketplace and completing in said market place. When I as a consumer have no other way to get the Spotify App on my phone but via Apple (marketplace owner) who then places said company at disadvantages to the marketplace owners own offering then you have an anti competitive & anti consumer model.
To others.... Spotify is beating Apple in free and paid sub numbers. I'm sure they are probably losing money but then the streaming business hasn't ever made money. Apple only does ok because its really a value add to there real product of hardware so they don't really need to.
@Genovelle: while your comment is right in the sign up process of Spotify being able to stop Apple getting 0% of the sign up dollar. The issue is around competitiveness, traditionally under monopoly laws we have not allowed the market place owner (Apple) to complete directly against the a vendor (spotify) This was due to the unfair market position the market place owner resides in. There is no difference here and we should all be concerned about Apple, Google, Amazon etc all pulling this garbage as it is not good for the consumer at all. Consumers are lazy so having extra steps one has to go through disadvantages Apple's competitors compared to the home grown offering.
@Jungmark: yes and as we are seeing the negative effects in that space. Consumers are being left with less choice, no other options to purchase different products easier or often worse products. It has also lead to abuses in negotiation of contracts for a fair price of goods from suppliers which hurts employees and other suppliers down stream...
Seriously you all need to get out of your apple fan boy bubble as this is a massive issue which goes beyond just Apple.
#2IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU WANT TO SELL, YOU PAY THE SAME PRICE AS EVERYONE ELSE. If you decide to sell something that Apple is also selling, that's your decision, but you can't expect to be offered a better deal than anyone else. You can't also expect a "free ride", when you're offering a service that is possibly taking revenue away from Apple. (A Spotify subscription could mean lost iTunes sales and a lost Apple Music subscription.)
#3 You do not have to sign up for Spotify via the iOS app. You can sign up on the website and then use the iOS app to access your music - Apple gets nothing from that.
#4 Apple Music does "ok", because Apple doesn't offer a free tier eating away at those profits.
#5 Apple shouldn't be allowed to compete with a 3rd party service? So, you're basically saying Apple needs to ditch iTunes, iBooks, Apple Music, iCloud Drive, etc.? FYI... Apple had to start offering their own services because their users HAD NO CHOICE. That's how iTunes started. That's why the iPod was developed. Mac users were left out in the cold because Microsoft refused to support it with their proprietary DRM scheme. Apple offers a lot of their own services because they don't want their users left out again.
#6 Consumers are left with less choice!? There's not a single competing service Apple has banned from its platform. Users can choose whatever service they want with iOS. In fact, I'd dare say iOS has the most choice. Any and every developer wants to offer their software and service on iOS, because it's been documented that those users are more likely and more willing to pay for it.
This argument is completely ridiculous when you consider Apple's products are usually the most expensive on the market. People have to make an effort and consciously decide to purchase these products and enter the platform. It's an informed decision, not something made "on a whim". Consumers who buy these products are not getting less of a choice or being forced into or remain in it. If they can afford these products, they can more easily afford something less and something that's supposedly more compatible with everything else.
Wow, I like apple but the fan boy level on these comments is ridiculous. It seems the majority of you guys are pro-market place monopolies.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the app marketplace.
It does for iOS devices. For most android devices you can download and install apps if you so wish away other app stores or direct from vendors.
I was going to be facetious and say that Apple has a monopoly on iPhones and iOS devices. You actually said it seriously!!
There's something wrong with your thinking.
Going by that logic, Apple has a monopoly on macOS devices also, doesn't it? Windows has a monopoly on Windows devices. Isn't Windows 10 S the version where you can only install apps from the Microsoft store?
Why should Apple get a recurring cut of subscriptions? Apple isn’t hosting the content. If I buy a subscription to a magazine I bought at Walmart should they get a cut of that subscription?
Actually, they manage the subscriptions, deal with issues, security and the customer is Apple’s. If Spotify brought the customer in they would have signed up on their site. Then Apple gets nothing. If you buy that subscription on Walmart’s website and the manage it and process it every month they will. If you don’t think the company that maintains the store, keeps it clean and up to date, pays processing fees and support cost should get a cut, there’s nothing stopping you from by passing Apple altogether. They don’t have to use Apple for subscription at all.
For many apps, Apple does all that and the developer doesn’t have to worry about credit cards, data, security etc. For Spotify, and apps that can do their own subscription models, it’s possible to embed a signup page in the app talking to their own servers. Handling their own credit cards etc.
Thars whar Apple bans and what could be problematic for them under EU law.
Wow, I like apple but the fan boy level on these comments is ridiculous. It seems the majority of you guys are pro-market place monopolies.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the app marketplace.
It does for iOS devices. For most android devices you can download and install apps if you so wish away other app stores or direct from vendors.
See a previous commenter who made the point of Toyota not having a monopoly position just because they control whether CarPlay or Android Auto go into Toyota vehicles. Consumers can buy a different brand of vehicle if a Toyota model doesn’t support their preferred platform. Apple is one brand among a very larger number of brands that make smartphones (that’s the market, not iOS), and consumers can get Spotify, ironically under pretty much the same terms, on other smartphones and application stores, like Google Play. Where’s the complaining about Google Play charging 30% of a new Spotify sub? Doesn’t Google’s own music service compete with that in the Play store, just like Apple Music competes in the iOS App Store?
Maybe Spotify is taking google to task as well but google apps aren’t gated through google pay and i don’t know if google stop them from handling their own fulfilment. Apple does ban apps from doing that
I see the argument against Amazon, they actively push their own services over others on their devices whether you subscribe to them or not. I don't recall ever seeing any advertisement or encouragement to use Apple Music on any of our ipads or iphones. If anything, Apple devices (like Roku) integrate 3rd party services in an unbiased way I've found.
Why should Apple get a recurring cut of subscriptions? Apple isn’t hosting the content. If I buy a subscription to a magazine I bought at Walmart should they get a cut of that subscription?
Actually, they manage the subscriptions, deal with issues, security and the customer is Apple’s. If Spotify brought the customer in they would have signed up on their site. Then Apple gets nothing. If you buy that subscription on Walmart’s website and the manage it and process it every month they will. If you don’t think the company that maintains the store, keeps it clean and up to date, pays processing fees and support cost should get a cut, there’s nothing stopping you from by passing Apple altogether. They don’t have to use Apple for subscription at all.
For many apps, Apple does all that and the developer doesn’t have to worry about credit cards, data, security etc. For Spotify, and apps that can do their own subscription models, it’s possible to embed a signup page in the app talking to their own servers. Handling their own credit cards etc.
Thars whar Apple bans and what could be problematic for them under EU law.
Maybe Apple could face problem for that but I can’t see a sense why Apple should allow that to Spotify, Amazon etc. like “Guys.. you already have all these subscription and payment mechanism in place? Great. Just bypass us guys. It’s ok. Feel free to do anything you’d like on our devices & our market.”
Comments
Hmmm...
#1 Apple has no monopoly position in any market.
#2 IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU WANT TO SELL, YOU PAY THE SAME PRICE AS EVERYONE ELSE. If you decide to sell something that Apple is also selling, that's your decision, but you can't expect to be offered a better deal than anyone else. You can't also expect a "free ride", when you're offering a service that is possibly taking revenue away from Apple. (A Spotify subscription could mean lost iTunes sales and a lost Apple Music subscription.)
#3 You do not have to sign up for Spotify via the iOS app. You can sign up on the website and then use the iOS app to access your music - Apple gets nothing from that.
#4 Apple Music does "ok", because Apple doesn't offer a free tier eating away at those profits.
#5 Apple shouldn't be allowed to compete with a 3rd party service? So, you're basically saying Apple needs to ditch iTunes, iBooks, Apple Music, iCloud Drive, etc.? FYI... Apple had to start offering their own services because their users HAD NO CHOICE. That's how iTunes started. That's why the iPod was developed. Mac users were left out in the cold because Microsoft refused to support it with their proprietary DRM scheme. Apple offers a lot of their own services because they don't want their users left out again.
#6 Consumers are left with less choice!? There's not a single competing service Apple has banned from its platform. Users can choose whatever service they want with iOS. In fact, I'd dare say iOS has the most choice. Any and every developer wants to offer their software and service on iOS, because it's been documented that those users are more likely and more willing to pay for it.
This argument is completely ridiculous when you consider Apple's products are usually the most expensive on the market. People have to make an effort and consciously decide to purchase these products and enter the platform. It's an informed decision, not something made "on a whim". Consumers who buy these products are not getting less of a choice or being forced into or remain in it. If they can afford these products, they can more easily afford something less and something that's supposedly more compatible with everything else.
I’m really no surprised people are jumping ship the way you treat iOS ecosystem. It’s not about competition. I cancelled your subscription intentionally because you’re shit. You yourself let Music be better than you.
100% of Apple Music’s revenues go to Apple. For that Apple provides al, it provides to Spotify, plus all the design, engineering, content, etc to create, update/enhance, run, and maintain Apple Music as a service. That’s just another way to think about the fact Apple owns Apple Music.
But the point is, Apple Music doesn’t exactly occupy an unfair position versus Spotify. People seems to think Spotify pays 30% and Apple Music pays nothing. Apple Music remits 100% of its revenue to Apple. That’s more that 30% in my book.
But if you are getting the subscription from Walmart itself? In that scenario wouldn't Walmart charge a cut for selling the magazine's subscription in their stores?
Take another example, you can get magazines/newspapers directly from the source through a subscription or you can get it through the local newspaper agency that offers everything. do you think the local newspaper agency doesn't get a cut?
Another example, you can buy a google chromecast or an amazon firestick from local electronic stores, or you can buy them direct from play store/amazon. The local store gets a cut even if the item is priced the same.
The problem here is cross-subsidizing.
If a trillion dollar company can freely hash their mony around in different markets, no other one can compete in such market unless he has the same momentum in others. Which effectively has the same effect as a true monopoly (which it by definition, isn't)
Apple (and Google, Amazon) pay for offices, server costs, stellar salaries & promotions, and can afford to make a near-permanent, severe loss without anyone even noticing by their lack of separate reporting/financial transparency.
The level playing field that Spotify is asking for is a fair deal - market regulators have to stand up more proactively.
I was going to be facetious and say that Apple has a monopoly on iPhones and iOS devices. You actually said it seriously!!
There's something wrong with your thinking.
Going by that logic, Apple has a monopoly on macOS devices also, doesn't it? Windows has a monopoly on Windows devices. Isn't Windows 10 S the version where you can only install apps from the Microsoft store?
Thars whar Apple bans and what could be problematic for them under EU law.
Any reason?