No one forced you to buy an iPhone nor iPad since 2007. No one also forced you to purchase any smartphone application on the App Store if you did buy an iPhone or iPad. Get off your high horse and innovate something out of the EU that the rest of the world finds useful, helpful, and or impactful, and is willing with their one free will to pay for that value.
@Apple, quit selling in the EU Block. It will last for 3-6 months before the findings are negated. .
Innovation? Spotify invented the music streaming service as we know it today - just as Apple was the catalyst of the generation before, the digital music store. My first Spotify receipt is from 2009, Apple launched their service more than 6 years later. (Disclosure: I'm a customer at both - or rather, I have the Apple family membership and my wife has the Spotify family membership due to needing playlists at her job)
A platform owner using a dominant position to enter a new market and give themselves a large advantage is pretty much as clear cut anti-trust as you can get. I have no sympathy for Epic, but I think Spotify has a good case as Apple has entered the market Spotify created 6-7 years earlier. Giving themselves a 30% competitive advantage when entering a market is not a good thing.
What you effectively saying is that a shop owner (Harrods or anyone else) cannot sell it's own brand in his own shop without being forced to sell other brands without profit. In addition you are effectively saying that the shop owner must promote the non profitable brand and keep it in the best selling spot of the shop.
Spotify is the dominant actor in the music market.
Forcing Apple to dance to the Spotify tunes makes as much sense as forcing the US military forces to buy Russian or Chinese nuclear submarines, tanks and jets.
That's not what I'm saying, and you know it. What I'm saying is that using a dominant position in one market (phone platforms) to gain a competitive advantage elsewhere is bad. A better comparison would be a broadband provider launching their own music streaming service and increasing the price for broadband access to streaming competitors.
The shop scenario isn't comparable as a customer can just go visit a different store.
No one forced you to buy an iPhone nor iPad since 2007. No one also forced you to purchase any smartphone application on the App Store if you did buy an iPhone or iPad. Get off your high horse and innovate something out of the EU that the rest of the world finds useful, helpful, and or impactful, and is willing with their one free will to pay for that value.
@Apple, quit selling in the EU Block. It will last for 3-6 months before the findings are negated. .
No one forced anyone to buy an iPhone or iPad.
But then again why is that even relevant here?
This case is about a possible instance of abusing a dominant position.
Do not waste time on responding to overzealous, brainwashed people who just follow their gods instead of questioning and reasoning properly. They will never understand while they have their agenda.
And yes there is a race to power and then abuse of power ultimately. One has to see this.
For those who still do not want to understand, go to your "echo system" - after all you are deeply in love with it. Do not complain later when you notice anything.
Well, so far the EU hasn’t scored a big hit to Apple. Remember the $15 billion tax controversy involving Ireland’s tax deal with Apple? The EU’s highest court ruled against them but they’re tenacious when it comes to extorting money from corporations.
Well, they scored big penalties imposed on Microsoft for these practices. If I remember correctly it was about $500 million years ago. So do not be so optimistic. This is different case and EU law is not precedent based unlike in the US.
No one forced you to buy an iPhone nor iPad since 2007. No one also forced you to purchase any smartphone application on the App Store if you did buy an iPhone or iPad. Get off your high horse and innovate something out of the EU that the rest of the world finds useful, helpful, and or impactful, and is willing with their one free will to pay for that value.
@Apple, quit selling in the EU Block. It will last for 3-6 months before the findings are negated. .
Innovation? Spotify invented the music streaming service as we know it today - just as Apple was the catalyst of the generation before, the digital music store. My first Spotify receipt is from 2009, Apple launched their service more than 6 years later. (Disclosure: I'm a customer at both - or rather, I have the Apple family membership and my wife has the Spotify family membership due to needing playlists at her job)
A platform owner using a dominant position to enter a new market and give themselves a large advantage is pretty much as clear cut anti-trust as you can get. I have no sympathy for Epic, but I think Spotify has a good case as Apple has entered the market Spotify created 6-7 years earlier. Giving themselves a 30% competitive advantage when entering a market is not a good thing.
What you effectively saying is that a shop owner (Harrods or anyone else) cannot sell it's own brand in his own shop without being forced to sell other brands without profit. In addition you are effectively saying that the shop owner must promote the non profitable brand and keep it in the best selling spot of the shop.
Spotify is the dominant actor in the music market.
Forcing Apple to dance to the Spotify tunes makes as much sense as forcing the US military forces to buy Russian or Chinese nuclear submarines, tanks and jets.
That's not what I'm saying, and you know it. What I'm saying is that using a dominant position in one market (phone platforms) to gain a competitive advantage elsewhere is bad. A better comparison would be a broadband provider launching their own music streaming service and increasing the price for broadband access to streaming competitors.
The shop scenario isn't comparable as a customer can just go visit a different store.
Spotify are entirely free to sell Spotify from their own shop. There's no-one stopping them at all. They want the goodies but don't want to pay for it. Spotify doesn't care one single bit about their customers. The customers are just cattle. They want the milk.
Haha not surprised in the slightest, it was obvious they would find Apple guilty because Apple has breached their regulations and laws, it is the job of any company to know and understand the laws and regulations of your select market no matter the size.
What will be interesting is the penalty that will be imposed, the EU will hit hard if required in any company with penalties, I suspect they will force Apple to change its store policy in Europe. Spotify did have a point too over this though and the heat was obviously building up against Apple, need to share the wealth fairly.
The EU Commission is not the courts. They did not find Apple guilty of anything. They only did the investigation and concluded that Apple is violating EU competition laws. It's going to be up to the EU courts to determine if Apple is guilty of the charges. This will takes years and then you have to add even more years for the appeal process.
Remember, the EU commission did a 2 year investigation and in 2016 and concluded that Apple was avoiding taxes for years, by setting up their HQ in Ireland, (who they claimed was giving Apple favorable treatment) and the commission ordered Apple to pay nearly $15B in back taxes. But Apple (and Ireland) appealed the ruling in an EU court and won. So now the EU commission is appealing that decision. This been going on for 5 years now and counting. Apple has already set aside the $15B. It seems that with this case, it was the EU Commission that did not know and understand their own laws.
"Not only is the process likely to take years, but it can appeal any decision made."
Maybe we can revisit this topic in 2028 or so to see how things are going. By then there will probably be a few more very large players in this problem domain, not to mention a plethora of new customers in other parts of the world, and a lot of global companies won't really care a whole lot about what the EU and its shrinking economy thinks about much of anything.
At some point the cost of doing business in the EU with its parasitic taxation schemes, intrusive oversight, and blatant protectionism may inspire global players to simply take a pass on dealing with any of it at all. The clock is ticking on EU's relevancy if they don't become a competitive producer in more parts of the world's economy. If Apple was based in France would the tick we call Spotify be granted any special privileges to try to bolster its ability to compete by attaching itself to a French based Apple? I don't think so.
Odd take, there. I am not in favour of the EU rulings here, but the corporation tax rate in the EU is up to the member states - it is the US that is calling foul there. as the US has a higher corporation Tax The other case against Apple is also against Ireland, so there's no unity.
The EU is far from being protectionist, it has trade deals with most of the globe. To my mind, as someone who thinks globalisation is over played, the EU has too many deals. The latest deal with Mercursor is an example of a step too far.
And the US is turning towards protectionism re China, after years of elites thinking that China would get rich and become a liberal democracy, positions have hardened.
I don't disagree about US protectionism. Imho, it's an embarrassment and to some extent driven by technological and leadership stagnation and fear of falling behind the rest of the world. The US primary and secondary education system is a mess, catering too much to the elite class while failing to develop a solid base of skilled tradespeople, both traditional trades and trades associated with modern manufacturing. The US likes to blather on about bringing jobs back from China and SE Asia, but it would take a generation to staff these jobs with qualified US workers. I've spent several years working with Chinese partners and colleagues, on the same team, and yes I have to say, things in China are definitely changing and not necessarily for the better, even though personal relationships have not changed at all.
I don't have a bone to pick with the EU. Working with colleagues and peers in the EU has always been tremendous because they seem to understand cooperation at a level that just does not exist in the US, at least not any more. In many ways I've felt that they were better teammates than some people who I've had sitting next to me drawing a salary from the same company as me. I simply have a hard time with the whole notion of redistribution of wealth that was hard and honestly earned by individuals or corporations who took big risks, played fair, and were fortunate enough to reap the rewards of their labor. It doesn't matter to me whether those who are trying to intervene are EU regulators or US politicians.
That's just the way I react to these sort of things. It doesn't make it right, or wrong. But I'm also pragmatic and recognize that life isn't always about winners and losers, and we all have to get along in society and achieve some sort of balance. Meritocracy can't define the rules of every human interaction, it just wouldn't work. As the EU and US politicians have shown us, embracing mediocrity at some level can have a calming influence. So I can accept that EU regulators and US politicians will ultimately step in and intervene, just like they've always done with economic, trade, and fiscal policies. Companies like Apple will adapt and make the best of the situation, which usually means they'll pass along their additional costs to consumers. If that's all it takes to keep us from collapsing into total chaos, I can live with it.
No one forced you to buy an iPhone nor iPad since 2007. No one also forced you to purchase any smartphone application on the App Store if you did buy an iPhone or iPad. Get off your high horse and innovate something out of the EU that the rest of the world finds useful, helpful, and or impactful, and is willing with their one free will to pay for that value.
@Apple, quit selling in the EU Block. It will last for 3-6 months before the findings are negated. .
Innovation? Spotify invented the music streaming service as we know it today - just as Apple was the catalyst of the generation before, the digital music store. My first Spotify receipt is from 2009, Apple launched their service more than 6 years later. (Disclosure: I'm a customer at both - or rather, I have the Apple family membership and my wife has the Spotify family membership due to needing playlists at her job)
A platform owner using a dominant position to enter a new market and give themselves a large advantage is pretty much as clear cut anti-trust as you can get. I have no sympathy for Epic, but I think Spotify has a good case as Apple has entered the market Spotify created 6-7 years earlier. Giving themselves a 30% competitive advantage when entering a market is not a good thing.
What you effectively saying is that a shop owner (Harrods or anyone else) cannot sell it's own brand in his own shop without being forced to sell other brands without profit. In addition you are effectively saying that the shop owner must promote the non profitable brand and keep it in the best selling spot of the shop.
Spotify is the dominant actor in the music market.
Forcing Apple to dance to the Spotify tunes makes as much sense as forcing the US military forces to buy Russian or Chinese nuclear submarines, tanks and jets.
That's not what I'm saying, and you know it. What I'm saying is that using a dominant position in one market (phone platforms) to gain a competitive advantage elsewhere is bad. A better comparison would be a broadband provider launching their own music streaming service and increasing the price for broadband access to streaming competitors.
The shop scenario isn't comparable as a customer can just go visit a different store.
Spotify are entirely free to sell Spotify from their own shop. There's no-one stopping them at all. They want the goodies but don't want to pay for it. Spotify doesn't care one single bit about their customers. The customers are just cattle. They want the milk.
Spotify is not free to sell from their own shop on the platform, as only Apple's store is allowed on the platform.
FWIW, I think something so simple as allowing a web link "Click here to sign up" in the initial login page for Spotify would solve this particular issue. Apple has already resolved other issues, e.g. Siri will now use your preferred streaming service rather than just use Apple Music. Not sure if there are others left then...
If I'm speculating, Apple doesn't really care about Spotify or other media companies (Netflix et al) doing this - there isn't that much revenue, and it is a political and legal minefield. They just want to avoid all the "normal" in-app purchases being available outside the App Store.
What a load of old twaddle from the EU commission. Almost everybody hates them.
...Via its App Store, and the vertical integration of iOS itself, Apple is arguably in such a position. If that is the view of the Commission, then provided the framework applies across the sector or industry as a whole (any App Store, in other words, including on Android, PlayStation, XBox, and et cetera), then I don't really see what exactly is wrong with it.
From a consumer's point of view, the more transparency about the available products and services, the better, since it is the availability of information which best enablesa consumer to make an informed purchasing decision.
By disallowing vertical market options and forcing open market options, the EU is reducing genuine choice.
The second paragraph is idealistic and echos Vestager’s comment. The success of the App Store vs others is direct evidence against this.
The EU is pushing choice & informed consent, the most disgraceful way of exploiting people as most can’t resist it’s seduction. What fate do the architects & advocates of this deception deserve?
Well, so far the EU hasn’t scored a big hit to Apple. Remember the $15 billion tax controversy involving Ireland’s tax deal with Apple? The EU’s highest court ruled against them but they’re tenacious when it comes to extorting money from corporations.
Well, they scored big penalties imposed on Microsoft for these practices. If I remember correctly it was about $500 million years ago. So do not be so optimistic. This is different case and EU law is not precedent based unlike in the US.
But Microsoft has a real monopoly with Windows, no matter how narrowly you what to define what having a "monopoly" means. It's hard, if not impossible, to claim that having over 90% marketshare of the World computer OS market, is not some how having a monopoly. With Apple on the other hand, iOS has only about a 30% marketshare of the mobile OS market in the EU.
Don't forget, even though the EU fined Microsoft for bundling their Windows Media Player and IE browser with Windows and forced them to unbundle them because they concluded the practice was anti-competitive, Apple has never been fined for bundling their QT Player and Safari, with OS X. Why is that? The same "anti-competitive" practice as what Microsoft was doing ....... right?
BTW- you forgot the $730M fine for bundling IE with Windows, on top of the $500M fine for bundling Windows Media Player.
The EU is arguing that Apple has a monopoly at being Apple. That's nuts. This means that the iPhone's marketshare is irrelevant. The iPhone could have a 2% marketshare and, but this crazy definition, Apple would have a monopoly.
I mean, do they WANT to lose? Are they TRYING to look stupid? This actually makes Brexit seem like a great idea.
A much less stupid argument would be that Apple and Google between them have 100% of the market, and then look for collusion (which, btw, we already know has happened with respect to default search browser).
At some point the cost of doing business in the EU with its parasitic taxation schemes, intrusive oversight, and blatant protectionism may inspire global players to simply take a pass on dealing with any of it at all.
Of course it won't. Money talks and bullshit walks and there's too much money to be made in the EU for Apple or any other company to give even passing consideration to quitting it altogether. This is a fantasy that far too many people on this board indulge in. It won't happen.
So you think that the EU could demand anything and Apple wouldn't even "give passing consideration" to quitting the EU altogether. On the contrary, there are prices that Apple would never pay to stay in the EU. For example, changing the source code's license for iOS to public domain. I presume you are a flat-Earther because you enjoy making statements that are obviously incorrect.
You don't understand that the EU and its citizens makes money from Apple too (eg, increased productivity) when they buy and use Apple's products. They have as much to lose from Apple leaving their market as Apple does.
Yes it’s just a knee jerk reaction by fans who clearly have no understanding of real business. It’s a fact if Apple left the EU market it’s share price would plummet overnight and their would be a real threat it would collapse. Because what people forget is Apple is at the whim of share holders like any other corporation, and if you pull out of a market worth billions annually then the share holders won’t be happy as it means a lot less return on their investments, some significant, and they will sell. As it is if the official verdict in this is Apple are found guilty then I would expect the share price to drop a little anyway.
Haha not surprised in the slightest, it was obvious they would find Apple guilty because Apple has breached their regulations and laws, it is the job of any company to know and understand the laws and regulations of your select market no matter the size.
What will be interesting is the penalty that will be imposed, the EU will hit hard if required in any company with penalties, I suspect they will force Apple to change its store policy in Europe. Spotify did have a point too over this though and the heat was obviously building up against Apple, need to share the wealth fairly.
The EU Commission is not the courts. They did not find Apple guilty of anything. They only did the investigation and concluded that Apple is violating EU competition laws. It's going to be up to the EU courts to determine if Apple is guilty of the charges. This will takes years and then you have to add even more years for the appeal process.
Remember, the EU commission did a 2 year investigation and in 2016 and concluded that Apple was avoiding taxes for years, by setting up their HQ in Ireland, (who they claimed was giving Apple favorable treatment) and the commission ordered Apple to pay nearly $15B in back taxes. But Apple (and Ireland) appealed the ruling in an EU court and won. So now the EU commission is appealing that decision. This been going on for 5 years now and counting. Apple has already set aside the $15B. It seems that with this case, it was the EU Commission that did not know and understand their own laws.
So don't go out and celebrate yet. Hopefully anything you bought for your big celebration party will keep for another 5 or more years.
Firstly, get it right, the EU didn’t accuse Apple of anything surrounding taxes, it accused Ireland of breaching state aide regulations and law over its favoured tax levels they agreed for Apple to pay, their grievance was with Ireland and it is Ireland that must pay 12 billion in back taxes. But what do you expect when it’s all true and Apple was paying 0.005% in tax through offices existing in paper only. Secondly, if you know one thing it’s that the EU won’t give up, also it does not take years to bring cases to conclusion, and it does not let cases be buried in appeals processes. This is anti competitive behaviour not tax evasion by one of its member states.
Perhaps you should look at the way they have treated other electronic corporation electronic giants to get an understanding of how it treats them when they breach competition laws, not like how they are treated in US law that’s for certain.
When it comes to anti competitive behaviour, the EU has incredibly strong laws and regulations over it, and it vehemently defends them and enforces them. You can expect a big fine to be levied on Apple or it will be forced to change its App Store policies to continue operating within the EU market, or maybe both, if found guilty. We shall see.
"[Owners] of Apple devices are not likely to switch to another device, such as the Google Play Store, just because music streaming is more expensive on the Apple App Store."
"So, Google Play Store is not an effective alternative to reach the millions of Apple device owners," concluded Vestager. "Apple has a monopoly."
....can someone translate this for me? Google Play Store is not "another device", but I assume they mean switch to an Android with Google Play? Which is the alternative to an Apple device. But what do they mean people won't switch because music streaming is more expensive on the Apple App Store?
With Brexit the European Commission has lost its 2nd largest contributor to its budget. It needs to make up the shortfall somehow, guess what their strategy is…
Haha not surprised in the slightest, it was obvious they would find Apple guilty because Apple has breached their regulations and laws, it is the job of any company to know and understand the laws and regulations of your select market no matter the size.
What will be interesting is the penalty that will be imposed, the EU will hit hard if required in any company with penalties, I suspect they will force Apple to change its store policy in Europe. Spotify did have a point too over this though and the heat was obviously building up against Apple, need to share the wealth fairly.
The EU Commission is not the courts. They did not find Apple guilty of anything. They only did the investigation and concluded that Apple is violating EU competition laws. It's going to be up to the EU courts to determine if Apple is guilty of the charges. This will takes years and then you have to add even more years for the appeal process.
Remember, the EU commission did a 2 year investigation and in 2016 and concluded that Apple was avoiding taxes for years, by setting up their HQ in Ireland, (who they claimed was giving Apple favorable treatment) and the commission ordered Apple to pay nearly $15B in back taxes. But Apple (and Ireland) appealed the ruling in an EU court and won. So now the EU commission is appealing that decision. This been going on for 5 years now and counting. Apple has already set aside the $15B. It seems that with this case, it was the EU Commission that did not know and understand their own laws.
So don't go out and celebrate yet. Hopefully anything you bought for your big celebration party will keep for another 5 or more years.
Firstly, get it right, the EU didn’t accuse Apple of anything surrounding taxes, it accused Ireland of breaching state aide regulations and law over its favoured tax levels they agreed for Apple to pay, their grievance was with Ireland and it is Ireland that must pay 12 billion in back taxes. But what do you expect when it’s all true and Apple was paying 0.005% in tax through offices existing in paper only. Secondly, if you know one thing it’s that the EU won’t give up, also it does not take years to bring cases to conclusion, and it does not let cases be buried in appeals processes. This is anti competitive behaviour not tax evasion by one of its member states.
Perhaps you should look at the way they have treated other electronic corporation electronic giants to get an understanding of how it treats them when they breach competition laws, not like how they are treated in US law that’s for certain.
When it comes to anti competitive behaviour, the EU has incredibly strong laws and regulations over it, and it vehemently defends them and enforces them. You can expect a big fine to be levied on Apple or it will be forced to change its App Store policies to continue operating within the EU market, or maybe both, if found guilty. We shall see.
So you admit that you were wrong, when you claimed that the EU found Apple "guilty". If by "We shall see.", you also include yourself, then you admit that you don't know if Apple will be found guilty of anything, yet.
The EU accused Apple of avoiding taxes and wanted Apple to pay $15B in back taxes, not Ireland. What the EU Commission got wrong was that there is no laws set by the EU regarding tax rates in any of its members country. Each member country can set their own tax rates. But the taxes must be applied to all equally. The EU Commission claimed that Apple received a special tax deal from Ireland. But Ireland low tax rates were applied equally and did not favor any one company.
This is what the EU court ruled and thus Apple did not receive any special tax treatment and don't owe the back taxes. The EU Commission was accusing Apple of receiving special tax treatment and was demanding that Apple pay the $15B in back taxes. Ireland was not demanding that Apple pay the back tax and yet Apple aside $15B, in case the lost. Why? If no one was demanding that Apple pay $15B in back taxes. And how in the name of Hell can Ireland owe and must pay "back taxes" to themselves? What's the point in that? That would be like if the US Federal government were to claim that because TX do not collect a State income tax, they owe themselves back taxes that they didn't collect.
Ireland was never accused of tax "evasion". Neither was Apple. Tax "avoidance", by paying as little taxes as legally possible, is not illegal. Not even in the EU. But In the EU, it is illegal if one got special tax treatment in order to pay less taxes. This was what the EU Commission did not prove, that Ireland gave Apple any special tax treatment.
It took a decade, to finally win anti-completive charges against Google. I don't know what you consider "years", but a decade is by definition ......10 years. Even if the EU Commission were to cut that time in half, it would still be ....... years. And this was a case of anti-competitive behavior against a company (Google), that controls 90% of the search engine market. A monopoly, by any definition.
No one forced you to buy an iPhone nor iPad since 2007. No one also forced you to purchase any smartphone application on the App Store if you did buy an iPhone or iPad. Get off your high horse and innovate something out of the EU that the rest of the world finds useful, helpful, and or impactful, and is willing with their one free will to pay for that value.
@Apple, quit selling in the EU Block. It will last for 3-6 months before the findings are negated. .
Why would that benefit Apple? People will just move to Android or not move to Android, Apple's sales will collapse for 3 months in the best case scenario, or there will be a longer term effect in the worst. The EU will in the same position as before.
Of course they should try and argue back against this if possible.
Apple has about 30% of the European market, if Apple eliminates the AppStore in Europe and slide to 15% they still would be the most profitable computer/phone/tablet company by far……
In America Android is losing marketshare to the iPhone, and the M series CPU’s will crush Microsoft and Google even more Apple is set to make actual marketshare headway in the PC market, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yTWGjYFiC0 Google is the one paying Apple billions per year to be a default on iOS, the EU is betting on inferior tech…..
No one forced you to buy an iPhone nor iPad since 2007. No one also forced you to purchase any smartphone application on the App Store if you did buy an iPhone or iPad. Get off your high horse and innovate something out of the EU that the rest of the world finds useful, helpful, and or impactful, and is willing with their one free will to pay for that value.
@Apple, quit selling in the EU Block. It will last for 3-6 months before the findings are negated. .
Innovation? Spotify invented the music streaming service as we know it today - just as Apple was the catalyst of the generation before, the digital music store. My first Spotify receipt is from 2009, Apple launched their service more than 6 years later. (Disclosure: I'm a customer at both - or rather, I have the Apple family membership and my wife has the Spotify family membership due to needing playlists at her job)
A platform owner using a dominant position to enter a new market and give themselves a large advantage is pretty much as clear cut anti-trust as you can get. I have no sympathy for Epic, but I think Spotify has a good case as Apple has entered the market Spotify created 6-7 years earlier. Giving themselves a 30% competitive advantage when entering a market is not a good thing.
How much does Apple Music “pay” for its music sales to App Store? Maybe it’s 30%. What do you know, xyzzy01?
Comments
The shop scenario isn't comparable as a customer can just go visit a different store.
And yes there is a race to power and then abuse of power ultimately. One has to see this.
For those who still do not want to understand, go to your "echo system" - after all you are deeply in love with it. Do not complain later when you notice anything.
Well, they scored big penalties imposed on Microsoft for these practices. If I remember correctly it was about $500 million years ago. So do not be so optimistic. This is different case and EU law is not precedent based unlike in the US.
Remember, the EU commission did a 2 year investigation and in 2016 and concluded that Apple was avoiding taxes for years, by setting up their HQ in Ireland, (who they claimed was giving Apple favorable treatment) and the commission ordered Apple to pay nearly $15B in back taxes. But Apple (and Ireland) appealed the ruling in an EU court and won. So now the EU commission is appealing that decision. This been going on for 5 years now and counting. Apple has already set aside the $15B. It seems that with this case, it was the EU Commission that did not know and understand their own laws.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/15/21325325/apple-eu-ireland-back-taxes-13-billion-overturned-appealed
So don't go out and celebrate yet. Hopefully anything you bought for your big celebration party will keep for another 5 or more years.
If I'm speculating, Apple doesn't really care about Spotify or other media companies (Netflix et al) doing this - there isn't that much revenue, and it is a political and legal minefield. They just want to avoid all the "normal" in-app purchases being available outside the App Store.
The second paragraph is idealistic and echos Vestager’s comment. The success of the App Store vs others is direct evidence against this.
The EU is pushing choice & informed consent, the most disgraceful way of exploiting people as most can’t resist it’s seduction. What fate do the architects & advocates of this deception deserve?
Don't forget, even though the EU fined Microsoft for bundling their Windows Media Player and IE browser with Windows and forced them to unbundle them because they concluded the practice was anti-competitive, Apple has never been fined for bundling their QT Player and Safari, with OS X. Why is that? The same "anti-competitive" practice as what Microsoft was doing ....... right?
BTW- you forgot the $730M fine for bundling IE with Windows, on top of the $500M fine for bundling Windows Media Player.
I mean, do they WANT to lose? Are they TRYING to look stupid? This actually makes Brexit seem like a great idea.
A much less stupid argument would be that Apple and Google between them have 100% of the market, and then look for collusion (which, btw, we already know has happened with respect to default search browser).
Secondly, if you know one thing it’s that the EU won’t give up, also it does not take years to bring cases to conclusion, and it does not let cases be buried in appeals processes. This is anti competitive behaviour not tax evasion by one of its member states.
Perhaps you should look at the way they have treated other electronic corporation electronic giants to get an understanding of how it treats them when they breach competition laws, not like how they are treated in US law that’s for certain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google
When it comes to anti competitive behaviour, the EU has incredibly strong laws and regulations over it, and it vehemently defends them and enforces them. You can expect a big fine to be levied on Apple or it will be forced to change its App Store policies to continue operating within the EU market, or maybe both, if found guilty. We shall see.
"[Owners] of Apple devices are not likely to switch to another device, such as the Google Play Store, just because music streaming is more expensive on the Apple App Store."
"So, Google Play Store is not an effective alternative to reach the millions of Apple device owners," concluded Vestager. "Apple has a monopoly."
....can someone translate this for me? Google Play Store is not "another device", but I assume they mean switch to an Android with Google Play? Which is the alternative to an Apple device. But what do they mean people won't switch because music streaming is more expensive on the Apple App Store?
The EU accused Apple of avoiding taxes and wanted Apple to pay $15B in back taxes, not Ireland. What the EU Commission got wrong was that there is no laws set by the EU regarding tax rates in any of its members country. Each member country can set their own tax rates. But the taxes must be applied to all equally. The EU Commission claimed that Apple received a special tax deal from Ireland. But Ireland low tax rates were applied equally and did not favor any one company.
This is what the EU court ruled and thus Apple did not receive any special tax treatment and don't owe the back taxes. The EU Commission was accusing Apple of receiving special tax treatment and was demanding that Apple pay the $15B in back taxes. Ireland was not demanding that Apple pay the back tax and yet Apple aside $15B, in case the lost. Why? If no one was demanding that Apple pay $15B in back taxes. And how in the name of Hell can Ireland owe and must pay "back taxes" to themselves? What's the point in that? That would be like if the US Federal government were to claim that because TX do not collect a State income tax, they owe themselves back taxes that they didn't collect.
Ireland was never accused of tax "evasion". Neither was Apple. Tax "avoidance", by paying as little taxes as legally possible, is not illegal. Not even in the EU. But In the EU, it is illegal if one got special tax treatment in order to pay less taxes. This was what the EU Commission did not prove, that Ireland gave Apple any special tax treatment.
It took a decade, to finally win anti-completive charges against Google. I don't know what you consider "years", but a decade is by definition ......10 years. Even if the EU Commission were to cut that time in half, it would still be ....... years. And this was a case of anti-competitive behavior against a company (Google), that controls 90% of the search engine market. A monopoly, by any definition.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/10/eu-antitrust-probe-google/
Apple has about 30% of the European market, if Apple eliminates the AppStore in Europe and slide to 15% they still would be the most profitable computer/phone/tablet company by far……
In America Android is losing marketshare to the iPhone, and the M series CPU’s will crush Microsoft and Google even more Apple is set to make actual marketshare headway in the PC market, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yTWGjYFiC0 Google is the one paying Apple billions per year to be a default on iOS, the EU is betting on inferior tech…..
He can’t in the new world you are a monopoly of yourself…