avon b7

mike1 said:

avon b7 said:

 explicitly accepting that Apple will take a cut (commission, fee or whatever you want to call it) of every transaction the consumer makes. That, after all is what Apple wants: its part of the pie. 

Like EVERY major retailer on the face of the planet.

Except EVERY major retailer does not try to take a cut from every transaction in the mall (to use a well worn but often flawed analogy).

9secondkox2 said:

The EU blaming Apple for not allowing ither stores to advertise in apple’s store… yeah, that’s such a horrible thing. I totally see target items with stickers telling customers to go to wal mart instead for cheaper… not. 

This is criminal. The eu is basically inventing ways for apple to get in trouble these days. Perhaps they view apple as their own piggy bank. 

Time to leave the eu. Enough is enough. 

Utterly horrible and, as now shown, illegal according to the EU. 

The world is not as black and white as you seem to imply. There is a lot of colour you are missing in your claim. 

Like, for example, the fact that on iDevice platforms 'other stores' were not even allowed to exist. 

If Apple wants to do business with the outside world on its platforms, then it will be subjected to the rules of the outside world where competition is to be encouraged, not eradicated. 

And let's not forget that Apple is dependent on apps for its platforms. 

I've always said it has had potential options. The biggest of those being asking the user to sign off (up front and prior to purchase) on giving up on alternative options and explicitly accepting that Apple will take a cut (commission, fee or whatever you want to call it) of every transaction the consumer makes. That, after all is what Apple wants: its part of the pie. 

All in the name of security, privacy or however you want to name it. At least that's what many here claim. 

After all, that's why so many people buy iPhones and iPads. 

You'd think they'd be lining up to sign, although personally I think most would run to the hills at the thought of signing such an understanding. 

9secondkox2 said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

This is part of what the EU had to say:

"Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU'). These anti-steering provisions are neither necessary nor proportionate for the protection of Apple's commercial interests in relation to the App Store on Apple's smart mobile devices and negatively affect the interests of iOS users, who cannot make informed and effective decisions on where and how to purchase music streaming subscriptions for use on their device.

Apple's conduct, which lasted for almost ten years, may have led many iOS users to pay significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions because of the high commission fee imposed by Apple on developers and passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices for the same service on the Apple App Store.

... "

Apple makes no reference to its anti-competitive behaviour in its statement and instead tries to put the spotlight on Spotify, its European nature and music streaming.

That’s because it’s absurd for the company that holds more than half the market to accuse another company that has a much smaller market share of “anti-competitive behavior” in that market. It becomes doubly absurd when you consider that much of that market wouldn’t even exist without the mobile platform created by Apple and then copied by its competitors. 

When Spotify launched in 2006, streaming music was limited primarily to stationary, plugged-in computers. There were mp3 players and iPods that made downloaded music portable, but Apple had to invent the iPhone, push phone companies into broadband, and then introduce the App Store for Spotify to become relevant. Samsung, Google and others followed, expanding Spotify’s opportunities for riding the broadband mobile platform wave. 

Spotify then used that platform to disrupt the purchased digital music market, and Apple supplanted iTunes with Apple Music in response. 

As with Epic, Spotify just wants a free ride. That’s what this is all about. 

Honestly, when you add to this the fact that Spotify also notoriously pays artists significantly less for their content than Apple, they come off as pretty parasitic, when you think about it. 

Marketshare has little to do with anti-competitive behaviour or the fines. 

One of my old clients (plastics industry) received and invite to a meeting of the main industry players (worldwide players) in the field. I think the meeting took place in Germany. 

Once there it quickly became clear that the agenda was an attempt at price fixing. My client quickly pulled out, not wanting anything to do with it. 

The company proposing all this was from the US. 

That same company (probably seeing the risks) reported the meeting to the EU and my client got a multi million euro fine - just for being there. 

The US company escaped a fine as it was the whistleblower. Isn't that ironic!? 

The fine stood. However the client did not hold a dominant (or even near dominant position in the industry). 

Which part of anti-steering within the context of a multi billion dollar app store business was not anti-competitive? 




So… by your logic, the eu perpetrated something really unfair and bad. So it should keep happening? Especially to an American company? 

Bro. You’ve been at that line for a while. Time to go home and rest. 

The laws exist in their current guise for a reason. There is no perfect law. 

EU fines aren't reserved for foreign companies doing business in the EU. 

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

This is part of what the EU had to say:

"Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU'). These anti-steering provisions are neither necessary nor proportionate for the protection of Apple's commercial interests in relation to the App Store on Apple's smart mobile devices and negatively affect the interests of iOS users, who cannot make informed and effective decisions on where and how to purchase music streaming subscriptions for use on their device.

Apple's conduct, which lasted for almost ten years, may have led many iOS users to pay significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions because of the high commission fee imposed by Apple on developers and passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices for the same service on the Apple App Store.

... "

Apple makes no reference to its anti-competitive behaviour in its statement and instead tries to put the spotlight on Spotify, its European nature and music streaming.

That’s because it’s absurd for the company that holds more than half the market to accuse another company that has a much smaller market share of “anti-competitive behavior” in that market. It becomes doubly absurd when you consider that much of that market wouldn’t even exist without the mobile platform created by Apple and then copied by its competitors. 

When Spotify launched in 2006, streaming music was limited primarily to stationary, plugged-in computers. There were mp3 players and iPods that made downloaded music portable, but Apple had to invent the iPhone, push phone companies into broadband, and then introduce the App Store for Spotify to become relevant. Samsung, Google and others followed, expanding Spotify’s opportunities for riding the broadband mobile platform wave. 

Spotify then used that platform to disrupt the purchased digital music market, and Apple supplanted iTunes with Apple Music in response. 

As with Epic, Spotify just wants a free ride. That’s what this is all about. 

Honestly, when you add to this the fact that Spotify also notoriously pays artists significantly less for their content than Apple, they come off as pretty parasitic, when you think about it. 

Marketshare has little to do with anti-competitive behaviour or the fines. 

One of my old clients (plastics industry) received and invite to a meeting of the main industry players (worldwide players) in the field. I think the meeting took place in Germany. 

Once there it quickly became clear that the agenda was an attempt at price fixing. My client quickly pulled out, not wanting anything to do with it. 

The company proposing all this was from the US. 

That same company (probably seeing the risks) reported the meeting to the EU and my client got a multi million euro fine - just for being there. 

The US company escaped a fine as it was the whistleblower. Isn't that ironic!? 

The fine stood. However the client did not hold a dominant (or even near dominant position in the industry). 

Which part of anti-steering within the context of a multi billion dollar app store business was not anti-competitive? 

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said:

This is part of what the EU had to say:
"Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU'). These anti-steering provisions are neither necessary nor proportionate for the protection of Apple's commercial interests in relation to the App Store on Apple's smart mobile devices and negatively affect the interests of iOS users, who cannot make informed and effective decisions on where and how to purchase music streaming subscriptions for use on their device.

Nutshell: EU is arguing that smartphone users only have access to information that's inside the App Store and apps. They're totally ignoring the fact that an iPhone also has access to the internet, social media, phone calls/texts, email and push notifications. Apple doesn't control the content in any of those. The idea that consumers in 2024 have no idea where to get information without the app telling them is TOTALLY BONKERS. 

That’s not what the EU is arguing and largely why I copy/pasted part of their defence of the punishment. 

Apple wilfully used anti competitive practices. Those practices went on for ten years and were brought to the attention of the authorities. An investigation was launched. The fine is the result.

Can you at least see why anti-steering is seen as harming competition? 

It's irrelevant that Apple 'changed its ways' not too long ago. 

What is relevant is that someone at Apple sat down and pushed that rule through in the first place. 

Perhaps the EU should dig further to see if there was any red flag raised at the mere thought of it. That is the kind of thing the US DoJ would do. 

Apple’s response is the 'bonkers' bit.