carnegie

macxpress said:

And how many of the 31% are free tier Spotify users? As is the case with a lot of areas, Apple isn't the top of the market share, but they are where it counts, which is revenue/profits. 

This report appears to be counting only premium subscribers Spotify.

31% of 524 million is 162 million. Spotify reported 165 million premium subscribers and 210 million ad-supported MAUs for Q2.

avon b7 said:

carnegie said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.

I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 

How does it fly against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level? The decision (as approved) was that Apple had to allow alternate payment processing for IAP and couldn't maintain its anti-steering policy. It didn't have anything to do with Apple's commission. Those are quite different things. The summary of the decision and the court's review of the decision don't in any way suggest that Apple can't continue to collect its commission. They don't, e.g., even mention the commission when they detail the ways in which the policies at issue affect developers and consumers.

Perhaps the ACM will decide further that Apple can't collect its commission in this context. (That would, I hope, lead to some complaints from U.S. trade representatives on Apple's behalf and pursuant to, e.g., the WIPO Copyright Treaty.) But as the order exists (and as affirmed by the provisional-relief judge), Apple's commission isn't implicated.

longfang said:

avon b7 said:

carnegie said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.

I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 

Spirit of the rules count for squat. If it’s so important for Apple to miss out on commissions then write it down in the rules rather than “imply” it.

And they didn't even imply that Apple couldn't continue to collect the commission. If anything, they tacitly acknowledged that Apple could do so.

Apple's commission just isn't discussed - in either the ACM's summary of its decision or the provisional-relief judge's ruling on the ACM's order. That ruling discusses the issues at some length and doesn't refer to Apple charging a commission. It, e.g., goes through the ways in which Apple's abuse of its dominant position harm both developers and consumers but in doing so doesn't say anything about developers having to pay Apple a commission or consumers facing higher prices as a result. Rather, it specifies numerous other ways in which the anti-steering policy and the lack of choice in payment processing (for IAP) harms developers and consumers.

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.

It's interesting that the Ninth Circuit denied the Coalition's motion for leave to file an amicus brief in the Epic v Apple case. That's pretty unusual. I wouldn't say such requests are pro forma, but they're close to that ball park.

The denial suggests that the Ninth Circuit doesn't see the Coalition as a truly independent party in these matters, that it sees the Coalition as just another face that Epic is presenting to support its legal positions.