Spotify haven't paid revenue to Apple in years. This finding is because Spotify aren't permitted to "[inform] users of payment options outside its App Store" due to Apple's anti-steering rules.
- They make 30% less on iOS subscriptions compared to Apple Music
- They charge users 30% more compared to Apple Music
- They offer less functionality (don't accept subscriptions on iOS) compared to Apple Music.
Apple uses one area of it's business to disadvantage competitors to it's other areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat
Mobile phones are NOT a free market.
Once you get in a market domineering position your liabilites and duties to society increase and your ability to make unlimited profit decreases. The more central your product is the more you need to do.
Either voluntarily or by force of law.
The EU (comission) seems to agree and yes that is very much not an unregulated "libertarian dream" market they are talking about.
I've written my position before and that is -- nothing in my tech life works as well as iOS on iPhones. I have Linux and Windows and have been given Android devices and none of those are close enough in quality and execution to what Apple keeps shipping.
That said, 30% of everything is plainly obnoxious, but I'd rather see a direct approach on that than a per-platform, or per-app-store approach.
Your problem seems to be that you see this as the EU doing something "to" Apple (for fun or whatever nefarious reasons you think they have), rather than the EU just doing their job in protecting its citizens against an economic aggressor.
Your framing of this is actually kind of sad. This isn't an EU vs US issue, but citizens united against the evils of the dark side of capitalism.
This framing was by the parent, I didn't come up with it and I don't agree with it either.
> Your framing of this is actually kind of sad. This isn't an EU vs US issue, but citizens united against the evils of the dark side of capitalism.
Yes, I know, hence why I would like if the rest of the world did to EU companies what the EU did the Apple: proper regulation. In fact, I would also be happy if the rest of the world did that to all companies as well.
> But expect the rest of the world to do the same to EU companies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal#G...
Again, this is a thing, this happens. When EU companies break the law in other countries, those countries punish them.
If they want to squeeze Apple, just do it in a honest way by increasing taxes on electronics and associated services, like every other country does.
i feel like the regulators of a jurisdiction understand antitrust laws within those jurisdictions better than people on HN
(can you imagine how insane the appliance market would be if domestic plugs were DRM'd and you had to buy appliances from the maker of your house or pay a 30% platform fee?)
If they don't wish to follow these laws, they're just as free to exit the market.
But international trade goes both ways and the EU is just as dependent on exporting their own goods and services. The antitrust case could just as easily be made against Spotify, seeing that they are a dominant actor in their field and squeeze the artists much worse than Apple squeezes them. But in my opinion, artists can choose freely if they want to be on Spotify or not, just like Spotify can choose freely if they want to be on iOS or not.
Or Spotify can actually manufacture and sell their own devices to consumers. That was exactly what started Apple's success. A portable music player.
There are so many things in life, due to either scarcity, lack of options, laws, or prior investments that we have made, that we can't leave them easily, even when we dislike a subset of our choice.
If you hate Comcast's service, but they are the only available broadband option in your city, would you leave your city just for better internet?
If you don't like 10% of the policies of your current government, but dislike 50% of the policies of the opposition, would you start your own political party?
I like a lot of things about iOS as a user, including the quality of their hardware, but I dislike the dictatorial control that Apple exerts over both developers and consumers. Not just their anti-steering provisions (which is pure rent seeking), and lack of sideloading (which I want), there's no way for me to write my own app and install it on my own device, and have it run permanently without paying Apple even more money.
I bought the phone at full price, I hate Apple's attitude that I have just bought the privilege of using it as per however they see fit. And so, similar to above, my alternative is to switch to something like f-droid, and lose my hardware, lose my purchases, and in many cases, lose my ability to even use my phone for standard communication (eg: iMessage). Or maybe you would suggest that I build my own phone company
In all these cases, the alternative option is possible, yes, but it's very impractical and infeasible for the vast majority of people to pursue, and they come with serious negative costs. So we pursue them only when things become unbearably bad, as a last resort.
And so the feasible option is to complain, protest, and try to leverage the government/courts to change the rules so that large companies can't take advantage of us and keep exploiting us in a "boil the frog" manner. And if that doesn't work, then one day, my cup of frustration will overflow, and I will switch over to f-droid or something
You are comparing individual consumers and citizens with a powerful billion dollar company like Spotify. They should be able to take care of themselves, and if they can't they should fail and close shop.
> And so, similar to above, my alternative is to switch to something like f-droid
No, and this has become a strange hang-up of hackers. You can have an iPhone _and_ an Android phone with F-Droid. Apple do not send agents to break into your house and force their devices out of your hands when they get notice that you've bought a Samsung. Have both and use each as they benefit you. My recommendation is that you purchase devices that fit your needs.
I like feeling the breeze when I drive, but I don't petition the European Union to force Toyota to add a window that can be opened in the windshield. Instead I go for a motorcycle ride. That doesn't mean I have to get rid off my car.
Spotify did take care of themselves. that is what we are seeing the result of now.
Yes Spotify didn't want to invest time, money and effort to win customers in the free market, so they went to the bureaucrats to force Apple to let them get access to their customer base. And the bureaucrats got to steal some juicy billions for themselves, because this fine is not going to consumers.
It's kind of ironic if you consider what kind of business model Spotify themselves have, but this probably goes over the heads of down voting hackers.
if Spotify hire a militia and let them demolish all Apples offices, is that just the free market? Apple should just have invested more in defense.
What's not allowed is telling the users that it's available for cheaper in other places. But you can charge as much as you want.
Spotify is free to link outside the app and inform of better deals.
Spotify may apply for permission to have one link that does "not include, or be used with, language that includes the price of items available on the website". The OS will throw up an intermediary scare sheet warning the users of the dangers of the link https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/
Spotify is allowed to link to their website from the app and even inform about better deals since a while.
Spotify is of course also allowed to use IAP and pay a 30% commission.
Spotify is currently doing neither.
Meaning Spotify isn’t getting the 70% they’d get when converting a user via IAP nor are they getting 100% of users they convert in the app without IAP because they’re not doing that.
As an aside, it’s astonishing they’re still growing so hard despite that.
But that means Spotify is leaving money on the table so every choice is better than $0.
You’re right though, they can, without issue, charge 30% more. Some devs do this.
All of this means that it ultimately isn’t about “hurting” because Spotify is actively cutting off their nose to spite their face. What this is about is not wanting Apple to get a cut of the pie, even if they’d charge 30% and wouldn’t lose a dime. With that in mind, I think it’s fair game for Apple to point out all the benefits Spotify has enjoyed at Apple’s expense.
The 30% fee + no way to redirect users to better offers is kind of extreme, especially when Apple has a first party offering which doesn't need to go through the same hoops.
Spotify haven't paid revenue to Apple in years... because they haven't offered payment from inside the iOS app.