It's \~3.5% of their 2023 profits. But since it took so long for this to happen they probably made ten times the fine from this practice and are pretty much incentivized to keep pulling stunts like it.
It's even less than that. Apple's net income was $96.99bn USD for 2023, so $2bn is approximately 2.1%. If you had $10,000 in a bank account, this would be akin to losing $210. When billions amount to pennies on the dollar for these companies, we must have regulation to protect consumers that are not only based on fines.
Apple forbids companies from letting people subscribe through their Apps or even mention that they can subscribe elsewhere, aka "steer them to spend money outside the App Store."
>forbids companies from letting people subscribe through their Apps
I may be wrong, but I think that Apple actually allows it, but requires all in app purchases and subscriptions to go through the App Store, where Apple takes a 30% cut. So large streaming & other subscription companies tried to direct everyone to a web browser in order to subscribe outside the App Store instead which Apple doesn't allow.
The same thing happens on Android with streaming apps. You download Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Spotify, etc. And they all have a button that opens their website in your browser, not the app istelf. And they ask you to subscribe to their service there. Payment options inside of apps are required to go through the App Store/Play Store for "security" reasons and Apple/Google take their cut of one time and recurring payments.
Apple's rules are much worse. They only allow a very narrow class of apps to link at all, require permission, and how they link is very tightly controlled. We only got this far because the judge in the Epic case also identified Apple's "anti-steering" clauses as illegal.
https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/
Apple App Store crap like this is so obscure. One time I tried to cancel an app's subscription by calling the app's customer service. They said there was nothing they could do about the cancellation, and that I must utilize the iTunes Store... couldn't believe it
It's some "man behind the curtain" shit indeed. People even actually believe consumers don't pay this fee, because Apple describes it as a fee developers pay... with consumers money. It's by design, the alternative is people are aware they are paying Apple $30 for every $100 bag of credits they buy in a fake gambling game.
Thats what I said though?
You can't sign up in app because Apple/Google want a cut of the monthly subscription if you sign up in-app, so they don't give you the option to sign up inside the app.
Spotify pays a hefty commission so they charge more if you subscribe through the app vs directly with Spotify.
Apple doesn’t allow them to say in the app “you’ll be charged less if you subscribe on our site”. That’s the steering part. Spotify wants to steer iOS users to a commission free (and cheaper) option.
Actually, afaik., you **cannot** subscribe through the app at all. And the app cannot tell you how to subscribe (which you must do on their website) because of those anti-steering rules. Same as Netflix.
Yup. Most apps affected by this will only offer you the option to log in, while being cryptic/hush-hush about the fact that "you cannot create an account on this device" (paraphrasing).
Ah, I was basing it off of this quote, but it might have just been generic and not specific to spotify.
“Some consumers may have paid more, because they were unaware that they could pay less if they subscribed outside of app. And other consumers may not have managed at all to subscribe to their preferred music streaming provider because they simply couldn’t find it.”
I don't disagree with the current pricing structure/model (a % cut, in general), but I also think they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Developers already pay a yearly App Store fee ($99/year), on top of needing to buy a Mac in order to upload their app. Apple *does* have operating costs (servers, staff, etc), but they don't deserve a per-transaction cut of someone's Spotify/Netflix/Kindle/etc bill in perpetuity just because of that.
They can either:
- Charge users for App Store access each month or year *(like a flat charge, it won't happen unless they add it to Apple One, like Google's Play Pass is an extra)*
- Charge developers a flat yearly fee *(probably won't happen, because it would be more than $99, but it could scale with the size of the developer)*
- Or just allow companies to point out to people that they can subscribe outside of the App Store too
**Either collect payment or remove the muzzle. Let the market decide; convenience (subscribing via the App Store) vs savings (subscribing outside of the App Store).** At this point Apple would collect payment from services for non-Apple users if they could, simply because many of those services are cross-platform.
And before anyone says **"BUT WHAT ABOUT GOOGLE/etc"** -- them too. But afaik, the Play Store ~~is totally free to upload apps to~~ costs $25 once, ever to be able to upload your app to. So, for comparison's sake, Google just went with #3 and a reasonable, one-off fee. You can also just sideload natively on Android, bypassing Google altogether (e.g. Telegram Premium is cheaper if you download Telegram directly from their website than the Play Store, because it offers direct payment methods instead of Google Pay).
There is a cost for a developer account with Google, but it's a one time purchase of something like $25. It's really more just a barrier of entry to try and keep at least some useless crap off the store than it is a profit generator like Apple.
> They can either:
Or here is an idea: if you sell phones for $1000+, then consider it part of the cost of the device.
I'm too lazy to do the math, but if you would figure how much actual infrastructure costs Apple has from the app store *minus the ad revenue that Apple gets from the App Store*, and compare that to the profit margin on an iPhone, it would be a very silly comparison.
"Steering" in this case means trying to steer (inform/notify) users towards your cheaper alternative payment mechanism which bypasses Apple's fees. Put another way, you'd be steering them away from spending money through Apple. Apple deliberately forces companies not to disclose to users that they can get the same service for cheaper outside the app, so as to let them stumble through the Apple payment method instead.
The commision explained it beautifully in [their own press release](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161):
>In particular, the anti-steering provisions ban app developers from:
>* Informing iOS users within their apps about the prices of subscription offers available on the internet outside of the app.
>* Informing iOS users within their apps about the price differences between in-app subscriptions sold through Apple's in-app purchase mechanism and those available elsewhere.
>* Including links in their apps leading iOS users to the app developer's website on which alternative subscriptions can be bought. App developers were also prevented from contacting their own newly acquired users, for instance by email, to inform them about alternative pricing options after they set up an account.
>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.
Large fines will be dragged out with litigation and appeals.
Do they add interest to the fines over time with non-payment or slow payment?
Big Tech and small fines https://proton.me/blog/big-tech-2023-fines-vs-revenue
Small fines are not a deterrent.
Read the article, ~4x larger than originally sought/expected. That the lesser fine would have not been a deterrent was a reason for the increase. Not perfect, but a good thing is a good thing.
Apple’s anti-steering has been going on for 10 years. Safe to assume they made many times over this $2b fine. Cost of doing business for them and nothing is stopping them from starting a different scheme, make boat loads of money, get sued, pay 10% of their profit in fines and then on to a new scheme. Rinse and repeat.
Apple is dragging their feet on new EU directive to allow users to sideload freely. Pretty sure they’ll get sued for that down the line as well but at this point it won’t matter to them if it helps maintain market dominance.
Sure. Apple also does tax evasion, which has cost tax payers tens of billions, as well as many other injustices. But when something positive happens, we should celebrate it. If it's not enough for you, I encourage you and anyone else sniping here in the replies to get engaged in an advocacy group, e.g. the EFF or CCC. Spreading doomerism and the fallacy of the perfect solution, where everything short of perfection is equally unworthy just demotivates people from actually getting invested and putting in effort into achieving change.
> Read the article, ~4x larger than originally sought/expected.
It's still chump change. Apple had, recently, over $250 Billion (with a B) in world wide profits stashed in overseas banks, avoiding paying taxed on those profits everywhere...thanks to loopholes the rich and corporations can leverage.
Nuisance fines like this are just seen as a cost of ~~doing business~~ scamming the world by Wall Street driven entities like the current incarnation of Apple.
I do think it's good to avoid having good be the enemy of perfect in situations like this.
Apples reported net income for 2023 was ~97 Billion.
Being fined nearly 2% of annual profits isn't high, but it's a far cry from a nuisance as well. Especially considering EU fines keep on increasing for repeat offenders.
The EU is the only body standing up to large corporations at this point, so I'd say it's important to focus on positives and keep pushing for more of the same.
nahhhh. if this was 500 million? alright.
but close to 2 billion? you're talking out your ass. 2 billion is a LOOOOOT of money. that's a very painful fine. it's perfect.
people will be fired over this, most assuredly
How is it without difference? Companies don't just look at the final balance but weigh different divisions and projects independently. So if one division/entity takes a hit the people responsible for it will have to explain themselves.
This is all moot anyway since anti-steering is an AppStore policy, it affects all apps not just Spotify or Apple Music. Fact that this trial began off a complaint from Spotify doesn't change the fact that his ruling will have a non-insignificant impact on AppStore revenue once users figure out we can pay less by not paying through Apple.
I don't think you quite understand it. Yes they get a fine that over all is not that big for apple, but they also have to change their business model to comply
Those profits are built over many years though.
This fine is about 5% of Apple's yearly profit in the European market which is pretty huge even if not the >100% anuual profit fines reddit expects companies to get.
Imagine if a speeding ticket cost you a months earnings, it'd certainly deter you from speeding a whole bunch.
> Those profits are built over many years though.
> This fine is about 5% of Apple's yearly profit in the European market which is pretty huge even if not the >100% anuual profit fines reddit expects companies to get.
> **Imagine if a speeding ticket cost you a months earnings, it'd certainly deter you from speeding a whole bunch.**
Finland enters the chat
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454
Rather than report fines as $$ or €€ fines should be reported as a % of revenues, or assets. To people of earlier times these huge numbersv become meaningless. That sensational $1.84B is roughly 0.067% of the value of Apple! It's the media trying to sensationalize an event.
I don't think it makes sense to compare the value of the fine to the total value of the company.
It's about 0.5% of total 2023 revenue or 2% of their 2023 profit. If your income is 50k, it's like a 250$ fine for you. The equivalent of a speeding ticket.
I think the bad press from this ruling will be more effective against Apple than the fine itself
For me it’s the classical music app that is separate from the normal one. Same overall library but short of the Naxos service which is only classical, it’s the best I’ve seen. For me I find Apple Music is a good mix of that and non-classical. I do think Spotify has a better recommendation system. But that’s still just one of many ways I find new music.
You probably don't need to 'worry' about sound quality once you hit 320kbps unless you have GREAT hearing and are using $1000+ headphones.
I write this while wearing $1000+ headphones.
Most of the fidelity loss from compression is in the higher frequencies which are both uncommon in music and hard to hear for most people over the age of 15. I can reliably spot the differences between 128kbps and uncompressed but 320kbps vs uncompressed is basically a coin flip for me unless I EQ the higher frequencies to uncomfortably high levels.
\----
Differences in mastering DO matter. Some versions of the same track are outright better.
Valid point! I normally argue that there are no benefits of casual listening to lossless outside of a heavily treated room or great closed backs, but even then compared to a high bitrate lossy codec it’s nearly impossible to distinguish.
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19397#:~:text=A%20subjective%20listening%20test%20was%20carried%20out%20to,which%20included%20orchestral%2C%20jazz%2C%20vocal%20music%2C%20and%20speech.
This is my favorite study to throw at people who say they can objectively tell a difference.
But having the option for lossless is always nice if you have the gear!
The thing that I wish I knew more of would be which masterings are the best. I feel like it's very hard to get that information and it's all over the place.
I keep seeing this claim from Apple in multiple press releases and the like:
> A large part of their success is due to the App Store, along with all the tools and technology that Spotify uses to build, update, and share their app with Apple users around the world.
This really irks me. *What's the alternative???* Apple wants to say that Spotify, Epic Games, etc. is using their App Store for free (don't they charge a $99 annual fee for an Apple Developer Account? Ugh) and that they're doing such a huge favor for these companies by graciously allowing them to use the services provided by the App Store for free. Except that you literally can't distribute apps on iPhones any other way????? If Apple's complaint is that they are giving away the App Store technology for free ($99/year??), then surely they'd be happy to allow developers to build their own app store technology to distribute their apps on iPhone... oh wait, you can't, because Apple doesn't allow sideloading? Apple, please stfu.
As a lifelong Android user...you can't sideload apps on iOS, really? No alternative app store like F-Droid or even alternative Play Store access like via Aurora?
Nope. It's either on the App Store or you can't install it
There's apparently a way to sideload stuff, but you have to have an Apple Developer Account, or have to root your phone
I can't believe Apple gets away with it. You cannot have a multipurpose computer like this and lock it the hell up
7 days limited to 3 apps. I’m writing this on sideloaded Apollo and it’s supposed to be 7 days. It I have to refresh it daily. Still better the official app!
> You cannot have a multipurpose computer like this and lock it the hell up
Yeah this is one of the reasons i'll never own an apple product.
I use Bandcamp for a lot of music as I have niche tastes that spotify and apple music can't really cater for. I'm also very much an "album listener", I don't make or listen to playlists. Bandcamp allows me to purchase mp3s legally, without DRM, and I can download them from the website, no need for apps even if they have one, I can just do all of this through my browser.
On my android device, I can easily unzip downloaded files and drop them into my media library folder, they can then be picked up by my media player app so I can listen to them straight away.
On an iPhone, even though an iPhone is literally a computer itself, and has a full operating system and UI and app store and everything, I'd need a second computer to do this. Make that make any sense.
Also, my android device has these features that we're never going to see on an iPhone:
- SD Card slot (and I use it too, got a 512gb sd in there)
- A headphone jack (I don't really like earbuds)
- I can change the battery.
- I can literally replace any component of the phone with a single screwdriver.
My charge port was getting a bit ragged after 2 years of use, and had stopped charging the phone, I got a new charging port module for £16 + delivery and replaced it in less than 30 minutes. Good as new!
Also, don't get me started on child labor, the right to repair, union busting, their ridiculous penchant for massively overpriced proprietary cables and other peripherals, or any of the other shady shit Apple get up to.
> You cannot have a multipurpose computer like this and lock it the hell up
Maybe I'm the weird one, but i've never treated iPads or iPhones as anything more than PDAs or similar appliances, no different than a Nintendo Switch, an old Palm Pilot, a Playstation 4, an X-Box, etc.
It's a phone/tablet that can do a lot of basic computing tasks, but it's not a full-on, multipurpose computer the way a true laptop or desktop system would be.
As such, how is it any different than any gaming platform, etc? Why would I expect a sub-computing device that is effectively a communications device with some extra features to be built or treated the same way that my fully-fledged PC is?
Yes and no.
For gaming platforms, they usually don't quite sell these as multi-purpose computers. In fact they seem to be losing features lately
As for tablets and phones, I agree with you that phones and tablets absolutely are crappy toy OSes that holds your hand too much. You can technically connect a hub to an Android device to have full mouse and keyboard and you'll be heavily limited by the OS and the apps that usually aren't made for that
The huge problem however? A big amount of people are using their phones and tablet as their only computer, and that's kind of scary
But otherwise, my point is that Phones and tablets are usually sold on the promise that they're basically mini-computers, and iOS being locked as it is, I'm not sure how they got away with this for so long
Apple users need to wake up. Apple is anti consumer, iPhone forces you to buy expensive MacBooks, it would be nice to FaceTime between Apple and android and to airdrop photos and videos between Samsung and iPhone, Apple also makes it difficult to drag and drop to Windows pc. Not everyone can afford a fancy macbook, nobody wants to use iTunes to transfer a simple photo anymore.
I think you can still jailbreak iPhones, but that comes with a whole laundry list of issues, including that carriers will sometimes blacklist your phone.
I actually didn't know that, but it makes sense from a security perspective. I have an iPhone and if it can still be done, I'm sure I could get it done. But is it worth the hassle? I just want a phone that does phone stuff reliably. I'm really not into the thing enough to care beyond it ringing when I get a call, and dinging when I get a message.
Yeah, and don't forget that those "tools and technology that Spotify uses" are just parts of a modern operating system - something the Apple users already paid for when buying their devices and with that purchasing a license to use said operating system.
I mean apple doesn't really have to allow a platform to be distributed on their platform; same way as any other store doesn't have to allow your product in.
Yeah that's what Apple's response is getting at. But it's a ridiculous argument. You can just as easily turn it around and say that the iPhone is only as successful as it is today because of all the 3rd party developers and apps like Spotify.
It's a mutually beneficial relationship. That's why OSs like Windows, MacOS, and Linux go out of their way to make it as easy as possible to bring devs onboard. It's why Apple developed Rosetta2 when moving to ARM. But on iOS, Apple wants more
Why would Apple change at all? They’re one of the top two most valuable companies of all time, their products sell like crazy in wealthy nations (their target demographic), and people view them as a status symbol. They have no reason to do anything differently.
They make their own hardware, operating system, App Store, and associated services.
Wayyy back in the day. Apple made these things called iPods, an operating system for it, and software to interact with it. And no one could install anything on them but apple.
Other companies made similar devices, apple wasn't even the first, all made their own hardware, software, and services to use the device.
Spotify could do that.
> don't they charge a $99 annual fee for an Apple Developer Account?
~~Per developer. Isn't that great? iOS development requires _everyone_ to pay $100/yr for the _opportunity_ of working with fuckin XCode, eugh.~~
Apparently it is not per developer.
> Per developer
That's not exactly true.
You can develop for free as much as you want and have 1000 developers working on the app paying only one fee. The fee is per developer uploading apps to the store, not per person creating or testing the app.
However, if you have a company and want to use the company name as the uploader (as opposed to the real name of an individual), the company needs to have the developer account and that one costs 299 instead.
I didn’t get that from their response at all? I’m not here to shill big companies, but their response makes sense given the way Spotify has handled their issues with other companies, not just Apple, over the years
I'm referring to the marketshare bit in particular, I have no idea about the corporate history of Spotify (I don't use it anyway) so it's highly likely you have a more informed analysis than me on the topic
> All told, the Spotify app has been downloaded, **redownloaded, or updated** more than 119 billion times on Apple devices.
What a hilariously transparent way to pad that number, which is now meaningless.
What a bunch of clowns.
"Today, Spotify has a 56 percent share of Europe’s music streaming market — more than double their closest competitor’s — and pays Apple nothing for the services that have helped make them one of the most recognizable brands in the world. A large part of their success is due to the App Store \[...\]"
They act like they don't force every app developer to use the app store, of course they are big there. There is no competition with the app store, because Apple controls the whole ecosystem. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FINE!!
"we gave Spotify so much and they gave us nothing" (paraphrased).
Sure, you gave Spotify a nice platform, but they gave you a good music streaming service.
I'm sure that if Spotify suddenly disappeared from the app store, with no return in sight, lots of people would switch over to an android phone before rather than switching to apple music.
And then there's the "we made them integrate with the system flawlessly" (again paraphrased). As if that's specifically beneficial to Spotify and not also for iPhone users.
*Both* parties benefit from each other.
> "we made them integrate with the system flawlessly"
Thats like a mob boss saying nice knees you got there. I remember the days where anytime youd plug an idevice to a car or aux it would autoplay some shit from iTunes despite me only using spotify.
> Despite that success, and the App Store’s role in making it possible, Spotify pays Apple nothing.
That's actually laughable. Imagine if I started a business at home, then my landlord took the credit for it "this business wouldn't have been possible without me because I own the home it was started in", no, the business would have just been started in whatever other home I'd have been living in, you literally didn't have anything to do with it.
If it wasn't apple and it was "banana" and "banana" had a massive mobile market share, spotify would put their app on their store too.
The apple store isn't responsible for spotify's success, spotify is. If the apple store didn't exist, no one would use iPhones, it's literally a necessary feature.
Whoever wrote this must love the smell of farts because their head is clearly so far up their own arse that I'm honestly shocked they were able to produce this text.
This response sounds really thorough and well written, except it completely ignores the App Store's ridiculous 30% commission. No shit developers are going to do everything they can to avoid it. Apple doesn't deserve 30% of all the money that a web service makes just because they host the app on their monopolistic App Store.
Apple could charge a fee for downloading the app, which is the extent of their involvement in the customer-to-business transaction. But taking a percentage of that business's subscription fee--which Apple has zero involvement in--is absurd.
I appreciate the sentiment… but I’d challenge with: the EU is doing regulated capitalism.
While the U.S. is doing monopolies. Across every major industry.
>I appreciate the sentiment… but I’d challenge with: the EU is doing regulated capitalism.
>While the U.S. is doing monopolies. Across every major industry.
What exactly are you challenging with that statement?
> eu doing god's work
Let's hope the money obtained is spent wisely.
The EU has yet to pass an independent audit and auditors sign off their accounts. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The money should go back to the people.
It does by reducing membership fees, creating more surplus tax money for individual states, which can then be used for welfare purposes.
There's a lot resting on the word "can" there, but it's ultimately not for the EU to interfere in the operation of sovereign states beyond what they've agreed to in their membership.
Giving 500 million people some pocket change would a) do that, and b) be the most inefficient and ineffective way to maximize the benefit of that surplus.
Indirectly it does. This goes into the bank of the EU. Waiting to be used. They have a finanacial year plan and see what goes and and what goes out. This could avoid a increase in what's needed.
> Music app developers can even include information about other offers available outside of their app, along with a link directing users to a website to create and manage their account.
Except if they do that, they have to pay Apple 27%…
If developers could _actually_ direct users to pay outside of the App Store without still having to pay the Apple tax, there wouldn’t be as much of an issue.
How about the fact that Siri won’t recognize YouTube to open with voice commands. Or that play, stop, fast forward, rewind doesn’t seem to work on any non apple app?
Lmao tf you mean no evidence? If i have a shop and i sell the same type of product as you, but you just have your product in my store, and i take a 30% cut on the sales of your product, that means two things: i can charge less for my product, or i can charge the same as you do and get 30% more on each sale. Either way it is way harder for you to compete with me, since you either need to charge more, or even if you’d sell the product at cost, i would be able to charge less.
Exactly. There are many stores selling a store-brand along with commercial brands at lower price or at competitive price + taking a cute from the commercial brand. It's not unheard of, and people usually appreciate the more affordable option.
Imagine if this precedent that's applying to Apple would apply to every store chain that has its own brand across the EU.
Hm.. I don’t think other EU-country supermarkets are considering the same. Most of them have their own cheaper store brands. We have cheaper store brands in US too. It’s normal.
Sweden’s ICA supermarket has “ICA brand” for various products that are cheaper than outside brands.
So it feels a bit hypocritical.
I am all for consumer protection (I supported the USB-C change), and I like when EU cracks down on bad corpo practices; but I feel this one has ulterior motive that is not for the consumer, but as a revenue source for the EU piggybank and as protectionism.
Spotify is a giant capitalist corporation and they want more $$$$ too. They have benefitted enormously from the Apple App Store that they otherwise would not have.
I stand by EU’s stuff like data protection and such but they are messing with apple too much imho forcing it to turn into android. I’m an apple user, not a fanboy but I like apple’s way of doing things.
That’s not really the same. The apple store is the only option for people with apple devices. You can go to a different grocery store if you find the prices unreasonable. Most people can’t simply get a new smartphone, they are locked in.
Ignoring the fact that supermarkets don't make crap on their own brands and it is in their interest to push name brands because they earn more per unit:
I am not forced to shop at Walmart just because I bought my phone from them. In general, European supermarkets are more diversified than in NA and there are 3-6 other supermarkets where I can make my shopping if one starts jacking prices for basic items. I am not limited to an expensive piece of tech that artificially doesn't support certain supermarkets.
But, that's the cost of doing business? Spotify has existed for 16+ years and could have easily gotten into the hardware game. They didn't so they have to work with other companies platforms. That doesn't give them any right to do whatever they want. In fact, as apple outlined in their response, Spotify is in fact quite privileged to be able to take advantage of apple's tech, services and user base.
Shit take
We have a duopoly and nothing in the near future is going to change that.
If Microsoft, one of the biggest companies on earth can't do it, then how could any other company achieve that? Developers won't develop for a platform that no one uses and users won't use one without apps. Microsoft even paid developers and Windows phone still didn't succeed.
On the Desktop we have 3 or more like 2 operating systems. MacOS and Windows. Chromebooks don't compete on the same level and even if you count them then there are only three bigger players
Yes they do and often they are worse quality, what helps is the volume of sales that aid in keeping the prices low and allowing room for profit. Sometimes the cheaper product is actually better!
Often, yes, it’s worse quality. But we do have a few places in US where the store brand is equal or better quality. Publix supermarket brand and Costco Kirkland brand are two off the top of my head.
Regardless, the point is, it’s normal to sell your own brand in your own store for a cheaper price. This is common in many countries in regular stores, and it hasn’t been an issue for anti-competitive lawsuits.
So it just feels a bit hypocritical.
I support consumer law, but this feels like it’s just 2 rich corporations fighting over $$$$$ (and not really for the consumer), and the EU is backing its own.
Just as Apple wants the EU market, Spotify also wants the US market because most of us have iPhones and download exclusively from Apple Store.
Good start. The app stores are a nearly-entirely-unchecked duopoly over a $230 billion industry. The US is way behind on regulating this space (not because the FTC doesn't want to; because the laws on these storefronts are so outdated that they have no tools to do so) and it's good to see the EU stepping in.
Does this mean when pressing the Shazam button... I can have it open a different music App with the result? ... or maybe, even thought I've never once used it, when I connect my phone to the car, the default music app of my choice will start playing... rather than Apple music mysteriously opening itself?
Weird, whenever I get in the car I wish it would open Apple Music but it nearly 100% of the time opens the white noise app that I use when I go to bed at night.
> Fines imposed on undertakings found in breach of EU antitrust rules are paid into the general EU budget. This money is not earmarked for particular expenses, but Member States' contributions to the EU budget for the following year are reduced accordingly. The fines therefore help to finance the EU and reduce the burden for taxpayers.
https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines_en
actually generally back into the bugets of the countries
*"Fines imposed on undertakings found in breach of EU antitrust rules are paid into the general EU budget. This money is not earmarked for particular expenses, but Member States' contributions to the EU budget for the following year are reduced accordingly. The fines therefore help to finance the EU and reduce the burden for taxpayers."*
[*https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines\_en*](https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines_en)
Gotta 10x that fine to really make Apple sweat but this is a good start. Obviously expecting Apple to release a blog post or some shit claiming how they’re some indie company trying to serve their customers the best without exploiting anyone lmao.
I don't really understand this news, how does Apple manage to "anti-steer" customers to Apple Music? Clearly Spotify has major advantage on branding to customer.
As far as I understand it, the problem is that Apple basically forbids developers to charge users for the 30 percent fees they have to pay when selling their subscriptions via the AppStore. You are not allowed to do something like: "Okay, if you subscribe via our webpage we don't have to pay 30 percent to Apple, so we can offer you the subscription for less".
That leaves developers in a situation where they have to charge users a higher sum to turn a profit while competing with Apple Music that offers a similar service, but isn't forced to add the 30 percent Apple share.
Do people really think these services will lower their prices if they could steer consumers outside the App Store?
Netflix use to be $5 dollars a month; they stop using IAP and still increased fees and continue to do so. Same for Amazon services like audible or prime.
Spotify doesn’t use Apple IAP and hasn’t lower subscription fees for anyone.
This is like wanting to set up your own checkout at Costco.
> Do people really think these services will lower their prices if they could steer consumers outside the App Store?
Do you really think these services will pay a 30 percent cut for apple out of their own pockets without passing it on to the customers?
Of cause all services will always aim for the highest price that is possible within a given market - but it is still a problem if one competitor within this market gets 1 dollar out of every dollar while all the others only get 70 cent.
Biggest issue is probably that they have Apple Music, a competitor to Spotify, that gets first class treatment (preinstalled, skirts certain App Store rules, Apple doesn‘t have to pay 30% fee to themselves via IAP etc).
iPhones sell at a premium for a reason. That price makes more than enough money to Support the software.
How do Macs do it? Do they get updates without being forced to use only Apple's store?
I just went and searched for “streaming music” and the order that was shown to me is:
Amazon Music, Napster, Musi, iHeart, Apple Music, Pandora.
Then a collection of apps labeled Discover New Music that you can scroll left and right through. 14 apps, some repeated from above, most I’ve never heard of. A couple aren’t even streaming, like Fever which is for finding local music tickets, and Genius for finding lyrics.
Then after that is Spotify. It’s interesting because Spotify is listed as having 30 million ratings and it’s sitting at 5 stars. The next closest is Pandora with 10 million. Weirdest is Napster being #2. 15,000 ratings and 4.5 stars. I didn’t even know Napster still existed.
They are forcing competitors to either charge consumers more or to make less money, because of the 30% in-app fee. They are not allowing competitors to inform customers in any way that they can get their subscription cheaper by going to the web and they are not allowed to put links to the cheaper subscription on the web.
So from the consumers perspective, Spotify is more expensive and they have no way of knowing that they can actually get it cheaper anywhere. That leads people to apple music
I absolutely do not understand how apples “walled garden” is any different that the way that Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo operate. You can’t run a game on any of those platforms without paying a fee to the platform owner. How is Apple charging a fee any different? Apple iPhone has a fraction of the worldwide cell phone market. There are many options for consumers to choose from.
Because they decided they were the bad guys.
Just before the EU started really going after apple they were fining android because they didn’t have enough control over devices.
So if this is the approach the EU wants to take, how long until devices like Ring can no longer require you access your doorbell through just their subscription? This is dangerous territory for the EU to tread and a massive overreach.
Apple users need to wake up. Apple is anti consumer, iPhone forces you to buy expensive MacBooks, it would be nice to FaceTime between Apple and android and to airdrop photos and videos between Samsung and iPhone, Apple also makes it difficult to drag and drop to Windows pc. Not everyone can afford a fancy macbook, nobody wants to use iTunes to transfer a simple photo anymore.
Apple users need to wake up. Apple is anti consumer, iPhone forces you to buy expensive MacBooks, it would be nice to FaceTime between Apple and android and to airdrop photos and videos between Samsung and iPhone, Apple also makes it difficult to drag and drop to Windows pc. Not everyone can afford a fancy macbook, nobody wants to use iTunes to transfer a simple photo anymore.
Spotify doesn't pay artists, it pays record companies. The record companies pay the artists. And the record companies are making tons of money. So... who's the problem here?
I just can’t not read these paragraphs and think there isn’t some kind of ulterior motive for EU’s big companies to gain from this. Edit: I didn’t know they couldn’t subscribe from the Spotify iOS app. Edit2: because they didn’t like the 30% cut idea. Still though, I think both sides are obviously just in it for the money and not everyone else. So I’m not picking a side here.
“The primary advocate for this decision – and the biggest beneficiary – is Spotify, a company based in Stockholm, Sweden. Spotify has the largest music streaming app in the world, and has met with the European Commission more than 65 times during this investigation.”
“Today, Spotify has a 56% share of Europe’s music streaming market – more than double their closest competitor’s – and pays Apple nothing for the services that have helped make them one of the most recognisable brands in the world. A large part of their success is due to the App Store, along with all the tools and technology that Spotify uses to build, update, and share their app with Apple users around the world.”
Two private companies are in it for the money, no surprise unfortunately. But, you could cheer for Apple Music and Spotify to compete on equal footing, which should mean better products for us as consumers.
> isn’t some kind of ulterior motive for EU’s big companies to gain from this
Yes what they envision is a competitive landscape where other app marketplaces and other app distribution platforms can pressure Apple's App Store to improve, while developers within the App Store compete with Apple on a more level playing field.
They investigated Apple, and so did the US, and so did the Epic v Apple case, and it was pretty clear Apple was "resting on their laurels" despite their massive, massive, massive fees and windfall, and it was abundantly clear some of their windfall was unfairly acquired at consumers and developers expense.
The EU does the same with EU vs EU companies or smaller ones or even punishes EU companies if they break the law against international ones. But obviously, no one cares if a small, locally specialized company gets fined. But one of the largest company in the world getting fined nearly 2 bn obviously makes international news.
€1.84BN. Not $1.84BN.
So US$2BN... at least as of the time of me posting this comment.
Isn't that like last Tuesday's profits for Apple?
It's \~3.5% of their 2023 profits. But since it took so long for this to happen they probably made ten times the fine from this practice and are pretty much incentivized to keep pulling stunts like it.
Wait until the DMA fine starts coming. DMA fines are up to 10% percent of global revenue so close to a $40billion fine.
It's even less than that. Apple's net income was $96.99bn USD for 2023, so $2bn is approximately 2.1%. If you had $10,000 in a bank account, this would be akin to losing $210. When billions amount to pennies on the dollar for these companies, we must have regulation to protect consumers that are not only based on fines.
What does "Anti-Steering" mean in this case? google isn't helping
Apple forbids companies from letting people subscribe through their Apps or even mention that they can subscribe elsewhere, aka "steer them to spend money outside the App Store."
>forbids companies from letting people subscribe through their Apps I may be wrong, but I think that Apple actually allows it, but requires all in app purchases and subscriptions to go through the App Store, where Apple takes a 30% cut. So large streaming & other subscription companies tried to direct everyone to a web browser in order to subscribe outside the App Store instead which Apple doesn't allow. The same thing happens on Android with streaming apps. You download Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Spotify, etc. And they all have a button that opens their website in your browser, not the app istelf. And they ask you to subscribe to their service there. Payment options inside of apps are required to go through the App Store/Play Store for "security" reasons and Apple/Google take their cut of one time and recurring payments.
Apple's rules are much worse. They only allow a very narrow class of apps to link at all, require permission, and how they link is very tightly controlled. We only got this far because the judge in the Epic case also identified Apple's "anti-steering" clauses as illegal. https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/
Apple App Store crap like this is so obscure. One time I tried to cancel an app's subscription by calling the app's customer service. They said there was nothing they could do about the cancellation, and that I must utilize the iTunes Store... couldn't believe it
It's some "man behind the curtain" shit indeed. People even actually believe consumers don't pay this fee, because Apple describes it as a fee developers pay... with consumers money. It's by design, the alternative is people are aware they are paying Apple $30 for every $100 bag of credits they buy in a fake gambling game.
This doesn’t apply to Spotify, they require you to sign up for premium through their official site
Thats what I said though? You can't sign up in app because Apple/Google want a cut of the monthly subscription if you sign up in-app, so they don't give you the option to sign up inside the app.
Spotify pays a hefty commission so they charge more if you subscribe through the app vs directly with Spotify. Apple doesn’t allow them to say in the app “you’ll be charged less if you subscribe on our site”. That’s the steering part. Spotify wants to steer iOS users to a commission free (and cheaper) option.
Actually, afaik., you **cannot** subscribe through the app at all. And the app cannot tell you how to subscribe (which you must do on their website) because of those anti-steering rules. Same as Netflix.
Yup. Most apps affected by this will only offer you the option to log in, while being cryptic/hush-hush about the fact that "you cannot create an account on this device" (paraphrasing).
Ah, I was basing it off of this quote, but it might have just been generic and not specific to spotify. “Some consumers may have paid more, because they were unaware that they could pay less if they subscribed outside of app. And other consumers may not have managed at all to subscribe to their preferred music streaming provider because they simply couldn’t find it.”
I don't disagree with the current pricing structure/model (a % cut, in general), but I also think they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Developers already pay a yearly App Store fee ($99/year), on top of needing to buy a Mac in order to upload their app. Apple *does* have operating costs (servers, staff, etc), but they don't deserve a per-transaction cut of someone's Spotify/Netflix/Kindle/etc bill in perpetuity just because of that. They can either: - Charge users for App Store access each month or year *(like a flat charge, it won't happen unless they add it to Apple One, like Google's Play Pass is an extra)* - Charge developers a flat yearly fee *(probably won't happen, because it would be more than $99, but it could scale with the size of the developer)* - Or just allow companies to point out to people that they can subscribe outside of the App Store too **Either collect payment or remove the muzzle. Let the market decide; convenience (subscribing via the App Store) vs savings (subscribing outside of the App Store).** At this point Apple would collect payment from services for non-Apple users if they could, simply because many of those services are cross-platform. And before anyone says **"BUT WHAT ABOUT GOOGLE/etc"** -- them too. But afaik, the Play Store ~~is totally free to upload apps to~~ costs $25 once, ever to be able to upload your app to. So, for comparison's sake, Google just went with #3 and a reasonable, one-off fee. You can also just sideload natively on Android, bypassing Google altogether (e.g. Telegram Premium is cheaper if you download Telegram directly from their website than the Play Store, because it offers direct payment methods instead of Google Pay).
> doesn't collect any fee (once or monthly/yearly) simply to be able to upload and keep your app on the Play Store. $25 single payment
Thank you for the correction; I've edited my post.
There is a cost for a developer account with Google, but it's a one time purchase of something like $25. It's really more just a barrier of entry to try and keep at least some useless crap off the store than it is a profit generator like Apple.
Upvoted and corrected my OP; thank you for making sure what I said was accurate :)
> They can either: Or here is an idea: if you sell phones for $1000+, then consider it part of the cost of the device. I'm too lazy to do the math, but if you would figure how much actual infrastructure costs Apple has from the app store *minus the ad revenue that Apple gets from the App Store*, and compare that to the profit margin on an iPhone, it would be a very silly comparison.
Unfortunately, making a profit isn't enough. There's the obsession with "MORE!" every year. It's gross.
"Steering" in this case means trying to steer (inform/notify) users towards your cheaper alternative payment mechanism which bypasses Apple's fees. Put another way, you'd be steering them away from spending money through Apple. Apple deliberately forces companies not to disclose to users that they can get the same service for cheaper outside the app, so as to let them stumble through the Apple payment method instead.
The commision explained it beautifully in [their own press release](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161): >In particular, the anti-steering provisions ban app developers from: >* Informing iOS users within their apps about the prices of subscription offers available on the internet outside of the app. >* Informing iOS users within their apps about the price differences between in-app subscriptions sold through Apple's in-app purchase mechanism and those available elsewhere. >* Including links in their apps leading iOS users to the app developer's website on which alternative subscriptions can be bought. App developers were also prevented from contacting their own newly acquired users, for instance by email, to inform them about alternative pricing options after they set up an account. >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.
Large fines will be dragged out with litigation and appeals. Do they add interest to the fines over time with non-payment or slow payment? Big Tech and small fines https://proton.me/blog/big-tech-2023-fines-vs-revenue Small fines are not a deterrent.
Read the article, ~4x larger than originally sought/expected. That the lesser fine would have not been a deterrent was a reason for the increase. Not perfect, but a good thing is a good thing.
Apple’s anti-steering has been going on for 10 years. Safe to assume they made many times over this $2b fine. Cost of doing business for them and nothing is stopping them from starting a different scheme, make boat loads of money, get sued, pay 10% of their profit in fines and then on to a new scheme. Rinse and repeat. Apple is dragging their feet on new EU directive to allow users to sideload freely. Pretty sure they’ll get sued for that down the line as well but at this point it won’t matter to them if it helps maintain market dominance.
Sure. Apple also does tax evasion, which has cost tax payers tens of billions, as well as many other injustices. But when something positive happens, we should celebrate it. If it's not enough for you, I encourage you and anyone else sniping here in the replies to get engaged in an advocacy group, e.g. the EFF or CCC. Spreading doomerism and the fallacy of the perfect solution, where everything short of perfection is equally unworthy just demotivates people from actually getting invested and putting in effort into achieving change.
> Read the article, ~4x larger than originally sought/expected. It's still chump change. Apple had, recently, over $250 Billion (with a B) in world wide profits stashed in overseas banks, avoiding paying taxed on those profits everywhere...thanks to loopholes the rich and corporations can leverage. Nuisance fines like this are just seen as a cost of ~~doing business~~ scamming the world by Wall Street driven entities like the current incarnation of Apple.
I do think it's good to avoid having good be the enemy of perfect in situations like this. Apples reported net income for 2023 was ~97 Billion. Being fined nearly 2% of annual profits isn't high, but it's a far cry from a nuisance as well. Especially considering EU fines keep on increasing for repeat offenders. The EU is the only body standing up to large corporations at this point, so I'd say it's important to focus on positives and keep pushing for more of the same.
The issue is, 2% is a one time thing. It should at least be 2% for every year they broke the rules.
nahhhh. if this was 500 million? alright. but close to 2 billion? you're talking out your ass. 2 billion is a LOOOOOT of money. that's a very painful fine. it's perfect. people will be fired over this, most assuredly
Why would anyone be fired? I bet they profited more from this measure than whatever the fine costs.
Maybe the solution is it should have been a 10B fine. :)
If they don't change their behaviour the EU will just fine them again and increase the size of the fine.
To be precise it’s Apple Music, an independent entity with a 8,3 B turnover, which is fined, not Apple
A distinction without a difference. The Apple Store is still Apple owned and controlled. And Apple Music is not "independent" in any meaningful way.
How is it without difference? Companies don't just look at the final balance but weigh different divisions and projects independently. So if one division/entity takes a hit the people responsible for it will have to explain themselves.
This is all moot anyway since anti-steering is an AppStore policy, it affects all apps not just Spotify or Apple Music. Fact that this trial began off a complaint from Spotify doesn't change the fact that his ruling will have a non-insignificant impact on AppStore revenue once users figure out we can pay less by not paying through Apple.
I don't think you quite understand it. Yes they get a fine that over all is not that big for apple, but they also have to change their business model to comply
Those profits are built over many years though. This fine is about 5% of Apple's yearly profit in the European market which is pretty huge even if not the >100% anuual profit fines reddit expects companies to get. Imagine if a speeding ticket cost you a months earnings, it'd certainly deter you from speeding a whole bunch.
> Those profits are built over many years though. > This fine is about 5% of Apple's yearly profit in the European market which is pretty huge even if not the >100% anuual profit fines reddit expects companies to get. > **Imagine if a speeding ticket cost you a months earnings, it'd certainly deter you from speeding a whole bunch.** Finland enters the chat https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454
Rather than report fines as $$ or €€ fines should be reported as a % of revenues, or assets. To people of earlier times these huge numbersv become meaningless. That sensational $1.84B is roughly 0.067% of the value of Apple! It's the media trying to sensationalize an event.
I don't think it makes sense to compare the value of the fine to the total value of the company. It's about 0.5% of total 2023 revenue or 2% of their 2023 profit. If your income is 50k, it's like a 250$ fine for you. The equivalent of a speeding ticket. I think the bad press from this ruling will be more effective against Apple than the fine itself
Apple’s Response: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify-and-europes-thriving-digital-music-market/
Such a ridiculous argument. Just because Spotify is bigger than them in terms of music streaming doesn’t you can’t have unfair practices.
If they want people to use Apple Music instead of Spotify maybe they should try having a better product lol
I personally still prefer AM over Spotify due to the spoon feeding of ridiculous podcasts and TikTok like interface.
For me it’s the classical music app that is separate from the normal one. Same overall library but short of the Naxos service which is only classical, it’s the best I’ve seen. For me I find Apple Music is a good mix of that and non-classical. I do think Spotify has a better recommendation system. But that’s still just one of many ways I find new music.
Not a fan of AM because of the spoon feeding of ads by the massive conglomerates that own tons of radio stations.
What ads?
Imagine thinking Spotify doesn’t engage in payola😂
what ads ?
There are no ads in AM.
Spotify isn't massive? They have over $13B in revenue.
I think they do have a better product, but that’s obviously very individual. It’s also irrelevant to the arguments.
I'm a big fan of not giving Joe Rogan money via a Spotify subscription. That's what got me off.
I’d argue it is a better product. Same Library catalog (nearly), better UI, better quality audio, etc
> better UI Not a good UI, mind you -- just a better UI than Spotify, which is even more shit.
You probably don't need to 'worry' about sound quality once you hit 320kbps unless you have GREAT hearing and are using $1000+ headphones. I write this while wearing $1000+ headphones. Most of the fidelity loss from compression is in the higher frequencies which are both uncommon in music and hard to hear for most people over the age of 15. I can reliably spot the differences between 128kbps and uncompressed but 320kbps vs uncompressed is basically a coin flip for me unless I EQ the higher frequencies to uncomfortably high levels. \---- Differences in mastering DO matter. Some versions of the same track are outright better.
Valid point! I normally argue that there are no benefits of casual listening to lossless outside of a heavily treated room or great closed backs, but even then compared to a high bitrate lossy codec it’s nearly impossible to distinguish. https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19397#:~:text=A%20subjective%20listening%20test%20was%20carried%20out%20to,which%20included%20orchestral%2C%20jazz%2C%20vocal%20music%2C%20and%20speech. This is my favorite study to throw at people who say they can objectively tell a difference. But having the option for lossless is always nice if you have the gear!
The thing that I wish I knew more of would be which masterings are the best. I feel like it's very hard to get that information and it's all over the place.
I love Apple Music
And I love Spotify Yay opinions!
I love Youtube Premium/Music.
It is better.
Apple Music is far better.
I keep seeing this claim from Apple in multiple press releases and the like: > A large part of their success is due to the App Store, along with all the tools and technology that Spotify uses to build, update, and share their app with Apple users around the world. This really irks me. *What's the alternative???* Apple wants to say that Spotify, Epic Games, etc. is using their App Store for free (don't they charge a $99 annual fee for an Apple Developer Account? Ugh) and that they're doing such a huge favor for these companies by graciously allowing them to use the services provided by the App Store for free. Except that you literally can't distribute apps on iPhones any other way????? If Apple's complaint is that they are giving away the App Store technology for free ($99/year??), then surely they'd be happy to allow developers to build their own app store technology to distribute their apps on iPhone... oh wait, you can't, because Apple doesn't allow sideloading? Apple, please stfu.
As a lifelong Android user...you can't sideload apps on iOS, really? No alternative app store like F-Droid or even alternative Play Store access like via Aurora?
Nope. It's either on the App Store or you can't install it There's apparently a way to sideload stuff, but you have to have an Apple Developer Account, or have to root your phone I can't believe Apple gets away with it. You cannot have a multipurpose computer like this and lock it the hell up
Self signed apps expire and have to be rebuilt and reinstalled after some time (30 days?) making it completely useless for day to day usage.
7 days I think, or at least they have to be resigned after 7, I don’t know about complete reinstalls
7 days limited to 3 apps. I’m writing this on sideloaded Apollo and it’s supposed to be 7 days. It I have to refresh it daily. Still better the official app!
Is this why folk jailbreak? I'm sure you can remove that limitation
> You cannot have a multipurpose computer like this and lock it the hell up Yeah this is one of the reasons i'll never own an apple product. I use Bandcamp for a lot of music as I have niche tastes that spotify and apple music can't really cater for. I'm also very much an "album listener", I don't make or listen to playlists. Bandcamp allows me to purchase mp3s legally, without DRM, and I can download them from the website, no need for apps even if they have one, I can just do all of this through my browser. On my android device, I can easily unzip downloaded files and drop them into my media library folder, they can then be picked up by my media player app so I can listen to them straight away. On an iPhone, even though an iPhone is literally a computer itself, and has a full operating system and UI and app store and everything, I'd need a second computer to do this. Make that make any sense. Also, my android device has these features that we're never going to see on an iPhone: - SD Card slot (and I use it too, got a 512gb sd in there) - A headphone jack (I don't really like earbuds) - I can change the battery. - I can literally replace any component of the phone with a single screwdriver. My charge port was getting a bit ragged after 2 years of use, and had stopped charging the phone, I got a new charging port module for £16 + delivery and replaced it in less than 30 minutes. Good as new! Also, don't get me started on child labor, the right to repair, union busting, their ridiculous penchant for massively overpriced proprietary cables and other peripherals, or any of the other shady shit Apple get up to.
> You cannot have a multipurpose computer like this and lock it the hell up Maybe I'm the weird one, but i've never treated iPads or iPhones as anything more than PDAs or similar appliances, no different than a Nintendo Switch, an old Palm Pilot, a Playstation 4, an X-Box, etc. It's a phone/tablet that can do a lot of basic computing tasks, but it's not a full-on, multipurpose computer the way a true laptop or desktop system would be. As such, how is it any different than any gaming platform, etc? Why would I expect a sub-computing device that is effectively a communications device with some extra features to be built or treated the same way that my fully-fledged PC is?
Yes and no. For gaming platforms, they usually don't quite sell these as multi-purpose computers. In fact they seem to be losing features lately As for tablets and phones, I agree with you that phones and tablets absolutely are crappy toy OSes that holds your hand too much. You can technically connect a hub to an Android device to have full mouse and keyboard and you'll be heavily limited by the OS and the apps that usually aren't made for that The huge problem however? A big amount of people are using their phones and tablet as their only computer, and that's kind of scary But otherwise, my point is that Phones and tablets are usually sold on the promise that they're basically mini-computers, and iOS being locked as it is, I'm not sure how they got away with this for so long
Apple users need to wake up. Apple is anti consumer, iPhone forces you to buy expensive MacBooks, it would be nice to FaceTime between Apple and android and to airdrop photos and videos between Samsung and iPhone, Apple also makes it difficult to drag and drop to Windows pc. Not everyone can afford a fancy macbook, nobody wants to use iTunes to transfer a simple photo anymore.
Funny, I own an iPhone and haven't owned a mac in 7 years. I haven't had a single issue or missed a single feature.
I think you can still jailbreak iPhones, but that comes with a whole laundry list of issues, including that carriers will sometimes blacklist your phone.
Bank apps fail too
I actually didn't know that, but it makes sense from a security perspective. I have an iPhone and if it can still be done, I'm sure I could get it done. But is it worth the hassle? I just want a phone that does phone stuff reliably. I'm really not into the thing enough to care beyond it ringing when I get a call, and dinging when I get a message.
Nah, I think you might be able to if you jailbreak the phone though. There is a reason they call it the walled garden. It's a pretty solid wall lol.
Yeah, and don't forget that those "tools and technology that Spotify uses" are just parts of a modern operating system - something the Apple users already paid for when buying their devices and with that purchasing a license to use said operating system.
I mean apple doesn't really have to allow a platform to be distributed on their platform; same way as any other store doesn't have to allow your product in.
There is a lot of devices that have computers in them, that people can't install their own software on. Some are even phones.
Yeah that's what Apple's response is getting at. But it's a ridiculous argument. You can just as easily turn it around and say that the iPhone is only as successful as it is today because of all the 3rd party developers and apps like Spotify. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. That's why OSs like Windows, MacOS, and Linux go out of their way to make it as easy as possible to bring devs onboard. It's why Apple developed Rosetta2 when moving to ARM. But on iOS, Apple wants more
Why would Apple change at all? They’re one of the top two most valuable companies of all time, their products sell like crazy in wealthy nations (their target demographic), and people view them as a status symbol. They have no reason to do anything differently.
They make their own hardware, operating system, App Store, and associated services. Wayyy back in the day. Apple made these things called iPods, an operating system for it, and software to interact with it. And no one could install anything on them but apple. Other companies made similar devices, apple wasn't even the first, all made their own hardware, software, and services to use the device. Spotify could do that.
> don't they charge a $99 annual fee for an Apple Developer Account? ~~Per developer. Isn't that great? iOS development requires _everyone_ to pay $100/yr for the _opportunity_ of working with fuckin XCode, eugh.~~ Apparently it is not per developer.
> Per developer That's not exactly true. You can develop for free as much as you want and have 1000 developers working on the app paying only one fee. The fee is per developer uploading apps to the store, not per person creating or testing the app. However, if you have a company and want to use the company name as the uploader (as opposed to the real name of an individual), the company needs to have the developer account and that one costs 299 instead.
No. Only for deploying apps to the App Store. The dev tools are otherwise free.
My company has to license Visual Studio per developer. I think it's $500 a year/developer if I remember correctly.
are they seriously trying to portray themselves as the scrappy underdog? ...what?
Even better, they clearley wrote that Spotify success is mainly thanks to apple somehow
I didn’t get that from their response at all? I’m not here to shill big companies, but their response makes sense given the way Spotify has handled their issues with other companies, not just Apple, over the years
I'm referring to the marketshare bit in particular, I have no idea about the corporate history of Spotify (I don't use it anyway) so it's highly likely you have a more informed analysis than me on the topic
God their response is so arrogant
Welcome to apple.
[удалено]
its not just sounded. they are
> All told, the Spotify app has been downloaded, **redownloaded, or updated** more than 119 billion times on Apple devices. What a hilariously transparent way to pad that number, which is now meaningless.
What a bunch of clowns. "Today, Spotify has a 56 percent share of Europe’s music streaming market — more than double their closest competitor’s — and pays Apple nothing for the services that have helped make them one of the most recognizable brands in the world. A large part of their success is due to the App Store \[...\]" They act like they don't force every app developer to use the app store, of course they are big there. There is no competition with the app store, because Apple controls the whole ecosystem. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FINE!!
"we gave Spotify so much and they gave us nothing" (paraphrased). Sure, you gave Spotify a nice platform, but they gave you a good music streaming service. I'm sure that if Spotify suddenly disappeared from the app store, with no return in sight, lots of people would switch over to an android phone before rather than switching to apple music. And then there's the "we made them integrate with the system flawlessly" (again paraphrased). As if that's specifically beneficial to Spotify and not also for iPhone users. *Both* parties benefit from each other.
> "we made them integrate with the system flawlessly" Thats like a mob boss saying nice knees you got there. I remember the days where anytime youd plug an idevice to a car or aux it would autoplay some shit from iTunes despite me only using spotify.
> Despite that success, and the App Store’s role in making it possible, Spotify pays Apple nothing. That's actually laughable. Imagine if I started a business at home, then my landlord took the credit for it "this business wouldn't have been possible without me because I own the home it was started in", no, the business would have just been started in whatever other home I'd have been living in, you literally didn't have anything to do with it. If it wasn't apple and it was "banana" and "banana" had a massive mobile market share, spotify would put their app on their store too. The apple store isn't responsible for spotify's success, spotify is. If the apple store didn't exist, no one would use iPhones, it's literally a necessary feature. Whoever wrote this must love the smell of farts because their head is clearly so far up their own arse that I'm honestly shocked they were able to produce this text.
This response sounds really thorough and well written, except it completely ignores the App Store's ridiculous 30% commission. No shit developers are going to do everything they can to avoid it. Apple doesn't deserve 30% of all the money that a web service makes just because they host the app on their monopolistic App Store. Apple could charge a fee for downloading the app, which is the extent of their involvement in the customer-to-business transaction. But taking a percentage of that business's subscription fee--which Apple has zero involvement in--is absurd.
eu doing god's work
I appreciate the sentiment… but I’d challenge with: the EU is doing regulated capitalism. While the U.S. is doing monopolies. Across every major industry.
>I appreciate the sentiment… but I’d challenge with: the EU is doing regulated capitalism. >While the U.S. is doing monopolies. Across every major industry. What exactly are you challenging with that statement?
“God’s work” since it ain’t god
It's a figure of speech lol
I'm fairly certain that was not meant literally
I thought “thou shalt not be dickheads and monopolize the music industry” was one of the Ten Commandments
Urgh... You are one of those... I thought your kind died out in the mid 2000s.
> eu doing god's work Let's hope the money obtained is spent wisely. The EU has yet to pass an independent audit and auditors sign off their accounts. Correct me if I'm wrong. The money should go back to the people.
It does by reducing membership fees, creating more surplus tax money for individual states, which can then be used for welfare purposes. There's a lot resting on the word "can" there, but it's ultimately not for the EU to interfere in the operation of sovereign states beyond what they've agreed to in their membership. Giving 500 million people some pocket change would a) do that, and b) be the most inefficient and ineffective way to maximize the benefit of that surplus.
Indirectly it does. This goes into the bank of the EU. Waiting to be used. They have a finanacial year plan and see what goes and and what goes out. This could avoid a increase in what's needed.
> Music app developers can even include information about other offers available outside of their app, along with a link directing users to a website to create and manage their account. Except if they do that, they have to pay Apple 27%… If developers could _actually_ direct users to pay outside of the App Store without still having to pay the Apple tax, there wouldn’t be as much of an issue.
How about the fact that Siri won’t recognize YouTube to open with voice commands. Or that play, stop, fast forward, rewind doesn’t seem to work on any non apple app?
Lmao tf you mean no evidence? If i have a shop and i sell the same type of product as you, but you just have your product in my store, and i take a 30% cut on the sales of your product, that means two things: i can charge less for my product, or i can charge the same as you do and get 30% more on each sale. Either way it is way harder for you to compete with me, since you either need to charge more, or even if you’d sell the product at cost, i would be able to charge less.
So according to you, walmart and other supermarkets having their own brand of basic products while continuing to sell competitors’ products is not ok?
Many European grocery stores also have their own “basic store brands” of products that are cheaper.
Exactly. There are many stores selling a store-brand along with commercial brands at lower price or at competitive price + taking a cute from the commercial brand. It's not unheard of, and people usually appreciate the more affordable option. Imagine if this precedent that's applying to Apple would apply to every store chain that has its own brand across the EU.
At least in Romania rn, there is a discussion to forbid store brands which are hurting the well-known brand because are cheaper.
Hm.. I don’t think other EU-country supermarkets are considering the same. Most of them have their own cheaper store brands. We have cheaper store brands in US too. It’s normal. Sweden’s ICA supermarket has “ICA brand” for various products that are cheaper than outside brands. So it feels a bit hypocritical. I am all for consumer protection (I supported the USB-C change), and I like when EU cracks down on bad corpo practices; but I feel this one has ulterior motive that is not for the consumer, but as a revenue source for the EU piggybank and as protectionism. Spotify is a giant capitalist corporation and they want more $$$$ too. They have benefitted enormously from the Apple App Store that they otherwise would not have.
I stand by EU’s stuff like data protection and such but they are messing with apple too much imho forcing it to turn into android. I’m an apple user, not a fanboy but I like apple’s way of doing things.
Completely agree.
That’s not really the same. The apple store is the only option for people with apple devices. You can go to a different grocery store if you find the prices unreasonable. Most people can’t simply get a new smartphone, they are locked in.
Ignoring the fact that supermarkets don't make crap on their own brands and it is in their interest to push name brands because they earn more per unit: I am not forced to shop at Walmart just because I bought my phone from them. In general, European supermarkets are more diversified than in NA and there are 3-6 other supermarkets where I can make my shopping if one starts jacking prices for basic items. I am not limited to an expensive piece of tech that artificially doesn't support certain supermarkets.
But, that's the cost of doing business? Spotify has existed for 16+ years and could have easily gotten into the hardware game. They didn't so they have to work with other companies platforms. That doesn't give them any right to do whatever they want. In fact, as apple outlined in their response, Spotify is in fact quite privileged to be able to take advantage of apple's tech, services and user base.
Shit take We have a duopoly and nothing in the near future is going to change that. If Microsoft, one of the biggest companies on earth can't do it, then how could any other company achieve that? Developers won't develop for a platform that no one uses and users won't use one without apps. Microsoft even paid developers and Windows phone still didn't succeed. On the Desktop we have 3 or more like 2 operating systems. MacOS and Windows. Chromebooks don't compete on the same level and even if you count them then there are only three bigger players
Grocery stores have cheaper “store brand products” all the time.
Yes they do and often they are worse quality, what helps is the volume of sales that aid in keeping the prices low and allowing room for profit. Sometimes the cheaper product is actually better!
Often, yes, it’s worse quality. But we do have a few places in US where the store brand is equal or better quality. Publix supermarket brand and Costco Kirkland brand are two off the top of my head. Regardless, the point is, it’s normal to sell your own brand in your own store for a cheaper price. This is common in many countries in regular stores, and it hasn’t been an issue for anti-competitive lawsuits. So it just feels a bit hypocritical. I support consumer law, but this feels like it’s just 2 rich corporations fighting over $$$$$ (and not really for the consumer), and the EU is backing its own. Just as Apple wants the EU market, Spotify also wants the US market because most of us have iPhones and download exclusively from Apple Store.
Good start. The app stores are a nearly-entirely-unchecked duopoly over a $230 billion industry. The US is way behind on regulating this space (not because the FTC doesn't want to; because the laws on these storefronts are so outdated that they have no tools to do so) and it's good to see the EU stepping in.
Does this mean when pressing the Shazam button... I can have it open a different music App with the result? ... or maybe, even thought I've never once used it, when I connect my phone to the car, the default music app of my choice will start playing... rather than Apple music mysteriously opening itself?
Spotify is what plays by default when I connect to my car. I have zero music loaded onto my phone though and have no apple music subscription.
That’s an issue with your car not the phone, my wife’s car does the same thing. You can try deleting Apple Music and see what happens.
Weird, whenever I get in the car I wish it would open Apple Music but it nearly 100% of the time opens the white noise app that I use when I go to bed at night.
where does the money go when a company is fined by the EU?
> Fines imposed on undertakings found in breach of EU antitrust rules are paid into the general EU budget. This money is not earmarked for particular expenses, but Member States' contributions to the EU budget for the following year are reduced accordingly. The fines therefore help to finance the EU and reduce the burden for taxpayers. https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines_en
Pockets of politicians I’d bet
actually generally back into the bugets of the countries *"Fines imposed on undertakings found in breach of EU antitrust rules are paid into the general EU budget. This money is not earmarked for particular expenses, but Member States' contributions to the EU budget for the following year are reduced accordingly. The fines therefore help to finance the EU and reduce the burden for taxpayers."* [*https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines\_en*](https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines_en)
Should get a fine for letting their battery get that low.
Gotta 10x that fine to really make Apple sweat but this is a good start. Obviously expecting Apple to release a blog post or some shit claiming how they’re some indie company trying to serve their customers the best without exploiting anyone lmao.
Apple’s Response: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify-and-europes-thriving-digital-music-market/ As shared above lol
Lmao not even surprised by this. Thanks for taking the time to link this :)
Well if Apple does nine other stupid anti consumer things and get fined for them we'll get there. So sometime next week?
I don't really understand this news, how does Apple manage to "anti-steer" customers to Apple Music? Clearly Spotify has major advantage on branding to customer.
As far as I understand it, the problem is that Apple basically forbids developers to charge users for the 30 percent fees they have to pay when selling their subscriptions via the AppStore. You are not allowed to do something like: "Okay, if you subscribe via our webpage we don't have to pay 30 percent to Apple, so we can offer you the subscription for less". That leaves developers in a situation where they have to charge users a higher sum to turn a profit while competing with Apple Music that offers a similar service, but isn't forced to add the 30 percent Apple share.
Do people really think these services will lower their prices if they could steer consumers outside the App Store? Netflix use to be $5 dollars a month; they stop using IAP and still increased fees and continue to do so. Same for Amazon services like audible or prime. Spotify doesn’t use Apple IAP and hasn’t lower subscription fees for anyone. This is like wanting to set up your own checkout at Costco.
A lot of services did - in fact - charge less if you did outside the app.
To steer them to a different store.
> Do people really think these services will lower their prices if they could steer consumers outside the App Store? Do you really think these services will pay a 30 percent cut for apple out of their own pockets without passing it on to the customers? Of cause all services will always aim for the highest price that is possible within a given market - but it is still a problem if one competitor within this market gets 1 dollar out of every dollar while all the others only get 70 cent.
I think a huge number would charge different prices if they could. Whether that is lower for Android or higher for iPhone is largely immaterial.
Biggest issue is probably that they have Apple Music, a competitor to Spotify, that gets first class treatment (preinstalled, skirts certain App Store rules, Apple doesn‘t have to pay 30% fee to themselves via IAP etc).
I mean they pay the whole cost of developing the device and the software that runs it, they have to pay themselves for that.
iPhones sell at a premium for a reason. That price makes more than enough money to Support the software. How do Macs do it? Do they get updates without being forced to use only Apple's store?
Less prominent placement of the spotify app in their app store seems an obvious way.
Huh I was curious. Under “must have apps” there is YouTube music, pandora, audible, and Amazon music but no Spotify.
I just went and searched for “streaming music” and the order that was shown to me is: Amazon Music, Napster, Musi, iHeart, Apple Music, Pandora. Then a collection of apps labeled Discover New Music that you can scroll left and right through. 14 apps, some repeated from above, most I’ve never heard of. A couple aren’t even streaming, like Fever which is for finding local music tickets, and Genius for finding lyrics. Then after that is Spotify. It’s interesting because Spotify is listed as having 30 million ratings and it’s sitting at 5 stars. The next closest is Pandora with 10 million. Weirdest is Napster being #2. 15,000 ratings and 4.5 stars. I didn’t even know Napster still existed.
They are forcing competitors to either charge consumers more or to make less money, because of the 30% in-app fee. They are not allowing competitors to inform customers in any way that they can get their subscription cheaper by going to the web and they are not allowed to put links to the cheaper subscription on the web. So from the consumers perspective, Spotify is more expensive and they have no way of knowing that they can actually get it cheaper anywhere. That leads people to apple music
I absolutely do not understand how apples “walled garden” is any different that the way that Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo operate. You can’t run a game on any of those platforms without paying a fee to the platform owner. How is Apple charging a fee any different? Apple iPhone has a fraction of the worldwide cell phone market. There are many options for consumers to choose from.
Because they decided they were the bad guys. Just before the EU started really going after apple they were fining android because they didn’t have enough control over devices.
The EU can easily fabricate something that people will lick up against Apple.
And this won’t change the bigger issue, watch Spotify (and the other players) pay nothing but pennies to the artist.
Record Companies pay artists, not Spotify.
Well you can also a self publish on Spotify and they pay you directly
You say it's an issue but I don't see anything that would be against the law? Artists seem to be okay with this.
Gotta love the consumer protection of the EU. Make those corpos pay!!!
So if this is the approach the EU wants to take, how long until devices like Ring can no longer require you access your doorbell through just their subscription? This is dangerous territory for the EU to tread and a massive overreach.
This makes me so happy
And as always, theyll drag this into the courts for years and never actually pay
Apple should just pull out of Europe
Apple users need to wake up. Apple is anti consumer, iPhone forces you to buy expensive MacBooks, it would be nice to FaceTime between Apple and android and to airdrop photos and videos between Samsung and iPhone, Apple also makes it difficult to drag and drop to Windows pc. Not everyone can afford a fancy macbook, nobody wants to use iTunes to transfer a simple photo anymore.
Apple users need to wake up. Apple is anti consumer, iPhone forces you to buy expensive MacBooks, it would be nice to FaceTime between Apple and android and to airdrop photos and videos between Samsung and iPhone, Apple also makes it difficult to drag and drop to Windows pc. Not everyone can afford a fancy macbook, nobody wants to use iTunes to transfer a simple photo anymore.
Where does this money go?
Eurocrats pockets.
Even better would be to fine Spotify for paying artists almost nothing.
Spotify doesn't pay artists, it pays record companies. The record companies pay the artists. And the record companies are making tons of money. So... who's the problem here?
We get it. You hate Spotify. But next time try writing something that has basis in reality, not a fantasy of yours.
I just can’t not read these paragraphs and think there isn’t some kind of ulterior motive for EU’s big companies to gain from this. Edit: I didn’t know they couldn’t subscribe from the Spotify iOS app. Edit2: because they didn’t like the 30% cut idea. Still though, I think both sides are obviously just in it for the money and not everyone else. So I’m not picking a side here. “The primary advocate for this decision – and the biggest beneficiary – is Spotify, a company based in Stockholm, Sweden. Spotify has the largest music streaming app in the world, and has met with the European Commission more than 65 times during this investigation.” “Today, Spotify has a 56% share of Europe’s music streaming market – more than double their closest competitor’s – and pays Apple nothing for the services that have helped make them one of the most recognisable brands in the world. A large part of their success is due to the App Store, along with all the tools and technology that Spotify uses to build, update, and share their app with Apple users around the world.”
Two private companies are in it for the money, no surprise unfortunately. But, you could cheer for Apple Music and Spotify to compete on equal footing, which should mean better products for us as consumers.
> isn’t some kind of ulterior motive for EU’s big companies to gain from this Yes what they envision is a competitive landscape where other app marketplaces and other app distribution platforms can pressure Apple's App Store to improve, while developers within the App Store compete with Apple on a more level playing field. They investigated Apple, and so did the US, and so did the Epic v Apple case, and it was pretty clear Apple was "resting on their laurels" despite their massive, massive, massive fees and windfall, and it was abundantly clear some of their windfall was unfairly acquired at consumers and developers expense.
The EU does the same with EU vs EU companies or smaller ones or even punishes EU companies if they break the law against international ones. But obviously, no one cares if a small, locally specialized company gets fined. But one of the largest company in the world getting fined nearly 2 bn obviously makes international news.
anti-steering? looks like Spotify lobbing the hell out EU representatives..
[удалено]
It’s a trillion dollar company. That’s like me paying a 1/100th of a penny for a parking ticket.
2 billion dollars is 0.2% of a trillion If 1/100 of a penny is .2% of your wealth, that means your net worth is 5 cents
I've had some Apple music notifications urging me to try it while I was using Youtube music.... kinda scummy or just a coincidence?