The penalty is for preventing Spotify and other music streaming services from informing users of payment options outside the Apple app store.
The European Commission’s decision was triggered by a complaint by the Swedish music streaming service over this restriction and Apple’s 30% fee.
The EU competition enforcer said Apple abused its dominant position in the market for a decade.
Margrethe Vestager said, Apple had done this by "restricting developers from informing consumers about alternative, cheaper music services available outside of the Apple ecosystem.
So you’re saying that Amazon does not prevent sellers on Amazon from telling customers to go to their own website to purchase the item cheaper?
The key difference you’re dancing around, is that you can use any online store on your device. But on Apple you can only use the apple app store.
If you could only use Amazon on your device, they would be subject to the same rules too.
I’m failing to see the difference. If it were the case that the web browser itself blocked you from making a purchase outside the App Store, you would make sense.
Also, are there other apps stores on Android phones? Does the Google App Store allow developers to advertise selling their apps on their own websites? Actually, have you ever witnessed any brand or service being sold in any store while advertising to make a purchase elsewhere?
If you only ever buy things from Amazon or Home Depot, how would you know there are other places to make the same purchase? I mean, we all generally know that you can buy a Dewalt drill online at Amazon or in a Home Depot or on eBay or your local hardware store. The same is true with Spotify and Netflix, etc. Granted, it’s limited to either the App Store or their own website.
My question remains, does the EU also prevent a brand from advertising the ability for a customer to make a purchase elsewhere?
Yes. There are other app stores on android. You can install whatever app store you want.
If you can’t see the difference here, then I’m sorry, but you just have to figure it out. Everyone else can. It’s really not so hard.
Do those other Android stores also get a fee for selling apps and services?
I presume the EU decision means all these stores will also need to allow developers to advertise that people should not buy an app or subscription in the store?
If you could provide an example of a brand advertising inside a store for customers to go buy the product elsewhere, I’d be interested in applying that to the conversation. I feel pretty confident that if this were the case, a brand would be banned from selling in that store.
I mean, the end result is going to be a “Spotify Store” that you can download to your phone in order to download the Spotify app and to buy a subscription to the Spotify service (which is already a thing called spotifydotcom). All because Spotify believes it’s different from any other brand selling their things in a store and doesn’t want to pay the store a fee for hosting and selling their product.
Wow. I just looked at the Spotify app. They don’t even allow you to pay for a subscription inside the app. Because they’re a bunch of children running that business who refuse to give Apple a penny. This is why they pay artists so little - because they refuse to allow people to pay for the music. What an absolute shit company.
Refuse to give apple a penny, more like give apple 30% of their income for a service they are forced to use to target the iOS users. Not to mention that apple does not take a 30% fee on their own Spotify competitor that is pre-installed on every device they make. It’s about it being a level playing field to avoid fucking monopolies
The part where Apple isn’t charging themselves 30% is easy to agree on it being unfair (they should lower the fee, a lot). This is why I posed the question about Amazon who, presumably also, is not charging themselves a fee to sell products on their own platform nor is Target by selling their own in-house branded goods.
Right, Apple Music comes preinstalled on the phone just as the default search result for a product on Amazon is Amazon’s offering. How is this fair to other sellers who have to pay a fee in order to be on the store?
At the same time, Apple / Amazon is doing work for the brand by hosting and advertising and facilitating the sale of an app or product. You can’t suggest a store should do this for free, right?
I’m not asking about Apple, I’m asking about how other stores are regulated by the EU.
As a seller, you can decide to sell on Walmart or on eBay if you want. On iOS you are forced to 1. Pay a yearly fee just to have the tools to build an app and 2. You are forced to use the App Store with all the restrictions that come with it.
Regardless of the store, you’re still paying the retailer a fee to sell your goods. You’re also forced to abide by the restrictions of any store you’re selling in.
There are always costs of doing business. I can’t think of anything other maybe standing in a “free” (taxpayer subsidized) open space and speaking your mind where you’re not paying someone something to conduct your business.
How is it that people can justify Apple and Google doing all the work while getting paid nothing? It’s a ridiculous argument to suggest that this shouldn’t cost developers anything.
As it is, the only thing Spotify is paying for is that $100/year (if I’m not mistaken) developer license. Spotify’s revenue for the last quarter alone was $4billon USD. I’m not arguing they should pay Apple billions of dollars but they should be paying them more than $100.
deleted by creator