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.
Genuine question: Does the EU also require online stores like Amazon and eBay to inform customers that they could also make a purchase from the seller’s own website?
For example, if I search Amazon for a Sony a7R iii, I could buy it from Amazon or 6Ave Electronics. I could also go to 6Ave’s website to buy it. Isn’t 6Ave paying Amazon a fee whereas Amazon has the advantage of selling the item without the fee? I mean, the camera is listed as $1,998 on Amazon but 6Ave’s website is selling it for $1,695.
Does the EU also require online stores like Amazon and eBay to inform customers that they could also make a purchase from the seller’s own website?
That’s not what this was about. Apple prevented companies/apps from saying that there’s an alternative way to pay.
That isn’t the same as requiring that there’s an alternative way to pay. It also isn’t the same as referring to other stores.
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
deleted by creator
The difference lies in the fact that you NEED to be on the app store to be on iPhones, and that Apple has a competing service to Spotify (Apple Music) that can be more profitable and easier to sign up for thanks to having no 30% fee
The comparison is pretty poor, and I’m afraid you are not familiar enough with the topic. If I make an application with a subscription service, it must be sold on the play/apple store to reach users. Google/apple get a 30% cut of any subscriptions I sell, meaning if I make $10, they get $3. Since iOS/Android own 99+% of the smartphone OS market, there is no other alternative. So you say, “I understand they’re processing and facilitating the payment, but 30% of my earnings is way too much! I can process my own payments and have people sign up on my own website. When people go to purchase a subscription, I’ll just redirect them to their browser to complete the transaction…”
That’s what Apple/Google are doing. It’s a monopoly.
Does Amazon actively prevent them from doing so?
