←back to thread

Apple vs the Law

(formularsumo.co.uk)
377 points tempodox | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jjcob ◴[] No.44529703[source]
I think at this point we should change the law so that Gatekeepers aren't just required to enable competition, but are somehow forced to actually support competition.

I'm not sure how we could enforce that, but maybe the law could stipulate that a certain minimum percentage of users must use 3rd party app stores, or use web apps. They should pay a fine if less than say 5% of apps are distributed outside the app store, or if less than 5% of people use a 3rd party browser engine.

replies(3): >>44530113 #>>44534646 #>>44538360 #
bzzzt ◴[] No.44530113[source]
First they have to enable competition, you're saying they have to support it but seemingly you want to enforce it. Where does it stop? Should Apple just pay out a part of their profits to their competitors?

If a competitor wants market share they have to build a better service. Forcing users to go with a bad deal gets the incentives all wrong and is actually bad for consumer choice.

replies(3): >>44530329 #>>44530413 #>>44530689 #
madeofpalk ◴[] No.44530689[source]
> If a competitor wants market share they have to build a better service.

Except when Apple ensures that it always comes out ahead when competing. It's not a level playing field.

Look at Apple Music vs Spotify - ignoring the self-preferencing iOS does to Appke Music, the App Store ensures that Spotify will always make less money than Apple Music. Spotify either has to hand over 30% to its competitor, raise its prices (and lose customers, while still paying its competitor), or just not offer in-app signups. Do you reckon Apple Music has to give away 30% of it's subscriptions?

It seems bonkers that the only option to have a competitive music streaming service is to make your own operating system or mobile phone. That's unhealthy.

replies(1): >>44530968 #
bzzzt ◴[] No.44530968[source]
Not offering in-app signups doesn't seem to make Spotify less dominant. I'm in the Netherlands, almost everybody I know has a Spotify subscription, I know just one guy using Apple music.

The 30% fee also drops to 15% after one year, and there are companies that negotiated lower fees. Also, 'doing it yourself' won't be free, you still need some party to do payment processing, customer service and returns which also can come close to that 15%.

The argument you need to make your own phone seems a bit far-fetched. There are multiple music apps making money on iOS.

replies(1): >>44531905 #
disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.44531905[source]
The problem here is that Apple have a competing service that doesn't have to pay the money. That's the issue, and it needs to be resolved for Apple to be compliant with EU law.

Or they can leave, if they think that makes more sense for their business.

replies(1): >>44537510 #
1. burnerthrow008 ◴[] No.44537510[source]
> The problem here is that Apple have a competing service that doesn't have to pay the money.

On the contrary, Apple does pay the money... to the artists. Which is something that Spotify doesn't do as much.

https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a...

Strangely, despite this rather obvious market power (monopsony) that Spotify has in negotiating below-market rates with their suppliers, the EC has not seen fit to label them as a "gatekeeper".

I'm sure it has nothing whatever to do with having their headquarters in Sweden.