EU winding down Apple Music antitrust investigation, charges expected

The European Commission is expected to shortly announce that Apple will face antitrust charges after investigating Spotify's accusation that Apple unfairly puts Apple Music competitors at a disadvantage.

Since May 2019, the European Union's antitrust body has been investigating a claim by Spotify that Apple treats competitors unfairly. Now it's reported that a decision against Apple may be made in the coming weeks.

According to Reuters, two sources say that Apple may be sent what's called a statement of objections. This so-called charge sheet typically includes a fine, but also what measures the party has to do to stop its anti-competitive practices.

There is no confirmation yet of a fine, or of charges. Nor is there any indication of what any required action from Apple would be. Reuters, however, reports that its sources say the EU could force changes to Apple's business model.

Spotify's original complaint included criticism of how Apple limited access to its technologies, such as Siri. Speaking in 2020, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said that the company was now being allowed to "finally use Siri as a way of building in voice support."

News of the EU's reported decision comes shortly after the UK announced a similar anti-competition investigation. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority is the latest to launch anti-trust investigations against Apple.

39 Comments

22july2013 11 Years · 3736 comments

About 3 years ago

If I were Apple I would start off by asking the EU: "Under what EU law does Apple even need to sell third party software that competes directly with Apple's own software?"

dewme 10 Years · 5775 comments

About 3 years ago

1. Apple builds a platform (at great expense).

2. Apple opens up its platform to allow 3rd party content.

3. Third party joins the platform by agreeing to the terms & conditions defined by the platform owner, i.e., Apple.

4. Third party content provider decides they no longer like being treated as a guest in the owner's home.

5. Third party content provider runs crying to their daddy, the EU protectionism squad.

6. Daddy comes over, sues the platform owner, and beats them up with the protectionism stick of justice.

Maybe I'm living in a warped reality, but this is like inviting a guest into your home and then having them sue you because you didn't allow them to sleep in your bed, use your bathroom, soil your towels, play with your dog, drink your booze, or drive your car. The court then intervenes and forces you to grant your "first party" or "owner" privileges to the third party.

There used to be a time when ownership had its privileges. Apparently, or at least within the scope of EU protectionist policies, ownership means nothing. The EU thinks they own it all and the creators, architects, builders, and investors in platforms that cost huge sums of time, money, and resources are there merely to serve the state and its hapless minions who cannot create anything by themselves.

This is nothing more than a culture of pathetic losers.

22july2013 11 Years · 3736 comments

About 3 years ago

dewme said:

1. Apple builds a platform (at great expense).
2. Apple opens up its platform to allow 3rd party content.
3. Third party joins the platform by agreeing to the terms & conditions defined by the platform owner, i.e., Apple.
4. Third party content provider decides they no longer like being treated as a guest in the owner's home.
5. Third party content provider runs crying to their daddy, the EU protectionism squad.
6. Daddy comes over, sues the platform owner, and beats them up with the protectionism stick of justice.

Maybe I'm living in a warped reality, but this is like inviting a guest into your home and then having them sue you because you didn't allow them to sleep in your bed, use your bathroom, soil your towels, play with your dog, drink your booze, or drive your car. The court then intervenes and forces you to grant your "first party" or "owner" privileges to the third party.

There used to be a time when ownership had its privileges. Apparently, or at least within the scope of EU protectionist policies, ownership means nothing. The EU thinks they own it all and the creators, architects, builders, and investors in platforms that cost huge sums of time, money, and resources are there merely to serve the state and its hapless minions who cannot create anything by themselves.

This is nothing more than a culture of pathetic losers.

Of course you are correct, but the services Apple provides are actually a lot more than you indicate in bullet 2. There are approximately 50 major services that Apple provides developers, which are all included in the 0%-15%-30% fee schedule. And the third party content providers want the other 49 to remain free while no longer paying 0%-15%-30%.

viclauyyc 10 Years · 847 comments

About 3 years ago

dewme said:

1. Apple builds a platform (at great expense).
2. Apple opens up its platform to allow 3rd party content.
3. Third party joins the platform by agreeing to the terms & conditions defined by the platform owner, i.e., Apple.
4. Third party content provider decides they no longer like being treated as a guest in the owner's home.
5. Third party content provider runs crying to their daddy, the EU protectionism squad.
6. Daddy comes over, sues the platform owner, and beats them up with the protectionism stick of justice..

Please don’t use logic with EU