So given Apple's marketshare (not a monopoly per se though pretty substantial), and given they both control the platform that people pay money to access, and promote preferential treatment of a first party service at the expense of any third party services, it sounds pretty ripe for an anti-trust lawsuit.
The same I believe has recently been applied to Google in the EU for using its monopoly to promote its own product search results above other online stores.
The only difference now is, the teeth of anti-trust regulators are a lot more dull than they were in the 90s, for various reasons.
Apple's marketshare is nowhere close to that.
Microsoft actively and wilfilly went out to hurt Netscape. You can’t really argue Apple is doing the same with Spotify.
Um, of course?
Changing countries is usually not even possible because of immigration restrictions. And even if you could get past that you are looking at years/decades before you are a proper citizen.
But yes they are totally the same thing.
That’s the same as Microsoft saying you can go to Best Buy and pick up a copy of Netscape Navigator
Speaking of which, even just developing for iOS is a painful chore compared to Android. Unfortunately when the client and the users want iPhones, folks like us have to develop for them. In this world, it's fuck or walk.
You might be in the wrong business.
Also, iOS is a treat to build on. Not sure what your source on that is, but they don't have the device and OS fragmentation of Android, to say the least.
The other issue here is using dominance in one market to expand into another. Walmart may sell their own branded stuff, but even then they're still a retailer buying and selling things. Compare that with Apple where building phones and selling online music subscriptions are different markets.
The friction of switching from iPhone to Android is high for most people: purchasing an iPhone quality Android device and repurchasing apps could easily exceed $1000.
But...so could the cost of buying a iPhone quality iPhone (without trade in or other discount the XS Max seems to be $999 to $1499.)
I don’t think that’s what the US law says. Most platforms are proprietary, and their makers have a monopoly on them (you don’t see people complain that Tom-Tom, Volkswagen, Miele, Boeing, etc. shield of their platforms for third-party software)
What is illegal under anti-trust law is having a monopoly in a market and using that monopoly to hurt consumers.
If you want to use anti-trust law in this case, you’ll have to convince the judge that “iPhone applications” is a market, and not “smartphone applications”. Doable? Maybe.
I think (but am not sure) you will also have to show that Apple’s behviour hurts consumers (as opposed to just other companies)
.. yes, for many of the reasons described in Spotify's microsite.
They have a monopoly, and they are unfairly favouring their own products.
This should be enough to bring anti-trust concerns to the table.
If you redefine "monopoly" to mean "minority market share," then yes, I suppose they do.
I have to imagine a fair number of Google searches for "spotify remove ads", too, which can lead to an upgrade.
I guess the crutch of Spotify's argument is that 30% is too high to charge while having their own competing app that isn't required to pay the same fees. Effectively using their unilateral control of the App Store and IAP to squeeze a third party competitor
Spotify can do this thing called "advertising". Look into it.
They advertise for Spotify Premium constantly on their free tier.