EU to hit Apple with first ever fine in €500M penalty over music streaming

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

EU regulators are reportedly preparing a €500m fine against Apple over how it treats rival music-streaming services like Spotify on the iOS App Store, reviving long‑running arguments about “gatekeeper” power in digital markets. Commenters debate whether Apple’s restrictions on in‑app signups and links to external payment options are legitimate platform rules or abusive self‑preferencing that undercuts competition with Apple Music. The move is also framed within a broader contrast between EU and US antitrust enforcement, the limited deterrent effect of such fines on a company of Apple’s size, and forthcoming EU rules like the Digital Markets Act.

Scope of the EU Case and Apple’s Conduct

  • Thread assumes: EU is fining Apple ~€500M over App Store rules affecting music streaming (esp. Spotify).
  • Core complaint discussed: Apple uses control over iOS and the App Store to favor Apple Music versus rivals.
  • Specific practices criticized:
    • Preinstallation and prominent placement of Apple Music.
    • 30% in‑app payment (IAP) cut for third‑party subscriptions.
    • Historical bans on linking or even informing users about cheaper web sign‑up.
  • Several argue the harm is not just price, but Apple leveraging a “gatekeeper” role in one market (devices/app distribution) to gain advantage in another (music streaming, browsers, etc.).

Antitrust, Market Power, and Comparisons to Microsoft

  • Debate over whether Apple’s share (~50–60% of US smartphones; less in EU) is “monopolistic.”
  • One view: you must look at “iOS app distribution” or “A‑series / iOS devices” as the market, where Apple is a de facto monopoly; users are locked in and can’t install apps without Apple.
  • Counter‑view: US antitrust usually defines markets more broadly (all smartphones / OSes), so Apple is powerful but not Microsoft‑in‑the‑90s (≈95% PC OS share).
  • Microsoft case is repeatedly referenced; some stress the legal basis was abuse of an OS monopoly, not generic “gatekeeping.”

Fairness of App Store Rules and Fees

  • Many see the 30% cut plus communication restrictions as rent‑seeking with little value, especially when Apple’s own services avoid the tax.
  • Others note:
    • Spotify can and does avoid IAP by using web sign‑ups.
    • Stores and platforms regularly set their own terms, including exclusivity; users “knew what they were buying” with an iPhone.

EU Motives, Fines, and DMA Context

  • Some call the fine tiny relative to Apple profits and see it as symbolic or a “cost of doing business.”
  • Others view it as necessary precedent under a broader EU philosophy of market regulation (GDPR, DMA, DSA).
  • Fines go into the general EU budget, indirectly reducing member‑state contributions.
  • Commenters link this case to the upcoming Digital Markets Act, which will mandate things like alternative app stores and more open payment options; Apple’s proposed compliance is widely seen as hostile and obstructionist.

User Freedom vs. Walled Gardens

  • Strong support from some for the EU’s push:
    • Right to install any app on hardware you own.
    • More competition in app stores, browsers, and music services.
  • Others defend the walled garden as a security/usability feature users actively choose, arguing those who want openness can buy Android or other platforms.