Apple hit with over 1.8B euro EU antitrust fine in Spotify case

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

EU regulators have fined Apple over €1.8B for abusing its control of the iOS App Store to disadvantage music-streaming rivals like Spotify, particularly through “anti‑steering” rules that prevented apps from telling users about cheaper subscription options outside Apple’s payment system. Commenters debate whether the penalty is large enough to change Apple’s behavior, how it interacts with newer EU laws like the Digital Markets Act, and whether such enforcement is fair regulation or de facto protectionism. The case also revives broader arguments over closed platforms, app-store commissions, and how today’s tech giants compare to Microsoft’s dominance in the 1990s.

Where the fine goes and what it is for

  • Commenters stress this is an EU antitrust fine, not damages to Spotify.
  • Money goes into the general EU budget; member states’ contributions are reduced accordingly.
  • Spotify (and others) could still sue in national courts for damages, using the Commission’s decision as binding proof of illegality.

Apple’s conduct and EU reasoning

  • Core issue is Apple’s “anti‑steering” rules: apps couldn’t tell users about cheaper or alternative payment options outside the App Store or link to them.
  • This applied especially to music streaming apps competing with Apple Music.
  • Commission used long‑standing antitrust rules (Article 102 TFEU; 2006 fine guidelines), not the newer DMA.
  • The nominal breach‑based fine was small; ~€1.8B of the total is an added “deterrent” lump sum because much of the harm is non‑monetary and Apple’s turnover is huge.

Spotify’s role and dependence on Apple

  • Spotify currently avoids Apple’s in‑app purchase system; subscriptions are sold via the web, so Apple gets essentially nothing beyond the €100/year dev fee.
  • Some argue Spotify owes its existence to iOS and the App Store proving its model and giving access to affluent users; others call this speculative and stress mutual dependence (apps make iPhones valuable).
  • Debate over whether Spotify can or should also pursue damages, and whether its own dominance harms artists more than Apple harms Spotify.

Walled garden vs user freedom

  • One camp sees iOS’s tight control as a feature: less malware, simpler support for non‑technical and elderly users, unified subscription cancellation, and protection from dark patterns.
  • The opposing camp argues users should be able to sideload apps and choose payment channels on hardware they own; current rules are called rent‑seeking and infantilizing.
  • Many note the App Store still contains scams (e.g. QR readers, casino‑like apps), undermining Apple’s “security” justification.

Comparisons to Microsoft and other platforms

  • Long subthread compares 1990s Microsoft to today’s Apple:
    • Microsoft had ~90% desktop OS share and used OEM contracts and IE bundling to crush Netscape and others.
    • Apple’s iOS share is lower (globally ~30%; higher in US), but its control is more absolute: no sideloading, one store, API and hardware lock‑in.
  • Some say 90s Microsoft was objectively worse; others say Apple’s technical lock‑down enables more extreme gatekeeping despite lower share.
  • Analogies drawn to Xbox/PlayStation stores; critics respond that phones are general‑purpose devices, unlike game consoles.

Is the EU being protectionist or just enforcing rules?

  • Supportive view: EU is the only jurisdiction meaningfully checking Big Tech; fines deter anti‑competitive conduct, including in emerging areas like AI.
  • Critical view: EU is “rent‑seeking” from US tech, selectively harsh on foreign firms and lenient on large EU firms (e.g. Spotify).
  • Counter‑argument: EU also fines European companies in other sectors; foreign firms are simply required to follow local competition law if they want access to the EU market.

Is the fine big or effective enough?

  • Some note €1.8B is ~0.5% of Apple’s global revenue (“a speeding ticket”), but others point out it’s a large fraction of Apple Music–scale revenue and is explicitly meant as a warning shot.
  • Expectation that repeated non‑compliance would trigger escalating fines, possibly much larger, especially under the DMA framework.

Broader implications and next steps

  • Many expect this to interact with the DMA, which already forces Apple to allow alternative app stores and payment methods in the EU; Apple’s current DMA “compliance” (27% link‑out fee, core technology fee) is widely described as obstructive.
  • Some want similar scrutiny for Microsoft (Teams bundling, Xbox store) and Google (Android + Play Services lock‑in).
  • Overall sentiment is mixed: celebration that Big Tech can be constrained, concern about overreach and protectionism, and widespread expectation that Apple will appeal and adjust rather than fundamentally change its model without continued pressure.