Internet Giants Like Apple and Google 'Abuse Their Privileged Position', Says Spotify CEO

Giant companies like Apple and Alphabet's Google "can and do abuse their privileged positions," according to a letter sent to the European Commission by music streaming service Spotify, rival firm Deezer and Rocket Internet, among others. From a report: "Our collective experience is that where online platforms have a strong incentive to turn into gatekeepers because of their dual role, instead of maximizing consumer welfare," the CEOs wrote. In one part of the letter, the CEOs said examples of platforms turning into gatekeepers include them "restricting access to data or interaction with consumers, biased ranking and search results to lack of clarity, imbalanced terms and conditions and preference of their own vertically integrated services."

Well he would, wouldn't he?

[Hognoxious]

n/c

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

It is human nature to abuse privilege once it is attained. There is simply no good reason not to.

Morality is for chumps.

Well, Duhh

[WheezyJoe]

It is human nature to abuse privilege once it is attained. There is simply no good reason not to.

Morality is for chumps.

Mod parent up. and I'll add that if Spotify's CEO had dominant market share, he'd be abusing a little too.

..and if he didn't, the Board would fire him for, essentially, leaving free earnings on the table - costing them money. Unless there's some pesky government regulation that'll fine you or throw you in jail, you're a fool NOT to take full advantage.. 'cause someone else will.

Difference between paternalism and abuse

[goombah99]

I fully agree that in general walled gardens are bad. But in specifics I disagree. With google, and even more with facebook, the purpose of the wall is sell access to the cattle inside. With apple, I feel like the purpose of the wall is to protect the sheep from predators. perhaps I'm deluding myself but I feel like I see signs that apple isn't selling me out as a product in every possible way. The result of course is that apple has to make a profit some other way. Charging more for their devices is one way, and Taking a cut on apps is another. And to do that they have to prevent other ways of selling apps. On the flip side, I do feel a lot safer installing apps on my iphones than I do on my androids. Most of my rationale for paying more for apple products rests on peace of mind and lack of complexity.

Thus my feeling is apple uses it's power paternalistically, and google is more of the chicken farmer approach where the chickens don't know they are going to be put in a pie.

Re:

[TWX]

If Apple did a better job of actually protecting their users I might agree with you, but remember, one of those huge nude celebrity photo theft scandals was based on iCloud data being compromised en masse. On top of that, Apple provides textbook examples of vendor lock-in, creating their own versions of things like communications software with no compatibility for non-Apple devices, so that once one get accustomed to using said applications, it's much harder to leave and one has to continue paying the Appl

Re: Difference between paternalism and abuse

[Brockmire]

No, they were susceptible to trivial brute force attacks for years. They only implemented 3 basic security measures after the first celeb leak dump. They didn't have brute force countermeasures in place. Their iCloud infrastructure has been reverse engineered by at least two groups, who publicly stated they should not have been able to do that. It was only on the later celeb dumps that were deemed phishing.

Re:

[gnasher719]

If Apple did a better job of actually protecting their users I might agree with you, but remember, one of those huge nude celebrity photo theft scandals was based on iCloud data being compromised en masse.

You probably know yourself that this is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that iCloud was ever hacked. There is plenty of evidence that "celebrities" were careful with their choice of passwords.

Abusive parents

[swb]

I think app store restrictions have always been primarily about protecting Apple's control and only incidentally about user security. I think Apple initially did have a vested interest in making the app store something less than a security train wreck, if only to get the platform off the ground and not scare away mass adoption.

But many of the restrictions were only coincidentally about security and quite often it seemed like it was just protecting their turf or ideas they had but weren't ready to introduce

Re:

[Karlt1]

restricting access to data or interaction with consumers,

Apps being sandboxed and not being allowed to access features on my phone without explicit permission is a feature not a bug.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

He would.

I find some of the arguments rather silly. If I run a services company that offers email, a blogging platform, and a video service, then OF COURSE I am going to promote my own services over those of other people. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Imbalanced terms and conditions seem to apply to every company. I cannot imagine that Spotify is innocent here. Certainly not anything unique to Google.

Also, while the choices are slim, I do not HAVE to use Google for search. Bing may not be as good, but

OK.

[Dog-Cow]

And, so?

Hasn't every single company that has ever been in a similar position done exactly the same?

By the way, something isn't abuse because you don't like it. Apple and Google use their position to further their position. They are not abusing it because that would mean they were abusing themselves, and that doesn't even make sense.

Re:

[Dog-Cow]

Google has no monopoly on app downloads for any platform or market. This complaint from the CEO is just a rant that companies with more resources are more successful than those with fewer.

Vertical integration

[imgod2u]

Wasn't Microsoft slapped with an anti-trust suit in the 90's for the same vertical integration? Seems like Google preferring Google Music and Apple pushing Safari on iOS would be equivalent.

There are advantages, of course. Integrated platforms can be tested together to guarantee they work well. But it also does stifle competition.

Re:

[R3d M3rcury]

Apple in no way is a monopoly power in the smartphone market [...]

True. But it certainly has monopoly power in the iPhone Apps market.

Microsoft insisted that they did not have a monopoly in the personal computer market. After all, Apple was there. But Microsoft did have a monopoly in the Intel-based PC market. At the time, Apple used PowerPC processors, so they couldn't claim that Apple was a competitor.

Re:

[kqs]

That's not quite right.

Microsoft did not have a monopoly on personal computers, but all you need is "monopoly power" which they did have, They had more than 90% of the market, including OS/2, Macs, etc.

Apple has no monopoly power with their app store; far less than 50% of smartphones can use their apps. Google's app store works on many more phones, though the amazon app store (and many others) weakens the argument, Maybe both together?

But installing the Spotify app on any iOS or android phone is almost n

Re:

[known_coward_69]

M$ was sued for bundling IE into Windows and running Netscape out of business. Of course those were the days when Netscape Navigator was $50 each install, in theory. Imagine paying $50 for Chrome

last I heard apple only charges you if you sell digital stuff through their app store

Incorrect

[s.petry]

Microsoft was sued because they performed numerous illegal acts. Bundling IE was not a problem, but claiming it had to be part of the Kernel was a lie, as Microsoft repeatedly attempted to claim in court. Raising prices for people who also installed and configured Netscape was anti-competitive. Forcing vendors to install IE prominently and not install a current version of Netscape or lose the ability to sell any MS product was anti-competitive.

The problem was not vertical integration, the problem was abu

Shill much?

[s.petry]

The judge in the case was not stupid, and removed the binary to prevent IE from running which Microsoft claimed would prevent Windows from running. Typical shill, not only openly lying but hiding from accountability.

Net neutrality

[NReitzel]

If you think things are bad now, just wait until there is no regulation on net neutrality.

Duh...

[101percent]

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Oh, grow a pair

[earnil]

If you don't like doing business with Google or Apple don't do business with them. You can also invest those millions and millions of dollars into creating your own successful mobile phones and operating systems and reap the benefits.

But of course it's cheaper to whine to EC to help you make more money.

Unfortunately, EC wouldn't wait a second to stick their stinking fingers into another industry.

If I want to sell my product through retailer, of course he will ask for part of the money. I'm using hi

Re:

[earnil]

Companies are in the end just bunch of people working together to deliver certain goods or services. If we end up in a situation that I'm not able to freely exchange money, goods or services with other people of my choosing we will be living in a world without freedom.

So, it's not indeed god given, but it's essential to freedom that we're able exchange goods and services without 3rd party's approval. It's not a coincidence that first target of communists was private entrepreneurship.

Also I don't see a

So..

[fluffernutter]

So the people who have a 'screw you' attitude all the time don't see a problem with this, and the people who try to play fair get it. No surprise there. Fortunately there are still enough people who haven't given up on fair play that we still have a livable society. We could not have a society without them.

Re:

[earnil]

I genuinely wonder what is fair on demanding to use someone else's infrastructure on your own terms? It's not like Google or Apple were given those things, they build it on their own for huge amounts of money and with significant investment risks. I would see a point for example if there is a infrastructure build from public money, then yes, but we're talking private investment here.

Re:

[fluffernutter]

If it were truly an open market like retail clothing then I would say no. But there are only so many large companies that can be the most influential search engine, or the social media site that everyone is on. The problem is that the internet game is one of critical mass and once you achieve that critical mass and are king of the hill, it isn't business sense keeping you afloat, you can ride on the fact that you happened to be the one to luck into that gap and you became prosperous. Unless it can be pro

Re:

[Dog-Cow]

Forcing outcomes is authoritarian. As long as Apple and Google played by society's rules in establishing their positions, they've done nothing wrong. It's no more fair to force Google to give prominence to Spotify than it is for Google to use their prominence to promote their own services.

Re:

[fluffernutter]

So you're saying the price of water should go up until only the most wealthy can afford it. Interesting.

WAIT A MOMENT.

[Chris Katko]

You mean the SAME people we've "trusted" to tell us what is and isn't "fake news" are also ones who abuse their power?!

WHY? Color me surprised!

Re:

[desdinova 216]

I'm guessing that's something to do with the RIAA?

Re:

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Do you really have 10.000 all-time favorite tracks? If you're habitually saving whole albums, why not make playlists instead (those have separate 10.000 song limits from "My Music") or simply follow the artist, if you like the majority of their albums?

When I started using Spotify, I tried saving alle the music I had in my MP3 collection, and quickly ran into the limit. It made me realize how few tracks I actually considered favorites, and how few tracks I actually played on a regular basis. Don't worry, the