[mikeortman]

Apple's response, in a nutshell:

- A weird callout to the nationality of the company right out of the gate

- Spotify will be nothing without us (insert crazy ex memes)

- "Our engineering helps ensure that Spotify’s apps can work seamlessly with Siri, CarPlay, Apple Watch, AirPlay, Widgets, and more." -- yeah, because those are your products, Apple. You make your money on those products being tightly integrated

- A bizarre quantization of the apple ecosystem by total number of "APIs" Apple gives them access to (250k)

- A claim of insider coercion between Spotify and the EU Commission that made it difficult for Apple to win

- They are going to appeal

[TillE]

My favorite bit is their key highlighted argument that their anti-competitive behavior has been ineffective, therefore it's not anti-competitive.

[Vinnl]

It's not even that they say it's been ineffective; they're saying that the EC can't prove that it has been effective.

And AFAIK there's also no reasoning given why it's fine to prevent apps from mentioning other payment options, even assuming it's not anti-competitive. (But to be fair, I haven't actually gone to the source to read their statement.)

[shuckles]

Surely effectiveness is a meaningful indicator when you are in a dispute over whether something is anti-competitive.

[Jensson]

No, if Apple tries to give advantages to its own music app it is still possible for their app to fail if it is bad enough compared to the competition even if Apple gave themselves large unfair advantages.

In cases where Apple succeeded in killing the competition you wouldn't see a lawsuit like this since the competition wouldn't have the money to sue properly.

[shuckles]

This isn’t a lawsuit and it’s not being brought on by competition so I’m not sure why any of that is useful to say.

I did not say it’s impossible to be anti-competitive without being effective. I just said it’s a factor when judging whether something is. So your first point is irrelevant as well.

[turquoisevar]

You should get your nuts checked, that nutshell is a bit rotten.

My nutshell contains something else:

- Apple lamp-shading that EU companies seem to get a pass

- Apple refuting Spotify’s claims that Apple’s acts somehow have harmed and stifled Spotify, by highlighting how successful Spotify is

- Highlighting how Spotify has benefited from Apple’s work without paying a dime, refuting the implied notion that Spotify is on the hook for 30% and refuting the implied notion that no benefit is provided in exchange for the commission by Spotify consistently calling it a “tax”

- Lamp-shading the fact that the scope of the EC’s investigation has changed more often than your average brothel’s bed occupant during the ten years of the investigation due to the EC not being able to make the case on all the other stuff they tried, from consumer harms to harm to competitors, eventually landing on a anti steering provision but only in the music streaming service market and only after that anti steering was already abolished, hinting that Spotify has been the driving force behind this indefatigable mindset to find something that sticks

- They think it’s BS and are going to appeal, according to them because no harm was proven, but I think in part because the actual fine is only $4m, because that’s how shitty the EC’s case was even after shifting the goal post so often, so the EC decided to add a bogus “deterrence” fine. That and of course because this is merely a decision by an executive branch, in that regard it’s not unlike, say, Trump’s executive orders, in that they’re not worth much more than the paper they’re written on until a judge has adjudicated it.

[albert180]

The Outrage out of Cupertino will be even funnier when they will get bonked for their BS Compliance with the DMA

[Vespasian]

I mean the tone of their initial press release anouncing "compliance" was borderline unprofessional (in global company PR speak terms) and sounded at time like a pertulent teenager fuming about that "unfair" teacher.

I'm sure it was all calucated and discussed a million times but if their goal was to appeal to emotions, I think it mostly failed (outside a very small nieche of Apple groupies). Their leverage in the EU is weak (thanks to few jobs and tax avoidance (even if that's legal))

Once they notice they will revert to lawywers and silent compliance.

[bryanrasmussen]

>A weird callout to the nationality of the company right out of the gate

not particularly weird, it's a rhetorical implication that the EU favors a European company unfairly.