[granzymes]

Hard to see what harm to competition there is in a market that has steadily grown, with Spotify at the top, during the entire period in which Apple was allegedly harming the market. Spotify doesn’t pay the Apple tax and yet charges the same as all the other market participants.

Going to be very interesting to see what the EU courts say in a few years.

[ImPostingOnHN]

This seems to carry with it the implicit assumption that if one competitor is growing, no harm has been done.

I don't see any reason this must be true. It's totally possible, and indeed reality, that both harm has been done, and at least 1 competitor is growing. So there seems to be no mutual exclusivity there in real life.

[granzymes]

That’s true. In the same vein, competitors stagnating is not necessarily proof of anticompetitive harm.

But it’s a strong clue that maybe the EU got this one wrong. The fact that Spotify doesn’t pay the Apple tax and yet still is the market leader shows you that, at the very least, Apple is not foreclosing competition.