As Epic Games Vantaux V Apple registered on its third week on Monday – with major Apple leaders being now put on the stand, as the former Apple Marketing Chef Phil Schiller – the lawyer of an Apple antagonist Completely separated decided that it would be the ideal time to publish a screed against the iPhone manufacturer. This piece took the form of an OP-ED in the Wall Street Journal, to be more precise, and teaches some of the same accusations relating to the competition and monopolistic behavior, which are also translated into the trial of the epic games to The Federal Court of California.
The spat, in this distinct case, is between Apple vs Spotify and the author of the WSJ commentary is Spotify Head of the Jurist Horacio Gutierrez. It suffices to say that, however, to anyone who has followed his career who understood a stebit to Microsoft before joining Spotify, his newly published comment fees that Apple is a “ruthless intimidation that uses his domination for competitors Hobbles” is likely. to ring, well, rich enough taking into account the source.
You can read full comment, entitled “The Monopolist Worm in Apple” here. But be inappreciated, the only person vermin and the only rotten thing about this OP-ED is the heinous feeling of the grievance that invades too many companies, Spotify included, once they realize that the rules of Apple enjoy, wait for it Apple, instead of offering a busy charity that benefits from Apple’s ecosystem.
Before going into that, let me just say from the start, even if it does not matter too many people – this is not written by an Apple apologist. I have my problems with more than one of the company’s services and I have no problem with happily with rival offers as an alternative. I’m not here to run any Apple, and his podcast application is a good example. I am not the largest global consumer of podcasts because there is really only one show that I am a hardcore loyalist, but nevertheless, I found the user experience that the application of Stitcher offers Be a lot higher than Apple’s offer. It does not matter. You choose the best thing for you and you go to something else.
Now let’s go back to the commentary of Gutierrez against Apple, which, as we noted, is quite timely because it integrates some of the same problems related to the action of the Epic Games Court. One, he reiterates the long-standing beef against Apple, which is that Apple takes a share of 30% of integrated purchases as well as subscription revenues. Secondly, “Apple’s antisering provisions contained in the rules that it imposes on application developers, customer supply bar companies a direct way to a paid subscription and communication with customers on ways to access offers or promotions.
“Apple activates none of these limits on Apple music, its service that competes with Spotify. So, if a customer is on the free application Spotify iPhone, it can not subscribe to Spotify Premium without paying Apple a fee and Spotify can not tell him to go to his office for a better deal on the subscription. “
Okay, stop. As I see, and I think most people understand this on a level of intestine, even if they do not make it in the walled garden of someone and you agreed to participate, you lost Your right to complain about monopolistic, anti-competitive treatment. By making the choice to participate in this walled garden, you literally proved the non-existence of a monopoly or competition! Here is an example. Let’s say you decide to visit me in Memphis, Tennessee, and you want to catch a bite to eat before our visit. You’re lucky. There is a ton of extraordinary restaurants in the city, extended in the length and width of it, offering all kinds of dishes and caterers at all imaginable prices. You have a premium of choice. Certainly not a case of a restaurant or a monopolizing restaurant the choice of peoples here.
