Spotify legal law officers just published the stupidest op-ed against Apple

Spotify legal law officers just published the stupidest op-ed against Apple

As a high profile epic profile V Apple Trial enters the third week on Monday – with the main apple executives are now being installed, like the former Head of Apple Phil Schiller Marketing – Chief Legal Officials of Apple Antagonists who are truly separate decide that this will happen Right to publish a screed against iPhone makers. The section takes the form of OP-ED on the Wall Street Journal, for more specific, and repeats the same accusations related to competition and monopolistic behavior that is said to be imitated in the epic trial in the Federal Court in California.

Spat, in this separate thing, is between Apple vs Spotify, and the WSJ commentary writer is the Spotify Chief Legal Officer Horacio Gutierrez. Suffice it to say that to anyone who follows his career which includes assignments in Microsoft before joining Spotify, the accusation of the new comments published that Apple is “the cruel disturbances who use their dominance against limp competitors” is likely to be heard, well, rich enough to remember the source.

You can read the full comment, titled “Monopolist worms on Apple,” here. But be warned before, the only rotten, rotten about OP-ed is a sense of interesting complaints that cover too many companies, including Spotify, once they realize that Apple’s rules are profitable, wait, instead of offering charity to businesses that benefit from the ecosystem Apple.

Before we enter this, let me just say since the beginning even though it doesn’t matter too many people – this is not written by Apologi Apple. I have my problem with more than one company service and does not have a problem with gladly using rival deals as an alternative. I am here not praising everything Apple, and the podcast application is a good example. I am not the biggest podcast consumer in the world, because there really is only one show that I am a hardcore loyalist, but still, I have found a user experience that the Stitcher application offers for superior to Apple offerings. That is not a big problem. You choose the best for you, and you move.

Let’s go back now to Gutierrez’s comments against Apple, which as we note quite timely because it combines some of the same problems being imitated in the Action of the Epic Games Court. One, he reaffirmed the old beef Spotify against Apple, namely Apple needed 30% of purchases in applications and subscription income. Second, “Apple Antisteering provisions, which are contained in the rules imposed on the application developer, the bar company provides customers directly to paid subscriptions and from communicating with customers about ways to access agreements or promotions.

“Apple does not show this limit on Apple music, its services that compete with Spotify. So, if the customer is in the Spotify iPhone application for free, it cannot subscribe to Spotify Premium without paying Apple Royalties, and Spotify can’t tell him to go to the desktop for A better deal on a subscription. “

Okay, stop. As I saw, and I think most people understand this at the intestinal level even if they don’t realize it – As soon as you have stepped into someone’s walled garden and agree to participate in it, you have lost your right to complain of monopolistic, anti-competitive care. By making choices to participate in the walled garden, you really just proven the absence of monopoly, or anti-competition! This is an example. Let’s say you decided to visit me here in Memphis, Tennessee, and you want to eat to eat before our visit. You are lucky. There are many amazing restaurants in the city, spread along along and the area, offering all kinds of dishes and serving every possible price point. You have a gift of choice. Obviously not a case of one restaurant or one restaurant company monopolizing the choice of people here.

General