Sorry, the point was that Apple is using its financial resources in one market to enter into another market. This is fine...except that Apple is doing so in a non-competitive manner (which is what the EU cares about) which increases the costs to consumers (which is what the US cares about.)
Apple may or may not be running AM at a profit or not...that's not the problem. The problem is that they're not subjecting AM to the same competitive pressures as AM's competition, i.e., internally they're not holding AM to the same limitations on billing, marketing, etc. as they're forcing on Spotify, Pandora, etc.
If Apple wanted to run AM in a way that didn't violate Western anti-trust rules, they'd have to make it adhere to the same app store restrictions spotify and the rest face, and they would have to charge it 30% for subscription fees. (AM is a separate legal entity. For tax purposes it may just ultimately be money changing pockets, but for legal and especially for antitrust purposes the fact that there is actual money moving around is what matters.)
I guess I'm still trying to figure out why Spotify and Apple Music cross some new line. The iOS app store has been around since 2008 and the macOS app store since 2011. The entire time Apple has sold their own apps side-by-side with competitors. Aperture, Logic, Final Cut Pro are all professional apps sold side-by-side with third party apps. You also have ebooks and music stores, too.
How would you classify iMovie, Pages, etc? They were sold on the store and now offered for free and compete with others.
> With Apple, there's no option to provide Spotify to iPhone users except through Apple's own store.
Kindle, Audible, Netflix, HBO and a bunch of others have been on there for years. Netflix tested the waters with subscribing through Apple and went back to offering it outside of the store. I don't think Kindle ever has.
Apple may or may not be running AM at a profit or not...that's not the problem. The problem is that they're not subjecting AM to the same competitive pressures as AM's competition, i.e., internally they're not holding AM to the same limitations on billing, marketing, etc. as they're forcing on Spotify, Pandora, etc.
If Apple wanted to run AM in a way that didn't violate Western anti-trust rules, they'd have to make it adhere to the same app store restrictions spotify and the rest face, and they would have to charge it 30% for subscription fees. (AM is a separate legal entity. For tax purposes it may just ultimately be money changing pockets, but for legal and especially for antitrust purposes the fact that there is actual money moving around is what matters.)