Long rumored, now confirmed—Apple is throwing their hat into the music streaming ring. At yesterday’s WWDC conference, the tech mega-giant unveiled “Apple Music,” an online streaming service that will compete with industry stalwarts Spotify. The grapevine was filled with whispers of Apple’s potential foray into the streaming market when they acquired Dr. Dre’s Beats Electronics for $3B last May, and on June 30^th the service will become a reality for consumers.

The main question though: what separates it from Spotify? Aside from Taylor Swift—not much. Like Spotify Premium, the service still requires a monthly fee ($9.99, $14.99 for a family of six), and will contain essentially the same library.

But this is where Apple has always excelled. They take already established technology—some faltering consumer-wise, like tablets—and swoop in with their own offering, somehow making boatloads of money and creating the industry standard. There’s no arguing that Apple makes a top-of-the-line product, but they’ve famously withheld features already present on other tech companies’ offerings, just to provide them later and market their inclusion as massive selling points (my Apple mouse didn’t have a right-click button until 2009.)

It almost sounds counterintuitive, but it always works. And as Apple is one of the most profitable companies on the planet, there’s obviously genius behind their motives.

So while their streaming service may not be much different than Spotify, do not count on its ability to compete. Apple consumers are famously enthusiastic about its products—almost to the point of being cultish—and when you have a motivated customer-base, they’re likely to buy-first and ask questions later.  At the end of the day, the consumer wins in this scenario, because you can believe both Apple and Spotify will strengthen their efforts to put out the best service possible.

It was the best worst-kept secret in all of sports, but I’m not sure anyone could have predicted the absolute scope and scale of FIFA’s corruption. Last week, just days prior to holding their presidential elections, the governing body of international soccer was raided by police—leading to a handful of arrests of high-ranking FIFA officials. Allegations include racketeering, money laundering and bribery—your typical white-collar crime fare.

Ladies and gentlemen: John Oliver was right.

According to the unsealed indictments, the FIFA probe began shortly after the suspicious awarding of World Cups to Russia in 2018 and Qatar in 2022. The World Cup is traditionally held during the summer months, making it virtually impossible for it to be held in Qatar considering temperatures can skyrocket over 130 degrees Fahrenheit. FIFA also requires numerous cities replete with soccer infrastructure, which Qatar did not have. “Screw it, we’ll build them,” they said. With that kind of cash laying around, it’s not hard to believe there would be some to spare to grease some palms.

Essentially, Qatar is the worst place on the planet to host such a massive sporting event.

That’s the crux of the allegations against FIFA: that troughs of cash was exchanged to influence bid selection for the next two World Cups. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch referred to them as a “criminal enterprise,” and with the details trickling out about the organization, it appears an appropriate label.

Even with the dark clouds surrounding the FIFA leadership, they still voted to re-elect their longtime president Sepp Blatter to his fifth term, although the questions regarding his involvement are getting closer to his doorstep. I don’t feel there is any way that he remains at his post for long; there was too much that went on during his watch. Either he knew and ignored it, or was completely unaware—which given FIFA’s widely held reputation as a corrupt organization might be even worse.

More than 1,200 migrant workers have already died building Qatar’s World Cup infrastructure—for an event they should not be hosting. As far as I’m concerned, that blood is directly on FIFA’s hands, and I hope the arrests force change in an organization that dreadfully needs it.