Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true, but what percent or android phones bought every year our carrier specific models? I'm guessing it's a very high percentage. So for the average user things are restricted by the carrier.
Not disagreeing with you. But those people had a choice and they chose a subsidised and/or cheaper phone that was locked down.
Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'
211–220 of 222 posts
Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious on what grounds are you making these claims? Would you disagree if this was a startup whom had built an app store over a decade and was getting violated? I am not a fan of jagurnaut tech companies but the rules are the rules. They built it and from what I can see (I am an IOS developer) the payment system is indeed in violation. The guidelines clearly say that apple payment system MUST be used. It doesn't mat…
The 30% doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that Apple prevents you from passing that cost on to your customers. You're not allowed to have your regular price be X and your Apple price be X+30%. That's what's anticompetitive to me. Apple is saying "we're providing a value-add, pay us" but not allowing developers to price it in to their balance sheet.
Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do within a webview. Whats you problem that you believe you've got to explain to me how our app works? Seems like you don't have a clue what is actually possible. Go read the TOS for Apple's in app billing.
Sure but you aren't charging for digital goods. You are charging for infrastructure access, which is explicitly allowed. Seems like you are trying to muddy the issue by pretending your case is representative of anything we are taking about here.
Our only infrastructure are VoIP servers.
The infrastructure is not different than Spotify's. It's all just servers.
Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'
#214Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but you aren't charging for digital goods. You are charging for infrastructure access, which is explicitly allowed. Seems like you are trying to muddy the issue by pretending your case is representative of anything we are taking about here.
What we are doing is all digital. You buy credits on a website which you can use to call someone on a landline/mobile phone number. Our only infrastructure are VoIP servers. The infrastructure is not different than Spotify's. It's all just servers.
The service you provide to the customer is use of your VoIP infrastructure. That's what they pay for.
In the case of Spotify, the service is not access to infrastructure. It is access to digital goods in the form of licensed music files.
Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
"hey siri open Spotify" works fine.
... And then find your way to search icon, click x to clear current query, hit microphone icon to say song name? By this point I've probably killed 9 people on the road while driving. Compare this with "hey Siri play bob Dylan's blowing in the wind" and it working just with this
Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
... And then find your way to search icon, click x to clear current query, hit microphone icon to say song name? By this point I've probably killed 9 people on the road while driving. Compare this with "hey Siri play bob Dylan's blowing in the wind" and it working just with this
The previous post was saying that Spotify could implement their own voice recognition once launched.
Apple should have opened Siri to spotify.
Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
The previous post was saying that Spotify could implement their own voice recognition once launched.
But that's still more than simply "Hey Siri play something by Rolling stones" or "Ok google play some Johnny Cash" Apple should have opened Siri to spotify.
Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's still more than simply "Hey Siri play something by Rolling stones" or "Ok google play some Johnny Cash" Apple should have opened Siri to spotify.
Even if Apple did open Siri up and provide a "music playing intent" for Siri like they did for messages, it would still be something like "play something by the Rolling Stones using Spotify". Is that much different from "open Spotify" and once Spotify is open "Play something by the Rolling Stones"?
So, I have an iphone 6s -- and I use Siri a _lot_. Mostly I use it when I'm talking to friends or family... e.g. today someone told me he didn't know any of Dylan's songs... and I went "oh, well let me tell you of some!"
Usually when you're talking to someone, and you spend half the time on your device suddenly disconnected from the person you're talking to, that makes things tough. Generally one should optimize for a friction-free experience. Generally, that means trying to do whatever in the least amount of steps.
When Apple refuses to open up siri, it makes things really difficult.
I mean really, this is from direct personal experience. My decision to quit spotify recently was literally this. (another was driving -- I need to go hands-free and least-steps there too for my own sake)
Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ Right there. "Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded on Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment" The exceptions are for physical things, and for things that can be used outside of the app. You can't use a Spotify subscription outside of Spotify.
Sorry for the accidental down vote. Dead on correct.