81–90 of 865 posts
Spotify asking someone else to play fair, ha, that really made my day... I mean, of all companies, Spotify. Their whole business model is built upon not playing fair with content creators.
Which streaming service plays the most fair?
Source: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/12/25/streaming-music-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this is their point: Apple deliberately leaves those features unbuilt in order to give itself a market position that others can't compete with
> Apple deliberately leaves those features unbuilt in order to give itself a market position that others can't compete with There's a vast gulf between "Spotify was blocked" and "Apple didn't spend time and money building a service that Spotify wanted".
They did indeed have "the service" in question, it was just limited to Apple's own offering.
It's a scenario not unlike net neutrality: an infrastructure provider that is also a content provider can put themselves or select customers in a position where free market forces are hindered or suspended in order to achieve a monopoly-like status.
Unpopular opinion: I will never go back to the Apple ecosystem. I like my freedom way too much.
The claims in here are pretty wild, particularly around how Apple has favored its own products: - Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch - It blocked Spotify from building apps for HomePod - It blocked Spotify from building apps for Siri - It blocks Spotify updates on a regular basis - It blocked Spotify from using a podcasting API after it acquired 2x major podcasting companies I genuinely hope Europe t…
> Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch I'm not sure this is 100% true. From browsing the spotify support forums many moons ago, some guy had built a spotify playing app for the apple watch, but spotify squashed it. Given that some random dev could do this, it doesn't seem like apple prevented anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this is their point: Apple deliberately leaves those features unbuilt in order to give itself a market position that others can't compete with
Which raises the question: to what degree does a platform owner have a responsibility to support the businesses of others? Rephrased, Spotify seems to think it has a /right/ to run its software on Apple platforms in an identical fashion to Apple's first-party software. Does that mean Apple has an obligation to provide an equivalent technical capacity for literally any software that runs on its devices? An app store?…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spotify not playing fair with artists Spotify is paying as much as music industry extorts from it. Where does the money go? Ask the big labels that are the ones paying artists.
The big labels aren't important, they're going to get their money anyway. This hurts the smaller labels, like my label, and countless others who never see a god damn dime from Spotify streaming. Meanwhile, Bandcamp streams the songs for free but they allow you to pay what you want. I've made at least 10x the profit from selling tracks on Bandcamp than I ever did in the streaming world. If Spotify wants to play fair,…
Can someone help me stop playing the world's smallest violin here? Spotify knowingly built a low margin business living in the pocket of the labels (who force Spotify towards razor thin margins) and Apple/Google (who have, since before Spotify launched, operated app stores for their platforms which are to some extent curated and which are not free market economies). Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow i…
> Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow it to develop software for certain of their hardware lines, such as Homepod or Apple Watch. Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible? I see your point but you could flip that a 3rd way: "Consumers pay for their hardware - they own the device - so why should manufacturers tell consumers what th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this is their point: Apple deliberately leaves those features unbuilt in order to give itself a market position that others can't compete with
Which raises the question: to what degree does a platform owner have a responsibility to support the businesses of others? Rephrased, Spotify seems to think it has a /right/ to run its software on Apple platforms in an identical fashion to Apple's first-party software. Does that mean Apple has an obligation to provide an equivalent technical capacity for literally any software that runs on its devices? An app store?…
Perhaps they should not be allowed (by law) to change the terms of the platform for X amount of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow it to develop software for certain of their hardware lines, such as Homepod or Apple Watch. Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible? I see your point but you could flip that a 3rd way: "Consumers pay for their hardware - they own the device - so why should manufacturers tell consumers what th…
Totally see that. But you can still sideload an app onto an iPhone or Mac and hack around. People were getting Windows onto their x86 Macs before Bootcamp, for example. The point of Homepod is that it does nothing else, by design: it's a device for playing Apple Music on. I don't see a distinction between forcing Apple to open up iOS for installation on any hardware.
Can you?