Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

timetoplayfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#441

Post by [deleted] »

thanatos_dem wrote: post #346
ringaroll wrote: post #295

I really hope Apple dies and burns. They have good PR but thats it. They lie and deceit developers just like Google. Bait and Switch. There should be government regulation of Apple, Facebook and Google. These corps are just too big and control our democracy. Apple is starving innovation by deliberately not supporting many thing on the Safari iOS browser and prevents competition illegally by restricting 3rd party brow…

What does iOS Safari not support? It uses WebKit, so more or less full technical/js support, it has ad blockers, tracking prevention, a built in password manager that uses the iOS keychain... not sure what else I’d really want for web browsing.

[deleted]

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#442

Post by JangoSteve »

cujo wrote: post #12
owenwil wrote: post #4

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.

My read from the linked timeline is that Apple didn't block Spotify from the Apple Watch, but rather wouldn't provide the API necessary to Spotify for offline-mode.

I inferred this from the vague wording in the earlier points and the clarifications in the later points.

> When Apple launches their new Apple Watch, they dismiss our proposals and won’t work with us to develop an app for it.

Notice, they didn't say they were blocked. Also why would building an app for the watch necessitate a proposal to Apple that requires Apple to work with them directly? Wouldn't you instead build your app and submit it for approval? This is probably because the Apple Watch SDK didn't provide all the functionality Spotify wanted, and so Spotify was trying to get Apple to add new functionality to the SDK.

> We submit a new proposal for a streaming app directly on the Apple Watch. Apple declines

> With WatchOS 4, Apple continues to make it challenging for us to deliver a workable streaming solution for the Apple Watch

Again, doesn't say they were blocked, just that proposals were rejected and the provided functionality made it difficult/impossible to do what they wanted.

> With Watch OS 5, Apple allowed the Spotify team to start developing offline functionality

Was this the functionality Spotify was proposing for Apple to make possible all along? In other words, was this the missing part of the SDK that Spotify had kept proposing to Apple and having rejected (not the app itself, which they didn't want to build without this functionality)?

EDIT: I'm also not saying they didn't build the app and submit it and have it rejected. They just never actually say that in the timeline.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#443

Post by [deleted] »

jonhohle wrote: post #429
volandovengo wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a long time I've been confused about the rules of monopolies. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble when they bundled IE into Windows so much so that the US threatened heavily to break up the company. Fast forward a decade later and apple, google and amazon bundle a crazy amount of unrelated services into their platforms without the regulators raising an eyebrow...

They bundled _while_ having a monopoly. They could have bundled or they could have had a monopoly, but doing both is where it crosses the anti-trust line since your customers are effectively captive. What does Apple have a monopoly on? What does Amazon have a monopoly on? Google arguably has a monopoly on search which could put them in an unfavorable position should an antitrust case be brought against them (maybe wh…

[deleted]

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#444

Post by balls187 »

12298765 wrote: post #114
pedroaraujo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are significant costs associated with the app store, no? Part of the reason users gravitate towards the iPhone is because you can download high quality apps without malware, viruses, etc. That should be covered by the one time fee that developers pay to Apple in order to publish apps into the App Store. I am not sure if a simple binary needs a 30% cut of the entire Spotify profit to keep up with the costs of…

> Because Apple is using a completely different market, which they have a strong presence on, to increase the value of Apple Music and consequently devaluing any other competing music streaming services. This is the core issue. Apple using their dominant market position in the hardware/operating system markets to push anticompetitive practices for their product in a different market (Apple Music). I don't see how thi…

> Apple using their dominant market position in the hardware/operating system markets to push anticompetitive practices for their product in a different market (Apple Music).

Allegedly anticompetitive.

Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook all engage in similar behavior by giving preferential treatment of their products/features/services.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#445

Post by balls187 »

coldtea wrote: post #170
supermatt wrote: post #71

Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. You cant move to another platform without losing access to all your "purchases" - there is no free market. They have monopolies within ecosystems they created. They should be FORCED to have an open platform, with users able to access multiple 3rd party storefronts on multiple pla…

> Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS They were never stopped from that. They were stopped for abusing their monopoly (e.g. threatening OEM PC vendors that unless they bundled this or that, they wont get Windows for a special price, etc). And that when they had a monopoly (e.g. close to 98% of the desktop AND business market) -- which in itself is not illegal.

More technically, they had to provide a version of Windows that didn't ship with IE, and iirc a version that allowed new users to pick an alternate browser.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#446

Post by joshstrange »

addicted wrote: post #258
dwighttk wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify is available (on apple watch) now, for whatever that's worth... Took me about 2 minutes from reading the complaint to playing Spotify (already had an account) on my watch. That includes downloading from the store and then to the watch (which has in the past, with other apps, taken a while)

They state in their timeline that after many years Apple did allow Spotify.

> They state in their timeline that after many years Apple did allow Spotify.

This is a VERY different statement than the true one which is:

Apple didn't allow ANY streaming music (or audiobook, or podcast) apps on the watch due to not providing the API's. They didn't specifically block Spotify.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#448

Post by berbec »

Angostura wrote: post #395
volandovengo wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a long time I've been confused about the rules of monopolies. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble when they bundled IE into Windows so much so that the US threatened heavily to break up the company. Fast forward a decade later and apple, google and amazon bundle a crazy amount of unrelated services into their platforms without the regulators raising an eyebrow...

At that time Microsoft completely dominated desktop operating systems to the extent that it was an effective monopoly. It them attempted to leverage that position to try and squash other browser makers. I agree that Apple is trying to squash Spotify, but I don't believe it doesn't have an effective monopoly on mobile phones.

Microsoft DID squash other browsers. Netscape died and the code lived on, but the profitable company was no more.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#449

Post by ChicagoBoy11 »

cujo wrote: post #313
ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterargument: Apple's review process is more likely to let "some guy's" app slip through the cracks and make it in the App Store than the official app of one of its huge competitors with an install base of many, many, many millions of devices.

Perhaps. No one has any evidence of this in this case though, so it sounds like you're just taking a side. On the other hand Spotify did squash this guy's app. That's a thing that happened. So it's not like the APIs aren't there. So now we're taking Spotify's word that Apple is keeping them off the app store, while ignoring the fact that said app is possible and they themselves have kept an app off the app store. Sou…

True, I just offered a counterargument based on conjecture. So let's assume at least rational behavior on the part of Spotify. What do you think would be their rationale for not building a feature that would enhance their product and is desired by customers? What do they gain by blaming Apple for not building it? This isn't rhetorical... I think there are potential legitimate reasons they'd want to do this, I'm just curious about where your thinking is on this.
Post reply on HN