Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair • Hacker News Board

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#451

Post by sandov » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

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…

Judging by number of sales, people seem to either like these walled gardens or don't care about them.

For those of us that care about freedom, we can just buy a phone that's compatible with LineageOS (or Replicant if you're willing to go full Stallman) and install it.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#452

Post by joshstrange » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

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

How? By not providing API's to do what they wanted? yawn Next?

- It blocked Spotify from building apps for HomePod

How? By not providing API's to do what they wanted? yawn Next?

- It blocked Spotify from building apps for Siri

How? By not providing API's to do what they wanted? yawn Next?

- It blocks Spotify updates on a regular basis

Wakes up Ok here we have the first real issue, BUT even with that said this is SUPER one-sided. We have only Spotify's word and given their liberal stretching of the truth (or outright breaking it in some cases) I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

- It blocked Spotify from using a podcasting API after it acquired 2x major podcasting companies

I'm going to need more info on this because it is super vague.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#453

Post by JangoSteve » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

sandov wrote: post #440

Asking the European commission to impose regulations is morally worse than taking advantage of your market position and consumers' ignorance.

For what it's worth, I don't think Spotify is asking the European commission to impose regulations, but rather asking them to enforce the regulations they already have.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#454

Post by coldtea » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

xxpor wrote: post #412

j_koreth wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There used to be a Spotify Linux client without electron.

I'm anti-electron as anyone (hello VS code waves ). But for spotify, it seems to make perfect sense. I'm not interacting with it in a way where the downsides of electron (latency, etc) really make a difference.

How about battery, cpu, and memory usage?

Latency is hardly the main downside of Electron.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#455

Post by ihuman » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #90

georgespencer wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>But you can still sideload an app onto an iPhone Can you?

Yes. You can sideload an app with Xcode, but you're need a Mac/Hackintosh to do that, plus the sideloaded app needs to be re-sideloaded after a certain amount of time. The feature is more for developers than normal users.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#456

Post by demuch » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

I just don't understand why most people think Apple don't have a monopoly market position. Of course Apple is the monopoly on the App Service market ([1] App store generated 93 more revenue than google play in Q3). We are talking about app service rather than the phone units sold.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/11/app-store-generated-93-mor...

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#457

Post by joshstrange » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

Wow... Spotify had an opportunity to make a good case and then threw it all away because they got greedy.

A company not providing you and API you want does not equate to them blocking you. FULL STOP.

Spotify had some decent arguments (re: 30%, IAP, payment) but it fell 100% flat when they started giving equal importance to things that were not targeted at them. The lack of music API's on homepod, watch, iPhone are not some direct slight against Spotify and to pretend they are only shows Spotify's inflated view of themselves. Put simply: NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU.

Spotify is twisting the truth to it's breaking point in this post with just enough truth sprinkled around that you might not notice the bullshit.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#458

Post by jetti » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

JangoSteve wrote: post #430

jetti wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Netscape Navigator was a paid application. Microsoft was bundling their product, which was free, with their OS. They OS was dominating the market, which meant that majority of people didn't have to buy from Netscape. They were forcing out the competition. When Apple, Google and Amazon are releasing unrelated services into their platforms it isn't to starve out competitors but just expand their…

> They aren't, as far as I know, drastically undercutting the prices of their services to levels that aren't sustainable for other companies to compete. The linked Spotify page says exactly the opposite. > Because Apple Music doesn’t have to pay the 30% IAP charge, they are able to hugely undercut us and charge €9.99. To our fans, this just looked like we were ripping you off

I was responding more so to the bundling of services rather than to the App Store specifically. Though, you could argue that the App Store and/or Apple Music are services that are bundled

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#459

Post by username3 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

nevir wrote: post #238

Apple did the same thing to Kindle for iPhone back when it launched. We submitted the original version to Apple with a fully functioning store built into it—and were then stuck in submission limbo. Two weeks later, Apple announces their intent to build in-app purchasing. The kicker: Apple wanted a 30% cut of every book sold on the store …and at the same time, had negotiated with book publishers that the publishers MU…

Apple doesn’t always get 30%. You can buy iTunes gift cards 20% off. Amazon can take 90% by selling iTunes gift cards used to buy through App Store.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#460

Post by rahoulb » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

dmlittle wrote: post #42

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.

If I remember correctly the app wasn't on the app store (presumably because it couldn't get approved)

I have an install of Apollo for Spotify on my Apple Watch.

It streams Spotify directly without your phone and has a very flaky offline mode.

The developer tweeted that Spotify (not Apple) asked him to remove it four days after it reached the App Store.

I was lucky enough to get hold of it in that brief window and use it often.