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

761–770 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#761

Post by asark »

pms wrote: post #750
lancesells wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel for Spotify and other companies on the 30% tax but I also love knowing that any purchase by my family or myself is protected, private and easily refunded if there's a mistake. There are already a lot of apps preying on kids but it would be at another level without the in-house payment system. I think something like 30% on the first purchase and then 5-6% for any recurring purchases would make more sense. I kno…

This is a ridiculous stance. Essentially it's the same as saying that you're scared to pay for anything online and you only trust Apple for making online payments. There are other solutions to feel secure about paying online or via an app. For instance, if the app asks you for payment, you could be first shown its rating in the store, if it's low. There could be even a separate rating judging the payment security of…

> Essentially it's the same as saying that you're scared to pay for anything online and you only trust Apple for making online payments.

I'm not particularly scared of paying for things online. I'm scared of almost anyone else in my extended family doing so, though. If you think that concern's "ridiculous" you haven't watched them use the Web. And lots of them—especially the older ones—have (rightly!) never entirely gotten over fear of buying things online. Some(!) of them do buy things online, but reluctantly, with great deliberation. In an app on an Apple device? Concerns gone. Even for me, that little background stress of being on alert for shenanigans quiets down when I'm in the Apple ecosystem. Far lower (though non-zero—there's a reason I do almost no iOS gaming) permitted rates of douchebaggery is one of the things keeping me on iOS, and the one-source-of-payments is a vital part of that.

[EDIT] there are further benefits to users and developers alike, I should add, when the UI for a purchase is the same in every app. It's worth 30% to "defect" from that, so worth it on the individual level, but if it's permitted at all then the game's up and everyone loses.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#762

Post by yellowapple »

gnicholas wrote: post #699
yellowapple wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, could Spotify work around this by mailing something to the customer every month (like a "Certificate of Subscription")? That way it'd technically be a physical good.

I imagine that would be insufficient to transform the purchase into that of a physical good. Might have a chance if it were a physical widget (USB key?) that you plug into your computer or phone to validate your subscription. Even that is walking the line, since you're arguably still buying a digital good, albeit one that is activated/confirmed via a hardware key.

So if I were to buy a sheet of paper from Amazon every month, that wouldn't be a physical good?

Or is the rule that the physical good can't be accompanied by anything beyond the physical object itself? If that's the case, then is Amazon not allowed to sell items via its iOS app if those items come with warranties?

Or what about video games? If Amazon is allowed to sell physical copies of them, then can Spotify go full-AOL-mode and send a CD with a Spotify installer on it every month?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#763

Post by ehaliewicz2 »

sinnoh wrote: post #553
elagost wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad has had iPads since the first one, and it is still jarring for him to not be able to just click a "store" button in the Kindle app. (I believe it used to have a webview for the store built-in; I do not use the Kindle app) He was very confused when it disappeared. I imagine most users feel this way. I had to coach my mom to sign up for Pandora on the website so she saved a couple bucks a month, and it was baffl…

boy, that kind of "deep regulation" into UX design from a single arbitrary company should be illegal regardless. people bought apple hardware and the operating system, not voted them the unilateral governing body on consumer choice in that platform. one should not be taken to imply the other.

I've never actually owned one, but did the iphone ever allow users to install arbitrary apps (without jailbreaking, of course)?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#764

Post by g2e »

Splendor wrote: post #537
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…

I'll feel sorry for Kindle when their devices support EPUB files.

https://calibre-ebook.com/

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#765

Post by ehaliewicz2 »

judge2020 wrote: post #557
gurpreet- wrote: post #126

Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…

While the Apple Tax is a problem of its own, I would hate for Apple to allow downloading apps through websites. A large part of iOS security is that everything has to be co-signed by Apple unless it's an Enterprise distribution app [1], so even if there is an exploit that breaks out of the app sandbox you don't have to worry about malicious websites drive-by downloading it. 1: they're likely refining the process of o…

Imagine you had a laptop or desktop where you could only install apps that were approved by the hardware manufacturer or os developer. Would you really be ok with that?

If not, how is it any different from the phone?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#766

Post by ehaliewicz2 »

supernova87a wrote: post #723
paavoova wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine - I don't care about the App Store and what it offers, I just want some way to give users access to my app. Now what? Apple says "Fall in line if you want to access to our platform", I say "Thanks, but I'm not interested, I just want users to access my app somehow", but they can't and that's the crux of it. There are many legitimate apps banned from the app store, and that would be fine if the user could…

Again, that's not a correct analogy, and you're framing it like someone with deep feelings of entitlement to do what you want in the software world. That's creating a flawed argument in your logic and you're turning your desire into what you believe is legal. Or thinking that because you put work into something, someone else has to give you a forum to get paid for that work. Actually your bridge analogy is apt, but i…

What argument do you have to support not letting users run whatever software they'd like on hardware they own?

And in extension to that, paying other people for software that they'd like to run and don't mind paying for, which is not sold through e.g. the App Store.

I'm legitimately interested in this, because I cannot see any reason why a user shouldn't be able to run any software they'd like on their own hardware, and/or pay for it however they want.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#767

Post by throwaway198389 »

covercash wrote: post #731
rubicon33 wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. This is especially damaging to small companies. Most people have heard of Spotify, Netflix, Pandora, etc. So it's somewhat natural for them (if not a bit akward) to go to the website if they can't get premium in the app. But for small companies that connection isn't immediately obvious. In my company for i…

Most(every?) app that I’ve signed up for requires an email address. Some apps then send a verification or welcome email. If you mention and link to paid subscription upgrades in that email, will Apple pull your app?

As Spotify points out, and I've seen first hand, Apple prohibits you from allowing users to create accounts or enter contact information if your service has a paid option and you don't use apple's IAP.

So you couldn't even get to the point where you can send an email without first falling in line with IAP.

And according to my understanding of the Spotify timeline, and I haven't see this because I haven't published to the platform in a while, Apple now prohibits you from targeting your iOS users with upgrade communications (even if they didn't sign up via iOS, which they didn't since that's prohibited).

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#768

Post by Gorbzel »

headsoup wrote: post #687
hokumguru wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This opens up a wide host of negative side-effects including the extreme ease of malware. I'd say the #1 value proposition for the App Store, and why most iOS users prefer it, is the guarantee of virus-free programs.

Why don't Apple/Google ensure AV/Malware protection is a default app? Why do we depend on Apple/Google protecting us from these big bad apps? If not Apple/Google controlling it directly, I'd imagine there would be a reasonable market for malware/AV providers on mobiles, if not solutions provided by Apple/Google.

A minority of the HN circlejerk doesn’t like the proven security and ease of Apple’s ecosystem, so let’s artificially break that down and replace with inherently flawed anti-malware systems we’re required to use in hopes our phones don’t become botnet nodes with 1hr battery life?

That’s so backward it’s insane.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#769

Post by nevir »

bmsleight_ wrote: post #726
nevir wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> p.s. Do you know how I would go about recommending someone add the ability to have green or amber text on the black background? If you're on Android: 1. go to Settings -> Info -> About 2. Draw a lowercase h on the screen (anywhere), and you'll see a "special color mode enabled", and should get amber on black. another letter gives you green on black, but I forget which :( . There's a bunch of hidden color combinatio…

Wow - could not find any other details about this (my google skills are poor?) Great tip. Any idea some where to to find the other hidden combinations ?

I don't think it's actually been advertised anywhere - welcome to a very small group of cool kids ;)

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#770

Post by nevir »

yellowapple wrote: post #762
gnicholas wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine that would be insufficient to transform the purchase into that of a physical good. Might have a chance if it were a physical widget (USB key?) that you plug into your computer or phone to validate your subscription. Even that is walking the line, since you're arguably still buying a digital good, albeit one that is activated/confirmed via a hardware key.

So if I were to buy a sheet of paper from Amazon every month, that wouldn't be a physical good? Or is the rule that the physical good can't be accompanied by anything beyond the physical object itself? If that's the case, then is Amazon not allowed to sell items via its iOS app if those items come with warranties? Or what about video games? If Amazon is allowed to sell physical copies of them, then can Spotify go ful…

Apple makes the rules; and they're mostly concerned about digital marketplaces that _could_ operate purely via IAP
Post reply on HN