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

781–790 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#781

Post by ehaliewicz2 »

supernova87a wrote: post #774
ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

If you can't see any reason why a user isn't able to run any software they'd like on hardware they've purchased, then you need to educate yourself. Because the reason is that the contract you have with the hardware manufacturer and the terms of use do not allow you to. And there is no contradictory law or regulation that trumps that agreement. Just because you might disagree with that contract, it doesn't change the…

> If you can't see any reason why a user isn't able to run any software they'd like on hardware they've purchased, then you need to educate yourself. Because the reason is that the contract you have with the hardware manufacturer and the terms of use do not allow you to. And there is no contradictory law or regulation that trumps that agreement.

I did not sign a contract relinquishing my rights to execute whatever code I like when I purchased my phone. Does one have to do that with an iPhone?

If you do, shouldn't it be called an applePhone, not an iPhone? If you cannot control what code is executed by the cpu, it is really more Apple's phone than your own.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#782

Post by efreak »

berbec wrote: post #703
spiderfarmer wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some extra levels to this. Imagine a country where there is only one supermarket chain allowed. In that case there is no competition and no choice for consumers. Before you should people should simply switch phones: you can switch phones, but you can't take the apps you bought with you. And even if you switch: there's only one real alternative: Android. If Apple is allowed their 30% cut on literally everyth…

I believe Google does take a cut on literally everything! We do have only two app stores. Apple and Google just haven't managed to kill all the competing Music & Movie services. They'd love to!

Google doesn't require all app installs to run through the play store. In fact, the OS allows for other app stores to automatically install and update apps. The Play Store may be the only option preinstalled on devices, but anyone can download and install third party apps, and if you're rooted or writing a custom rom you can create/use your own app store. See the fdroid privileged extension for an example of an alternate app store that allows background installs similar to the play store. Alternate app stores in general include the Amazon app store for Android.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#783

Post by supernova87a »

ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #781
supernova87a wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't see any reason why a user isn't able to run any software they'd like on hardware they've purchased, then you need to educate yourself. Because the reason is that the contract you have with the hardware manufacturer and the terms of use do not allow you to. And there is no contradictory law or regulation that trumps that agreement. Just because you might disagree with that contract, it doesn't change the…

> If you can't see any reason why a user isn't able to run any software they'd like on hardware they've purchased, then you need to educate yourself. Because the reason is that the contract you have with the hardware manufacturer and the terms of use do not allow you to. And there is no contradictory law or regulation that trumps that agreement. I did not sign a contract relinquishing my rights to execute whatever co…

I'm going to take my leave from this thread after this post, as it's kind of like talking to a wall at this point. I get nothing out of it.

You don't naturally have any expectations of a right to run whatever code you want on a phone. There is nowhere written in law or regulation that you have such a "right". So there is no such right to give up.

Apple enters into an agreement with you to give you a phone with certain capabilities. Control of what code is executed by the phone is not included in your capabilities. End of story.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#784

Post by rickycook »

ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #765
judge2020 wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

a laptop is not a tablet, a tablet is not a phone, a phone is not a watch; that’s part of apple’s philosophy behind how their devices work together. knock it all you want (and there are legitimate criticisms), but it works remarkably well and makes all these devices feel like they have a natural place and purpose

*EDIT: i’m not saying “place and purpose” is a reason why macos and ios have different security models, but just pointing out that “why is a laptop different to a phone” is not reeeeeeally a particularly valid place to start

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#785

Post by gideon_b »

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…

It's pretty clear that Apple is using a dominant platform position to raise prices and block competition.

By raising prices and blocking access to competing services, Apple is acting with malice to consumer welfare.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#786

Post by frosted-flakes »

threeseed wrote: post #646
frosted-flakes wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Apple also sells phones, and selling music is just a side job. A better analogy is if you own the fairgrounds and an unlimited amount of booths that you to rent to food vendors, and you also sell doughnuts alongside the other vendors. But you don't let a competing doughnut vendor rent one of your booths. Is that anti-competitive? I don't know.

Selling music isn’t a side job for Apple though. It’s one of the most fundamental parts of their ecosystem. And your analogy is really bad. If you own a fairground and a doughtnut shop then it is not illegal to exclude competitors. It’s normal business practice.

Compared to Apple's main business of selling hardware, selling music is a side job.

And the fairgrounds analogy is better than the doughnut shop one. I didn't say it was perfect, but it illustrates the point. I also did not say that it was illegal or that it wasn't normal business practice--that's why I said "I don't know".

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#787

Post by gigatexal »

hxegon wrote: post #674
gigatexal wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try telling the IRS you think their tax rates are too high. Apple owns the sandbox with the most valuable customers and if you want to play in it you gotta pay. Personally I love letting Apple handle my subscriptions and subscribing through iTunes is one of the things it does well.

Do you think apple's subscription feature is worth paying 30% more for spotify? Do you think spotify should just suck it up and take the hit to keep prices the same because apple is providing a service (access and subscription handling) worth 30% of the price? Not even Amazon charges that much. I don't know if the anti-competitive practices mentioned are illegal, but they're certainly scummy. The company that owns th…

Yes. Or do what everyone else does and negotiate a lower rate. The simplicity of in app transactions is great and offering that to customers makes a lot of sense. I’m More likely to keep a subscription if it’s through iTunes; it also makes moving to new devices super easy as all I have to do is login with my iTunes account and all my subscriptions are there or that and hit restore purchases and boom I’m done.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#788

Post by countryqt30 »

There are always 2 sides to it. Especially when one side makes the other look like a blithering idiot.

A few points: * Without Apple, Spotify would be worthless and not reached any users at all, never grown * Apple is doing the heavy-lifting of building and distributing Apple Watch, HomePod, iPhones. Spotify is creating little additional value in comparison * Spotify repeatedly tried to cheat Apple's system and they were blocked and rejected (in my opinion) rightfully. They tweaked wordings, they even linked to a website that first looked harmless and would be MODIFIED after the app is approved. I'm not sure Spotify's behavior is ANY better.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#789

Post by zimpenfish »

owenwil wrote: post #6
zimpenfish wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch / HomePad But they've blocked every streaming music thing, right? It wasn't a vindictive campaign targetted at Spotify as this timeline is suggesting - no-one got to build streaming music apps for the Watch or HomePod IIRC.

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

Except they have a history of later opening up some of these features to others - see password managers, ~streaming~music~on~the~Watch~, etc.

EDIT: I thought you could now stream on the Watch but further research suggests that's still not possible. In summary, confusion.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#790

Post by Hamuko »

sneak wrote: post #203
Hamuko wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HomePod is a horrible device unless you want Siri in a can. The source selection is just so locked down for whatever reason, so unless you're all in with the Apple ecosystem, you're going to be missing out something.

The HomePod would be a incredible bargain even if it didn't support Siri at all, and were just an AirPlay compatible speaker. Everyone who complains about Apple Music (myself included) and Siri's uselessness are mostly ignoring the fact that it is the single best compact speaker, audio-wise, shipping today. It's an order of magnitude higher audio quality than everything within 10%-1000% of its price range. It's insan…

As a speaker you can't connect to.
Post reply on HN