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

801–810 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#801

Post by throwaway198389 »

londons_explore wrote: post #235
abelsson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Yes. > An app store? A payment provider? A cloud provider? A health data store? An update mechanism? Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. To do…

For comparison, Android keeps a very clear line between the 'Platform', and the 'Apps'. Every API on the platform is available to all apps which have the necessary permissions. Sure, it might look like Google has taken over key low level features of the device like updates and wifi location, but in fact from the platform perspective, all those components have an open API and can be replaced. The only fly in the ointm…

This may have changed recently, haven't used an Android in a bit, but this wasn't true (and still probably isn't).

Specifically my company wanted to break our app into multiple apps and give a way for people to easily install the companions. If you send the user to the Play Store page, about 75% of users would dropoff, in user studies much of it was confusion about what to do once they saw the play store page.

Google has an api that is a much simpler flow than the full store experience which has much lower user dropoff. If you're curious where it's used, one example is the Google Drive app to install the Docs, Sheets, etc.

The API validates that the calling app is an app signed by the Google dev cert.

This isn't a security issue, you could just ship one app with all the functionality. It's clear they just wanted to reduce user drop off in a flow, but now provide that option to others.

I understand the potential for abuse even though the api still checked with the user. It wouldn't bother me if no one had access to the API, we'd just have to deal with it. But it felt anti-competitive that Google had it and we did not.

IIRC there are a few other similar non-security private APIs and they also felt anti-competitive to us. That said, it was no where near on the order of Apple, where it's commonplace on iOS.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#802

Post by skohan »

ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #763
sinnoh wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

No it did not.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#803

Post by skohan »

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.

IMO this is a problem with the shareholder-driven corporate structure. Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize value to their shareholders, and they have to show continual growth in order to see share prices continue to increase, which often leads to ant-consumer practices once organic growth becomes difficult.

Apple's a perfect example of this: they have a long history of making high-quality hardware products loved by consumers at an immense scale with high margins. In a more rational world, that would be "enough", and even if their revenue fluctuated somewhat from year to year, they could still easily support their activities and pay out generous dividends while focusing only on their core competency.

Instead we live in a world where a small drop in demand for a single product based on extrinsic market forces leads to a slew of articles heralding an "end of Apple". So they prioritize service revenue, and continue to squeeze more and more value out of every revenue stream which flows through their products.

It's insane that this is seen as necessary for a company which basically prints money, and sits inside a massive moat of wealth greater than the GDP of many nations.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#804

Post by sirtaj »

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…

> 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.

You are simply answering the question "Why are things this way?" with a tautological "because this is the way it is." Whether or not the status quo will change in the future, it must always start with someone questioning it.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#805

Post by throwaway198389 »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #617
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…

Could they put: Apple Users: Upgrade. Then on the payment page: - Spotify fee: $9.99. - Apple's cut: $3.33. (When purchased through the app, save online). - Total: $13.32 > [Purchase Button]

Your post makes the case for itself, 30% of $13.32 is not $3.33. As Spotify raised their price to counter the apple fee, the also had to give 30% of that raise.

To get $9.99 (for the first year at the 30% rate) it'd be

Spotify fee: $9.99 Apple fee: $4.28 Total: $14.27

When they were charging $12.99 on iOS Spotify was only taking home $9.09 and Apple getting $3.87.

Really goes to show the insanity. Apple probably made more from a Spotify user than an Apple music user. (Of course, they're happy to have an Apple music user for the increased lock in.)

(But as others point out, Spotify showing this almost certainly wouldn't be permitted by Apple).

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#806

Post by scarface74 »

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…

If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide hosting and some quality control then I don't see why apps can't be hosted on a secure website from the vendor - as far as I'm aware, Apple requires you have some sort of website anyway.

Because that worked so well for Windows with malware,viruses, and ransomware.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#807

Post by scarface74 »

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…

Yeah that’s really a lot simpler than just using my finger.

This is why geeks make horrible product people.

And ratings have never been faked....

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#808

Post by scarface74 »

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?

And that was part of the advantage of the phone. I’m not cleaning crapware and viruses from my parents and children’s phones and tablets every six months.

Do you feel that console makers shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what runs on their devices? Yes physical discs still have to be approved by the console maker. It’s been that way for 30 years.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#809

Post by scarface74 »

stale2002 wrote: post #665
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…

I mean, you don't have to download apps through a website if you don't want to. It is everyone's full legal right to do whatever they want with their phone. Including downloading apps from websites.

Can I download apps for game consoles through a website?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#810

Post by scarface74 »

sinnoh wrote: post #544
supernova87a wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "should"? Who determines should, aside from what the law currently says? Maybe I'm uninformed, but it doesn't appear to me that access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) is a public utility or good with an expectation of equal access or certain fair pricing. Then, under what right does anyone claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to…

the fact that I, a software developer by trade, can't install or run any code on an ios device without running something by apple first. that's like tesla releasing a car saying if you are a lawyer who wants to drive it you have to pay them 100k a year plus 30% of what you earn, or are "free" to drive another car (even if theirs is the fastest/safest/best-for-price in the market.) or, now, can obtain a "provisional"…

the fact that I, a software developer by trade, can't install or run any code on an ios device without running something by apple first.

If I were a game developer could I install any software on my game console?

that's like tesla releasing a car saying if you are a lawyer who wants to drive it you have to pay them 100k a year plus 30% of what you earn, or are "free" to drive another car (even if theirs is the fastest/safest/best-for-price in the market.)

Let’s not make an analogy. Can I install any software on the computers in my Tesla?

Post reply on HN