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

821–830 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#821

Post by baby »

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…

As a user this is infuriating, I remember spending a good chunk of time trying to figure out how to get book on the Kindle app :/

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#822

Post by therealdrag0 »

baby wrote: post #821
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…

As a user this is infuriating, I remember spending a good chunk of time trying to figure out how to get book on the Kindle app :/

Same with Audible. I was sitting in an airport, after finishing my last book, spending so much time trying to figure out how to buy a book through the app on my phone. Was so confused.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#823

Post by ehaliewicz2 »

supernova87a wrote: post #783
ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #781

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. 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 certai…

That's what I wanted to know, and hearing that I'm glad I've never been interested in an apple phone.

> 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.

Plenty of things that you naturally have a right to do aren't written in a law. Is there a law saying you can browse and post on hackernews on your computer?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#824

Post by ehaliewicz2 »

scarface74 wrote: post #808
ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Yes of course. Either allow the user full control of the hardware they apparently own, or call it what it really is, renting.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#825

Post by ehaliewicz2 »

rickycook wrote: post #784
ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

They're both computers. One is smaller than the other, therefore it shouldn't allow you to run whatever apps you want? That's a ridiculous idea.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#826

Post by tripzilch »

rickycook wrote: post #784
ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

> it works remarkably well and makes all these devices feel like they have a natural place and purpose

Um really those are artificial, not natural. The nature of the devices is that they're still general purpose computers, the artificial restrictions on them give them an artificial place and purpose. It's still a thing, but Apple isn't magically altering reality.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#827

Post by tripzilch »

Arn_Thor wrote: post #792
paavoova wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would hate for Apple to allow downloading apps through websites This is such an extreme stance compared to what you're allowed to do on the desktop. Regardless of what Apple allows or not, shouldn't the user, the owner of the device, be allowed to install applications as they see fit, and choose to bypass any centralized app store? A smarthphone is a computer, and it's arguably many peoples primary computing devi…

There are plenty of devices that allow you the freedom to do whatever you want to the software. If that is a priority, get one of those. Apple's walled garden is in fact much more secure. (and they also benefit financially. But correlation does not equal causation, necessarily)

You're missing the point. Security is throwing up a hurdle against installing outside apps (could be a bit steeper hurdle than Android's if you need). That's enough to keep your grandparents safe from installing crapware. Apple fighting tooth and nail against any possible installer, sideloading, rooting, whatnot, that's purely for the power, control and financial benefit of Apple and "their" ecosystem.

I put quotes around "their" just to remind that this ecosystem is made up by hundreds of millions of users, too. Yes Apple holds a singular power over this ecosystem but that power mostly boils down to the ability to wreck it for any particular group of participants. That's not ownership unless you want to claim that humans own the coral reefs, too.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#828

Post by tripzilch »

oneplane wrote: post #640
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…

While I agree that the percentage that Apple takes per sale is too high, I completely disagree with the term 'vendor Tax'. While it's fine as a fun synonym, it's problematic as soon as people start to think about it as an actual Tax. It's not a Tax, it's the amount of money the vendor/platform owner wants to make for every sale. You can opt-out (by not being on the platform, still a choice!) if you want to. But becau…

> Putting it as a "Apple Music vs. Spotify" thing is a bit weird too; while it might make sense, it doesn't make sense if it's just that and all the other streaming and buying services are free to do what they want. It's weird stuff.

Isn't Spotify just the biggest one by a large margin?

Because frankly I never heard of Deezer or Tidal, and everyone I know that uses a music streaming service is on Spotify or, rarely, iTunes (or Apple Music? is that a rebrand or is it a new thing?)

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#829

Post by scarface74 »

ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #824
scarface74 wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Yes of course. Either allow the user full control of the hardware they apparently own, or call it what it really is, renting.

So is that also the case for my exercise equipment, my TV, my car, my car radio, my cable box, my printer, etc?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#830

Post by dkonofalski »

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... no. Your stance is ridiculous. People have already gamed sites like Yelp, Facebook, Twitter, and Google Play with fake reviews. The App Store also probably is flooded with tons of fake reviews. I'd rather trust my payment information to a company that has already demonstrated that they're incredibly thoughtful with my security regarding payments rather than trusting some giant unknown and just hoping for the best.
Post reply on HN