Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like Apple does when you import books via iTunes.
Big fan of iTunes, aren't you?
Big fan of pointing out hate agenda of others, that leave details out to make their points.
Addressing Spotify’s Claims
321–330 of 688 posts
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#322This argument is super thin -- they seem to think that Spotify enjoys a huge advantage to being available on their platform (they do), without acknowledging that they also enjoy a huge advantage from the most popular music streaming app being available on their platform (which is also true). Apple still makes most of its money on hardware, and having popular apps is absolutely vital to selling hardware.
Why? Apple has Apple Music, has more music than Spotify and even if there is a track on Spotify and not in Apple Music, you can upload your own MP3s and stream them. I have a gigantic collection of Soundtracks and indie music there.
If Spotify wasn't on iOS I would move back to Android in an instant. I don't like Apple services because I don't want vendor lock in.
I use Spotify because they're independent and support a large number of devices. This is just like how I use Sonos because they're independent and support a large number of services.
Apple benefits greatly from having high quality, third party applications on iOS. Wasn't the lack of third party apps/support one of the big issues with Windows Phone?
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#323> Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem, but now they’re leveraging their scale to avoid contributing to maintaining that ecosystem for the next generation of app entrepreneurs. We think that’s wrong. I think that's a very hypothetical claim. > Let’s be clear about what that means. Apple connects Spotify to our users. We provide the platform by which users download and update…
We can also say Apple Music wouldn't be the business today had Spotify not explored the business of music streaming years ahead. Now they just took the idea themselves and pretend that Spotify contributes nothing.
Realising you can make a great inexpensive product by paying a minuscule fraction for the content isn't exactly business innovation. The innovation was paving the way for artists to be stiffed; Apple had no choice but to compete in order to stay viable.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#324There's this poem about big fleas having smaller fleas. Clearly Apple is about as hypocritical as they come for calling out Spotify wanting to 'make money off others' work' because they themselves do just that, and not just of Spotify, but also of every artist in the Apple music department and of course of all the App developers.
It's a pity that nobody has been able to come up with a direct-to-consumer model for music that worked.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are other malls available, across the world Apple's mall is quite small.
We're not talking about the world. We're talking about the universe of the iPhone. In the brick-and-mortar world, malls are fungible, and stores that sell the same goods are fungible. The iPhone is not fungible.
We are talking about the universe of mobile devices.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#326What an immature letter, did not really expect a response like that. It also fails to address the most important points from Spotify, which I thought were: you have no choice but to use the apple store, and promoting your own payment is not allowed. Fix one of those and most people would be happy.
That and the fact that they pay a shitload of money to Apple and Apple fucking won't allow Siri to work.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are other malls available, across the world Apple's mall is quite small.
In relative numbers yes, but I wouldn't call short of a billion active devices "quite small".
Still, there is a choice for anyone that wants to sell products.
Anyone that wants to constrain themselves to a single market, needs to accept the rules of focusing on a single market.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#328> Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem, but now they’re leveraging their scale to avoid contributing to maintaining that ecosystem for the next generation of app entrepreneurs. We think that’s wrong. I think that's a very hypothetical claim. > Let’s be clear about what that means. Apple connects Spotify to our users. We provide the platform by which users download and update…
> Apple connects Spotify to our users. This is a bit of a ridiculous claim. From another perspective, an iPhone is just another way to access your favorite apps and content. Taken to more of an extreme, imagine Comcast or T-Mobile claiming that they provide users to Spotify... Apple is easily just a middle man here but they make themselves sound like the entity that owns the users and plugs them into apps. It's not l…
This reminds me of the ISPs getting upset about the bandwidth they have to deliver on behalf of Netflix.
"Our platform enables your app" is true in both cases. But so is "our app brings people to your platform." The power imbalance is that it's easier to build a competing app than a competing app store or ISP.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not talking about the world. We're talking about the universe of the iPhone. In the brick-and-mortar world, malls are fungible, and stores that sell the same goods are fungible. The iPhone is not fungible.
We are talking about the universe of mobile devices.
You are; I don't think we are. Spotify certainly isn't, and it may be entirely reasonable to view the world through that lens.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re not milking anything. Apple has, as far as I know, always charged 30%. What has changed is the way we buy and pay for apps and services. Everyone wants to move to the subscription service model and Apple has developed rules accordingly.
The issue I see is this, Apple Music does not play fair, it is similar priced with the competition but it is in fact subsidized by Apple, any application or service it is in danger because if Apple wants and it is competent it can create an Apple version of it and give itself smaller prices(or free), native integrations that the competition does not have. This is not fair for the users (it may be fair f5rom other POV…
Apple Music is priced about the same AND they pay the artists more. Sorry but what's the scam?
Consumers pay the same price. Artists earn more. Who cares how Apple shuffles fictional numbers in their internal accounting?