391–400 of 688 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they've had proprietary cables and adapters for as long as I can remember. Apart from Lightning, which was created when no better alternative existed, I cannot remember a proprietary Apple connector in at least the past 10 years.
>Apart from Lightning, which was created when no better alternative existed They could have easily went with USB-C.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same story with phones. You are free to buy from other suppliers. But you can’t walk into a Walmart and buy milk from whole foods on their shelf’s, even if you feel that would be great for you personally because Walmart is closer but you prefer Whole Foods.
And I am free to use Google Music, Apple Music, YouTube Music, Deezer and even Tidal. Nobody is forcing me to use Spotify. But, if I have an iPhone, the only application store I can use is controlled by Apple. In other words: if I am an artist and I want to offer my music via streaming I have plenty of options. If one of them does have a deal that I find unfair, I can choose others. If I am a developer and I want to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is charging for the reach accessible by participating in their platform, it's effectively a distribution and marketing cost not a payment processing cost. The no linking requirement is so you don't use the accessibility enabled by their platform to bypass their fees. So if Spotify wants to bypass the App Store's subscription fees they'll need to find another way to notify and acquire new Customers, i.e. outside…
This is the clearest way to say it. Spotify has utterly no argument in this case. Their claims make no sense, it’s just a lot of noise for Spotify to drum up an angry mob of people who vaguely misunderstand “monopoly” and hate Apple for whatever unrelated reasons. If you want to put your product into the distribution channel that Apple spent shitloads of money to create and operate, then you have to pay their fees an…
Spotify already has their own distribution channel (sign up on their website), and Apple is prohibiting them from mentioning it on iPhones and instead forces them to use Apple's distribution channel, which comes with a hefty price tag.
So if they want to distribute their free app on the iPhone, they are welcome to do so, as long as they don't mention that people have to go to their website to sign up for the premium service.
We can still argue about whether Apple is allowed to behave this way, but at least we'll be arguing about the right thing.
> 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…
> I think that's a very hypothetical claim. How is this is a hypothetical claim? It is blatantly obvious. Spotify's early days were entirely dependent on the mobile marketplace. Even now, desktop use constitutes a tiny fraction of their total users. It's not a hypothetical claim at all, really. > 30% / 15% is a very steep price / revenue loss Source? Because 30% / 15% is a common middleman commision for most platform…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Xcode is now free: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12 (although you still have to have a mac)
If you want to publish your stuff in the AppStore, or just install it on your own iDevice , you have to pay a yearly subscription fee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They contribute to specific open source projects with a long-term view to undercutting other open source projects that are more independent of Apple. That is far from being "nice" or "contributing back". Have you heard of "dumping"? What Apple does in its FOSS contributions is a similar thing - pour a ton of developer resources into critical FOSS projects so that they eventually control the development process and cl…
Huh? I totally agree that the app store is a monopoly and leveraging the iOS app store to pressure spotify (a competitor to apple music) is anticompetitive. But I'm very confused how you're twisting Apple's huge contribution toward LLVM and Webkit over the years into some evil act. Even if all you want is for GCC to be the best compiler it can be, work on LLVM has contributed to that goal by raising the bar. Predicta…
iPhone was released before Android.
As an app developer, I wouldn't care about the 30% cut if apple's In-App Purchase SDK was up to par with other payment processors. For example - as a developer I can't cancel subscriptions on a user's behalf, even if they've requested us to cancel it multiple times, nor can I refund a user's subscription, give them discounts/free months for their troubles/etc. The thing is, when a user reaches out to Apple to request…
> Apple does not pay out their developers until 30 days after the end of the month 30 days payment terms is fairly standard, no? I usually don't get paid until 20 days after I issue an invoice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the definition of work-for-hire, is it not? Is it immoral now?
The lack of choice is a problem. I’d support a law that mandated that all Turing-complete machines allow its owner to execute whatever code he wants on it, and therefore that iOS devices allow third-party apps (and third-party app stores) to be installed.
I love how brazen this letter is. > Apple’s approach has always been to grow the pie. Apple's approach has always been to grow it's own pie. They have never been even remotely interested in playing nicely with other companies. I don't fault them for it, but let's not kid ourselves here; the app store is largely an extremely profitable exercise in rent seeking. It's not like this is new for Apple; they've had propriet…
Xcode is now free: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12 (although you still have to have a mac)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Thus Spotify effectively doesn't have a choice. I'm not sure I follow this. When I say choice for Spotify I mean Apple or Google. The industry still allows them to get the same service from the other 85% of the market. I interpret that as "choice", having options. When I go to Malls'R'Us to rent a storefront I only have them as a choice. But I can go to another mall without anyone claiming foul about competition. H…
> I'm not sure I follow this. When I say choice for Spotify I mean Apple or Google. The industry still allows them to get the same service from the other 85% of the market. I interpret that as "choice", having options. > Having no choice is when you want internet but there's only one provider. because rejecting that provider doesn't mean you get different internet, or worse. You get none. But ignoring Apple's App Sto…
If I want my music in the Spotify catalog who decides what's my cut and what's Spotify's cut of the money my music is generating? They have 100% control there so if I want to list my music there what are my choices? Pay up or not have a presence.
Apple's choice is to give them access to millions of customers with big pockets (statistically), maintain the whole infrastructure for this, not get anything because the app is "free" but actually not even be allowed to drop them? What kind of choice is that? Should an app even be called "free" if it offers nothing without paying? Isn't that like asking for tax exemptions for a nonprofit organization that makes a profit?
Would it be OK if Apple changed the rules so apps had to offer full functionality without further paid unlocks or simply charge for the app as a service in the App Store at whatever monthly price the developer chooses?
The fact that Spotify lied or misled about these details that are pretty obscure to most people (including me until I specifically read about them) kind of disqualifies them from playing victim in my perspective. They want all the benefits with none of the strings.