Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 903 posts

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#71

Post by amelius »

threatofrain wrote: post #52
donmcronald wrote: post #5

I want the option to control my devices. I don’t understand the arguments that claim Apple needs to rule the device with an iron fist. What problems does it cause to make the locked down experience the default with the option for me to disable that and take control of the device after I buy it? I want to own my stuff. I want to repair it and I want complete control over it. I think that in 10 years we’ll all have car…

IMO there should be a way to allow power users such as yourself to customize your phone, such as how Google allows side-loading. But we can see that based on how niche side loading is that mass-users oriented businesses like Spotify and Twitter would not be happy. As for users like myself, I'm very happy that Apple intermediates my relationship with big businesses, because in the sphere of negotiation and leverage, b…

Any user should be able to walk away from the original hardware vendor, never contacting them again, and still be able to use the product in a normal way. Otherwise you bought a service, not a product.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#72

Post by jeltz »

rchaud wrote: post #20

Sharecroppers complaining that the land baron has stacked the deck in his own favour. Spotify and Twitter began life on the web, not in the app store. No feature they offer requires a native app. Hence there was no reason to corral half the US userbase into someone else's pen and leave them there for over a decade. Epic has already gone to court on this matter (re: Fortnite on App Store) and lost. And Fortnite wasn't…

Sharecroppers complaining is part of what created the Russian revolution.

And as for Spotify you are factually incorrect. Spotify started its life as a C++ desktop application and back then something similar could not have been built on the web.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#73

Post by [deleted] »

greedo wrote: post #7
donmcronald wrote: post #5

I want the option to control my devices. I don’t understand the arguments that claim Apple needs to rule the device with an iron fist. What problems does it cause to make the locked down experience the default with the option for me to disable that and take control of the device after I buy it? I want to own my stuff. I want to repair it and I want complete control over it. I think that in 10 years we’ll all have car…

The car industry already has subscription services; Volvo, Porsche, Jaguar/Land Rover, Genesis, Nissan, all have subscription plans. Don't like those? Go down to most car dealers and you can get a short term subscription called a lease... Funny how the world hasn't ended because of this. Just go buy an Android phone if you don't like Apple's walled garden.

[deleted]

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#74

Post by veilrap »

adam_arthur wrote: post #2

It's pretty obvious that legislation or anti-trust action will come that opens up mobile computing platforms. Considering the whole of a large market share mobile computing OS a private market, and not subject to competitive pressures, leads to monopolistic capture similar to what utilities could achieve without regulation. Why not just move to another neighborhood if you don't like your electric bill? Well then you'…

The restricted App Store does add customer value, and that customer value is degraded if there are other App Stores available.

Namely - if a user buys Apple products because they want the security/curation/whatever that comes with Apple's walled garden, that advantage is broken by forcing Apple to have other app stores on their platform because now that user cannot get all the content through their trusted source as they could before.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#77

Post by worble »

bamboozled wrote: post #43

Quoted post unavailable.

>and they constantly delete music on me.

And this is precisely why I moved to bandcamp. If I can't download an mp3 or flac, then that music will just disappear without recourse.

If anyone here seriously listens to music, I would definitely invest the time into setting up some kind of subsonic server (I'm using the music app with Nextcloud at the moment, Ultrasonic as my phone client and Strawberry as my desktop client, works pretty well for my needs); you can still get all the ease of listening to your music on the go without the fear of losing it.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#78

Post by bogomipz »

>"So how much longer will we look away from this threat to the future of the internet? How many more consumers will be denied choice? There's been a lot of talk. Talk is helpful but we need action," Ek wrote."

This from a man who built a company that has forced most of the artists on its platform to give away their work for pennies. This man has no problem with the "threat" to their livelihoods. And who can forget this quote from him:

"You Can’t Record Music Every Three Or Four Years And Think That’s Going To Be Enough" [1]

He also has no problem propping up the the oligopoly that is "record industry" where only three record companies control 70 percent of the market.

And he has no problem with Spotify having exclusives on things like podcast that were once open to all.

Daniel Ek is a hypocrite and an ass. He is best ignored.

[1] https://www.stereogum.com/2093393/spotify-ceo-daniel-ek-stre...

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#79

Post by mullingitover »

sschueller wrote: post #21

Elon just tweeted from Apple HQ and is meeting with Tim Cook. Elon also deleted the tweet meme that he's going to war over the 30%. All talk and no substance, this thing won't go anywhere. Elon probably got what he wanted from Apple and everything else is just fud for the masses. Elon does not care the 30% or what Apple does in China. He wants Twitter to stay in the app store and Apple to pay for advertising on Twitt…

> Elon probably got what he wanted from Apple and everything else is just fud for the masses

I feel like Elon going Apple HQ is not a sign that he got what he wanted, it's a sign that he was summoned there to be disciplined. If he had some form of leverage over Tim Cook, it would be Cook that would be doing the traveling.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#80

Post by marricks »

donmcronald wrote: post #5

I want the option to control my devices. I don’t understand the arguments that claim Apple needs to rule the device with an iron fist. What problems does it cause to make the locked down experience the default with the option for me to disable that and take control of the device after I buy it? I want to own my stuff. I want to repair it and I want complete control over it. I think that in 10 years we’ll all have car…

The way I see it the users have two crappy options based on business model:

1) Apple's freedom from inspection: they control your device and their ecosystem because they make money off the ecosystem. The take a cut of the phone/computer/watch you buy then anything you buy in their ecosystem because the ecosystem is their product. Your data is (mostly) safe from advertisers because that's not their business.

2) Google's device freedom: you can do whatever you want with your device because your are the product. Sure you can load a complete separate system of mail and chat clients and not sign into google, but really, will you?

Of course there's option 3, linux. Neither the ecosystem or you is the product, but where's the money in that. No one is going to spend billions of dollars to get you to buy Linux.

Whether Apple or Google (or MS or w/e) is the arch villain is really just a matter of perspective. Is two or three options a great place for consumers? No, of course not, it all sucks. I think a system built around who-gets-the-most-money-wins is the real problem.

Post reply on HN