Live data from Hacker News

Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

reuters.com

221–230 of 903 posts

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

#221
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want Apple to maintain a consistent set of rules that app developers need to follow. I have no power to dictate my desirable terms to Facebook, Twitter, etc, but Apple does. I'm willing to give up some flexibility with my device for that. No matter what, I'm a tiny player with no power against globally powerful tech companies, but I'll take Apple's conditions vs 1) conditions set out by other companies that I trust…

That and I want to give my not so technologically literate parents an iPhone and I want it to just work. I want a consistent experience that’ll let me debug their problems from around the world or just feel confident sending them to the Apple store. Even for a power user like me, I’d rather have an ultra reliable device with amazing manufacturer warranty than something I can hack on.

Not all of us are "not so technologically literate parents". Why are we treated that way?

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

#222
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think their migration to subscription based revenue and advertising says differently (just personal opinion). Were now the product with Apple too, not the customer. We used to pay more to not deal with that.

There’s a huge difference, including from a privacy perspective, between subscriptions and internet targeted advertising. How are you the product, when you’re giving money? That’s like saying, when you buy a ticket to Black Panther, you are the product Hollywood is selling, not the movie.

> How are you the product, when you’re giving money?

Why can't you be both? After all, an advertiser's best target is someone who already has a propensity to spend. Companies can and do sell you stuff then also target you for ads.

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

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And with Apple you are not the product? You're being tracked and shown ads on Apple devices too, it's just that you have even less control and Apple has a "worked" on their image in that regard.

I wouod sqy you werent the product originally but apple figured out they were leaving money on the table and quickly converted to adding that business model on top of overcharging for devices over the last decade. Nowbitvis atleast as bad as android if nit worse

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

#224
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Spotify on any of those 3rd party app stores other than Amazon's (which also has a fee)?

Why does it matter? Spotify wants the freedom to set their own margins. Compensating artists fairly starts by kicking out useless middlemen, and Apple plays that role in this instance. Every developer deserves the right to distribute software on their own terms, that's not some extremist or abhorrent ideal to advocate for.

> Compensating artists fairly starts by kicking out useless middlemen, and Apple plays that role in this instance.

Spotify needs the cooperation of the major record labels to operate and they have no interest in compensating artists fairly or kicking middlemen out of the process.

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

#225
post #140

Stop buying Apple if you don't like it. Seriously. At the end of the day all of these companies would do the exact same thing as Apple if they were in Apple's position. The real solution to this is improved functionality of web apps and complete migration to those, then you can be free of the duopoly. Other than using phone specific features, why can't all apps run on your desktop, laptop or elsewhere? I'll never get…

Yeah, it's interesting. Who are the loudest voices here? Customers of Apple or the the companies deciding to play by Apple's rules to access Apple's customer base? It's going to be a lopsided discussion on HN because of the biases of the users here versus the average non-HN member. What does the average customer want?

> Who are the loudest voices here? Customers of Apple or the the companies deciding to play by Apple's rules to access Apple's customer base?

Why does it matter? It could be either of them, and the two loudest groups would be 'Apple' and 'users'. Trying to paint adversarial lines here is genuinely pointless.

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

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the option of openness interrupt your curated lifecycle?

for me personally I don't care about it on my phone either way, I do on my laptop/desktop

So again, how does an option to open the device affect you in any way?

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

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it matter? Spotify wants the freedom to set their own margins. Compensating artists fairly starts by kicking out useless middlemen, and Apple plays that role in this instance. Every developer deserves the right to distribute software on their own terms, that's not some extremist or abhorrent ideal to advocate for.

> Compensating artists fairly starts by kicking out useless middlemen, and Apple plays that role in this instance. Spotify needs the cooperation of the major record labels to operate and they have no interest in compensating artists fairly or kicking middlemen out of the process.

Hard to say, Apple never gave them a chance.

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

#228

Stop buying Apple if you don't like it. Seriously. At the end of the day all of these companies would do the exact same thing as Apple if they were in Apple's position. The real solution to this is improved functionality of web apps and complete migration to those, then you can be free of the duopoly. Other than using phone specific features, why can't all apps run on your desktop, laptop or elsewhere? I'll never get…

> Stop buying Apple if you don't like it.

I personally don't like it and will not stop buying apple phones. The CPU's on an iPhone are far ahead of Android. I could buy either the Pixel 4 or the iPhone 11 for the same $450 price a month after launch from my carrier.

single-thread geekbench: iPhone 11 (September 2019): 1311 Pixel 4 (October 2019): 662 Pixel 7 (October 2022): 1058

The geekbench for the Pixel 7 is 1051 single thread... still slower than my three year old phone.

Android needs to have better CPU's for me to consider it.

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

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, or maybe the revenue generated by Android is so small that it isn’t worth the effort to change app stores.

You overestimate the size of the app store. It is big, but that doesn't mean the remaining 37% of app economy is small. > iOS was responsible for 63% of total app revenue in 2021

Those numbers are global. In certain markets, like the U.S., that number is likely to be very much skewed towards iOS. Even if you look at the global numbers, iOS was responsible for 75% of app revenue once games are excluded, and 78% of subscription revenue in 2021.

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/

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

#230
post #214
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple could still have a "developer" mode you have to jump through a complicated technical process to enable...just like MacOS let's you disable system integrity protection by running a terminal command and rebooting into a boot disk then running another terminal command. It could void support plans so it's not Apple's problem. That wouldn't affect your kids and telling Grandma how to do that over the phone is very d…

It’d be easy to gate this: require that the iOS device be connected to a Mac and a special app used to change “advanced” settings. These could include side loading, the ability to install alternate app stores, and low level OS access of various kinds. It would be very helpful to developers and debugging too.

So why do you think Apple doesn't want that to happen?

Surely a developer or ten has suggested the same thing by now?

My guess is focus: they are 100% focused on being the best closed platform that is easy to use and everything is handled for the user. A lively sideloading and 3rd party homebrew scene would be a massive distraction for the Dev team and most importantly the support side with little direct business ROI (indirect could be big but a harder sell).

Possibly harming brand reputation showing people what they could have absent the paid wall. When the alternative exposes people to risk, and they'd rather not have to explain themselves?

Post reply on HN