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

341–350 of 903 posts

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

#341

Post by wvenable »

philliphaydon wrote: post #278
wvenable wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point. All browsers on iOS use the same underlying technology (Webkit) so the only relevant features between iOS browsers is those other features like password support, tab design, etc.

This is good. Chrome is the new IE. we are repeating history with Google now controlling the web. Except no one seems to care cos it’s not Microsoft.

No, Safari is the new IE. There are better browsers but due to it's market share (forced by Apple) developers are forced to limit themselves to it's feature set.

And the reasons are the same as well: Microsoft saw the browser as competition to their OS and Apple sees it the same way. So they both limited development of their browser to keep their platform supremacy. The situation is not the same with Google -- the web is their platform. This has it's own issues but it's not history repeating itself.

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

#342

Post by KennyBlanken »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #284
hparadiz wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bootloader in on Samsung Android devices is extremely locked down to prevent rooting. Sideloading is a basic android feature. Ability to root and sideloading are two different but similar issues on the topic of freedom.

Typically, no, Samsung are one of the few manufacturers who consistently don't lock bootloaders. I've been flashing Samsung Android phones for over 10 years: https://github.com/Benjamin-Dobell/Heimdall That said, they have locked bootloaders on some devices. Predominantly in the US market, I believe at the request of carriers. However, it's traditionally been the minority of devices.

What? Samsung is the most hostile of manufacturers in this regard. Unlocking the bootloader, installing another bootloader, or running a different kernel burns fuses permanently in the device and renders it unable to use their version of hardware-secured storage, aka "Knox."

Kiss some multimedia apps, payment apps, and enterprise security features goodbye...along with a bunch of random features like private mode in their browser.

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

#343

Post by acdha »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #97
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…

Apple is too powerful if you need to visit Apple's HQ and kiss the king's ring to stay on their store.

I would look for better examples than Twitter to base that claim on. The primary lesson to draw there is that you’ll have a harder time running a business if you act like a coked-up frat boy, which is … not a surprise?

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

#344

Post by fingerlocks »

biztos wrote: post #232
rhaway84773 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple already implements a solution on the Mac. The Mac defaults to signed apps. And you need to change a setting to allow unsigned apps. iOS could easily default to what we have today, but allow the installation of non App Store apps after users change a setting and confirm after reading a scary warning pop up, that tells users they may be exposing themselves to data theft, hacking, viruses and money theft.

I really want this to happen, and I hope Apple is forced to make it happen — a fairly likely scenario in the EU I think — but if they do allow side-loading I fear they will disable all sorts of Apple services when you flip that switch. No more Apple Pay, for starters. Maybe no iMessage. Things where they can argue they have to turn them off to protect the user, and/or themselves, from rogue apps. And then you could h…

Agreed. The real reason is the inevitable avalanche of support requests that hit when some popular side loaded app introduces a 0-day. No one at the Genius Bar is going to touch your toxic device. That means no Apple Care or iCloud backups either.

Support is expensive. Apple spends a lot of money to provide what is generally very excellent support. It’s a huge component of the overall brand for many users that stay in their ecosystem.

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

#345

Post by adam_arthur »

tootie wrote: post #134
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'…

So long as Android exists and users aren't strictly locked to the Play Store, I don't think an antitrust case would succeed.

Competitors to utilities exist too.

Anti-trust is more nuanced than whether there’s a single party monopoly. And it certainly will apply here

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

#346

Post by acdha »

wvenable wrote: post #197
542458 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before iOS (and for the early years of iOS) people paid out of pocket for software updates. Now it’s an ongoing cost instead, imposed as a tax on software transactions. This is not an unusual arrangement - people rent things in perpetuity all the time, like EC2 instances and water heaters.

The fact that it's a tax on software transactions and not simply something rented/charged monthly is kind of the point. And, no, not all software updates were uncommon or charged for before iOS. Windows Update predates iOS by many years. People did pay for development tools but then so do iOS developers for $100 a year. I've personally only paid for dev tools a few times in my life. Developers add value to an ecosyst…

Patches for Windows predate iOS. Free upgrades to major versions do not.

I’m not entirely sure it’s worth it but it sure seems like most people accept this bargain since it’s become standard on the most used devices.

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

#347

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

acdha wrote: post #343
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is too powerful if you need to visit Apple's HQ and kiss the king's ring to stay on their store.

I would look for better examples than Twitter to base that claim on. The primary lesson to draw there is that you’ll have a harder time running a business if you act like a coked-up frat boy, which is … not a surprise?

The point is that at even the slightest hint that Apple might compromise Twitter's iPhone App or advertising, Musk has to visit and smooth things over. Have you heard that actions speak louder than words?

If Apple didn't have too much power why would this occur?

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

#348

Post by 542458 »

johnbellone wrote: post #297
cramjabsyn wrote: post #70

“Over and over again @Apple gives itself every advantage while at the same time stifling innovation and hurting consumers.” That’s funny Ek. Seems like Spotify gives itself every advantage while at the same time stifling innovation and hurting musicians.

So we are defending the $2T market cap company in the room.

I don’t think that’s a great argument. Just because a company is large doesn’t mean they’re ethically in the wrong on every possible accusation.

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

#349

Post by adam_arthur »

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…

Epic’s case is being appealed, so they haven't lost yet. Lower court judges don’t get the final say

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

#350

Post by lern_too_spel »

tshaddox wrote: post #201
m-p-3 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you'd still have the choice to install it or not. Android still allows their users to sideload apps, and it hasn't been the apocalypse. The core idea is choice.

> Android still allows their users to sideload apps, and it hasn't been the apocalypse. "Not being the apocalypse" is a pretty low bar. Is it not the case that Android has a much worse history of problems with third-party software, including security, privacy, battery life, etc.?

Indeed, it is not the case. Android has far more apps that respect privacy than iOS has, and (unlike iOS) it lets you set them as defaults.
Post reply on HN