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

481–490 of 903 posts

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

#481

Post by zarzavat »

philliphaydon wrote: post #467
wvenable wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers make sure their sites work in Safari. Just like developers made sure that their sites still worked in IE11 for almost a decade. Because it works for you is exactly why it's holding back development.

If developers made sure their sites worked in Safari we wouldn't have submissions to HN for sites that only work in Chrome with "oh yeah it doesn't work in Firefox or Safari because I didn't test it". The number of developers who do their work on Chrome and call it a job done and never test in another browser, far outweight the number of developers who do test cross-browser. The reason people tested in IE11 and less…

Apple actively cripples Safari so that developers are forced to make apps for the App Store and give them a cut of all revenues. Safari is an extremely cynical product, much more than Chrome. Developers should not support Safari. Let the sites break.

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

#482

Post by theshrike79 »

Izikiel43 wrote: post #242
DefineOutside wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And also an iPhone has at least 5 years of guaranteed updates

This is the reason I always suggest my relatives buy the latest iPhone SE. It'll be cheaper than a comparable Android device in the long run.

5 years of full updates, not just "important security updates", is a pretty good deal. And you can _still_ sell them for a hundred or so euros after the 5 years.

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

#483

Post by vineyardmike »

jonny_eh wrote: post #453
bayindirh wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand where you are coming from, and support you on that. On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with the default state of an iPhone. It just manages itself, and all that hard problems (backups, updates, ease of use, experience homogenity, etc.) are solved. I manage more than enough servers at work, and I don't want to manage another server in my pocket, do nitty-gritty settings, allow selected apps background ac…

Any argument in favour of the iPhone being so locked down needs to contend with the fact that Macs are just as reliable, but far more configurable. All I want is the for the iPhone to be as open as a Mac. Let me run binaries signed by legit devs!

Macs are a much smaller target though

iOS would instantly be the biggest target for crapware ever. Enough companies want out from under apple that you’d be almost forced to use sideloading to install mainstream apps (Facebook, Fortnite, Spotify, etc), so users would expose themselves to all sorts of scams very quickly.

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

#484

Post by vineyardmike »

onion2k wrote: post #463
mleo wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unforeseen consequences of the former will break the latter. Schools, Test Proctoring companies, Game companies will "force" users to install the ADDITIONAL option to run whatever is required and then simply extend their reach beyond what is appropriate.

I find the "Apple's engineers aren't capable of doing this in a safe way" argument a bit hollow, because the option basically already exists in iOS. All people want is the option to jailbreak iOS in an official way rather than some sketchy hack. As for services that 'demand' you install something, the option exists on Android and no one demands people install things on their Android devices. Why would iOS be differen…

> As for services that 'demand' you install something, the option exists on Android and no one demands people install things on their Android devices. Why would iOS be different?

https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/mobile/android

1. It is used now. 2. Google is a lot less aggressive than apple (see meta vs ATT).

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

#485

Post by NekkoDroid »

galangalalgol wrote: post #315
PHGamer wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or apple could just develop an os such that if an app doesnt respect your settings it just flat out doesnt work. this would force facebook to at least make concessions on their app. There is no reason for walled garden. people can control the system themselves if setup.

Why do Spotify, facebook, and Twitter need anything beyond a web app these days? What does a native app get that helps them monetize? Access to contacts maybe?

Probably for stuff they shouldn't be accessing. But also IIRC iOS doesn't support PWAs so installing any webapp they would provide in any meaningful way isn't possible there

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

#486

Post by theshrike79 »

ahkurtz wrote: post #190
adamwk wrote: post #170

Can someone explain why Apple is always the target for these complaints regarding fees? Is it just shorthand for both companies or a target people rally against? As Android has the same 30% fees for in-app billing, it's not like it's cheaper for Spotify on Google's platform. I get there's theoretically F-Droid and sideloading, but I don't see Spotify on fdroid so presumably there's not enough users to make it worth i…

Apple Music is their biggest competitor and they are very close in terms of userbase size. Apple Music is also (along with Tidal) one of the top places people go when they leave Spotify (for the various good reasons one might leave Spotify). Not much business point in trying to go after Google. The 30% cut IS a big deal but that's not the primary reason. As for why so many companies target Apple's level of control ov…

Tracking and data based companies crying about lost revenue is one of the big reasons I'm fully in the Apple ecosystem.

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

#487

Post by xdennis »

anomaly_ wrote: post #440
newZWhoDis wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better: We (the people) ban you from selling phones in our rich and prosperous land if you don’t comply. Signed: Everyone

If you seriously think is a majority opinion you need to get out more. The average person wants strong device security, look at the press and angst attracted by cybercrime in recent times.

The discussion is about control. No one is saying devices should be less secure.

If you ask people "should you be able to run any program you want on your devices?" I doubt people would answer "yes, on computers, but on phones I should only be able to run what Tim Apple allows me to".

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

#488

Post by ThatPlayer »

rootusrootus wrote: post #377
Barrin92 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At the end of the day all of these companies would do the exact same thing as Apple and with that sentence you've just described the exact reason precisely why antitrust legislation is long overdue and whyy your solution doesn't work. Running to an alternative will, in due time, just reproduce the same result. In fact Spotify is itself a walled garden for artists suffering from the same dynamics.

That would probably require redefining antitrust, yes? Neither Apple nor Google hold a monopoly in the phone space. Are they colluding, or just making similar business decisions. Is there a requirement that we subsidize a market entrant that is all about open fields instead of walled gardens?

It's been done before with the Hollywood Anti-trust case of 1948 [0]. Studios were neither colluding nor holding a monopoly. But it was an oligopoly building walled gardens by not allowing theaters to carry their movies without a lot of restrictions.

Also anti-trust doesn't require a literal monopoly, just a company "with significant and durable market power" [1]. I think Apple fits into that definition easily.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Anti-trust_Case_of_1...

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

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

#489

Post by jnsaff2 »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #435
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.

How do they hurt musicians? Google says they pay at least a third of a cent per stream. How much should they pay?

The biggest hurting in my view is them still sharing subscription revenue of all people to the biggest artists.

I never listen to the taylorswifts and other really big names. But when I used to pay for premium most of my monies went there anyway.

I wish so much that my subscription fee would have gone pro-rata to the actual artists who I streamed. Alas out of the lets say 10 bucks only cents were left for the artists who I really liked-listened.

I ended cancelling spotify with the joe rogan saga, I am not paying for fucktards destroying our society.

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

#490

Post by theshrike79 »

542458 wrote: post #118
Yujf wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple can ask 30% all they want IMO, as long as they allow side loading. Don't use their app distribution platform? Don't pay their fee. That is how it should work, which is how it does work on android (and yes most companies still use the play store, because it is hard to convince consumers to use another store, but at least the option is there. Also you can not auto update apps installed from outside the play store…

Apple’s non-hardware expenses aren’t limited to the distribution platform… They make the OS, the libraries, the APIs, the development tools and continue to maintain those even after the hardware is sold… Why should third parties get to free ride on that? I don’t see why we should compel software authors to add hooks and features and provide tools for non-paying third parties.

And you can contact an actual human when discussing about App Store things.

With Google it's just some fucked up AI trying to pretend to be a human. And you can't complain about its decisions.

Post reply on HN