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

491–500 of 903 posts

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

#491

Post by suction »

suby wrote: post #127
jti107 wrote: post #123

if i build a store and allow companies to sell to my customers...i get to dictate the price. if you don't like it then innovate and build your own store or develop a direct relationship with the customer. spotify should team up with elon to build a competitor to apple just like epic decided to compete against steam. this is how free market capitalism works...if they decide apple is doing something monopolistic then t…

The issue is that there's no option to use an alternative store. They're also able to extract a % from companies like Netflix just because the person happens to use an ios device. It's like if Microsoft were able to extract 30% of Netflix's subscription service because a person signed up via a Windows device, it's untenable and wrong.

[dead]

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

#492

Post by xdennis »

chrisseaton wrote: post #285
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…

> I want the option to control my devices. So don’t buy an iPhone. You know that’s not the offer.

There are many regulations already in place to protect consumer rights. The idea that you can influence companies by not buying is an illusion. The only real solution to anti-competitive practices is legislation.

It used to be that when you bought a computer you could run any program you wanted. No one thought this needed to be enshrined in law until Apple thought to restrict what you can do with your own devices.

We do need legislation to ban devices which don't allow running general programs.

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

#493

Post by chimen »

s3p wrote: post #122
mullingitover wrote: post #76

I wish this guy would take some of his ample spare time and get his engineers working on the support for HomeKit devices that customers have been demanding for years now[1]. [1] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/iOS-Implement-Na...

Spotify corporate seems to be actively hostile toward their community. I see post after post with user questions that just get left unanswered.

Unanswered != hostile

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

#494

Post by dzikimarian »

shuckles wrote: post #466
Krasnol wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is about having an ADDITIONAL option to access things not about taking the "Lock me down, I don't care"-status away.

It is odd to me that there are people who eagerly agree that Apple can coerce users into configurations they don't want for lack of better options yet also believe that no other company could make them do that w.r.t. being forced to download alternative app stores, spyware, bloatware, and more. Do you really think the average user won't end up being compelled to download garbage software if it's possible?

On Android, which globally is bigger than iOS, it didn't happen. It's exactly the discussed setup - you can install alternative store, there's just a bit of friction to do that.

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

#495

Post by tshaddox »

baby wrote: post #319
tshaddox wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the fact that Google Play charges 30% even when Android allows 3rd party app stores an indication that the 30% fee is not caused by a lack of competition in app stores?

I think you could say the same thing with Steam. Developers are incentivized to publish on Steam because this is where they can reach the most players, even though they'll have to take a big cut for it.

It’s also apparently the same ballpark for video game consoles (which are also general-purpose computers that are similarly locked down to restrict third-party software).

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

#497

Post by TeMPOraL »

achow wrote: post #365
KennyBlanken wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Why would Samsung allow its proprietary 'Knox' to work with other bootloaded OS? They have every right to not support any other OS other than their own.

They aren't "not supporting any other OS", they're causing the hardware to damage itself to prevent that software from working.

It's like your laptop's motherboard detected you installed another OS in place of the OEM-provided Windows installation, and overvoltaged your NVidia GPU to burn it out. "We have every right to not support high-performance graphics on any other OS other than our own - if you want to install your own OS, you can still use the integrated Intel GPU".

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

#498

Post by xdennis »

kaashif wrote: post #424
newZWhoDis wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol we’re well past that. If you’re willing to ban the NFA/legalize probate nuclear weapons we might be able to talk. In the mean time I suspect you support at least some level of collective restriction, and that means banning companies from selling locked hardware is fair game.

Your comment still doesn't answer the question "Why do you need to ban other people from buying them?" I think it's a good question that deserves an answer.

Because it's anti-competitive. Society is advanced when companies have to compete and not just collect taxes from other companies who are trying to do something.

The Apple tax is not advancing anything. It's just a stranglehold on innovation promoted with FUD about how running programs is insecure despite the fact that this isn't applied to desktop/laptop computers.

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

#499

Post by helsinkiandrew »

aussieshibe wrote: post #479
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…

Would giving people the ability to opt out of Apple's ultra-managed experience and take more control over their device harm your ability to continue to enjoy those benefits? I heard an argument like this a lot at the start of discussions about whether we should be able to choose to WFH in the longer term. "I don't want to WFH because..." Ok, sure, but nobody is trying to force you to. It might just be me, and I'll de…

> Would giving people the ability to opt out of Apple's ultra-managed experience and take more control over their device harm your ability to continue to enjoy those benefits?

You can always Jailbreak your device?

I think Apples response to your argument would be that it isn't the technically aware user that is trying to get control over their device that is the problem, its apps being used by those with no technical ability. Once an App is allowed to break out of the sandbox or be installed away from the AppStore the likelyhood of an average users phone getting into a broken mess at best and becoming infected with a virus at worse goes up my an order of magnitude.

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

#500

Post by TeMPOraL »

visarga wrote: post #470
hparadiz wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Galaxy phones they are extremely hostile to unsigned flashes to the device. You essentially need to exploit a zero day in the stock rom to get temporary root and then while you have temporary root you flash a new recovery. And then you gotta make sure it doesn't flash the stock recovery back in the next boot by making sure your next reboot goes into the recovery. And then you can flash your custom ROM. I skipped…

Having to jump through so many hoops is why I never bothered to root my phones. It sounds like 90% chance to brick it.

It doesn't matter anyway. Thanks to Google pushing remote attestation, all you can expect from a custom ROM is the actually important apps (like bank) no longer working.
Post reply on HN