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

501–510 of 903 posts

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

#501

Post by schipplock »

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!

At work I need to sign executables with a very expensive code signing certificate. I can sign anything with it though. I still have no idea how that makes the executables more legit :).

You seem to be a power user, and I get what you want, but pleeeease no signed binaries! :D For me a setting "I know what I'm doing" would be good enough :) (like on Android smartphones). That way I can install anything I want, and you can install only signed binaries.

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

#502

Post by piva00 »

95014_refugee wrote: post #155
madeofpalk wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can take him completely seriously: he just wants to be able to sign up paying users on iPhone without handing 30% to Apple. I don’t think that’s particularly opaque.

This is essentially just the typical corporate aversion to taxation. They want to benefit from the infrastructure, but don't want to pay for it. Nothing new here, other than the weird tech bros leaping to defend the behaviour...

Why should Apple be allowed to have a competitor in the same space without paying the 30% Apple tax on top then?

That's anti-trust 101.

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

#503

Post by schipplock »

klabb3 wrote: post #460
jonny_eh wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 just as reliable, but far more configurable Apple has been working tirelessly for years to retrofit the iOS model to Mac. It's probably just a matter of time, unfortunately.

True, they make it harder for the average Joe, but you can still do anything on macOS, even install 3rd party kernel extensions. But yes, it's quite clear they want you to use an iPad instead of a MacBook :).

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

#504

Post by mschuster91 »

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…

> 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?

Apple is like Disney in that regard: they want absolute control over their brand and the associated experience. They don't want to get caught in shitstorms or legal trouble over stuff they cannot control such as covid misinformation, Nazi violence or pedophiles, so they require content moderation from apps that allow UGC. They don't want to deal with people complaining that they don't get their money back, so they require using their payment gateway where they can control the payment flow. They don't want applications to send marketing email spam to users' email addresses, so they require "Sign in with Apple", where they can supply a virtual email address.

It's not my world, but I do understand that this demand is a core part of their user experience they sell to their customers.

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

#505

Post by prox »

schipplock wrote: post #501
jonny_eh wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

At work I need to sign executables with a very expensive code signing certificate. I can sign anything with it though. I still have no idea how that makes the executables more legit :). You seem to be a power user, and I get what you want, but pleeeease no signed binaries! :D For me a setting "I know what I'm doing" would be good enough :) (like on Android smartphones). That way I can install anything I want, and you…

No but isn’t this a case of “more eyes + more gates” , by making the system more complex in number of passing checks, you also make it more robust.

Perhaps some middle ground can be achieved.

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

#506

Post by piva00 »

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.

> stifling innovation and hurting musicians

Have you looked into music labels yet? Or just generally into the music industry, have you tried to release your music and chatted with some larger label on what kind of deal they could offer? Music labels are the main culprit of pain in the music industry, for streaming companies, for artists, for performers.

Music labels now got into forcing their signed artists to market themselves their new productions, wanting them to go viral before they even authorise the artist to release new albums. That would be most of the job of a label: marketing, and now they try to force artists to do the deed for them, while still extracting their 50-80% cut of royalties (and only sharing with artists after they cover their costs of recording and marketing).

It's a very exploitative industry, like most passion industries are.

Three labels control some 50+% of all music catalogue in the world, they strong-arm deals with artists (taking their cuts before paying artists) and forcing royalties deal that are more advantageous to them than to artists. If you don't play by their rules they simply take their IP away.

If you really wish to see artists being better paid it's better to focus the hatred on this kind of behaviour, it's not like Spotify can dictate the terms when a few massive companies have this amount of leverage.

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

#507

Post by flohofwoe »

bayindirh wrote: post #427
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 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…

Nothing of this would change if iPhones had a simple 'unlock' setting with an 'at your own risk' disclaimer. People who are happy with the default just keep the phone locked, others can trade Apple's "warm embrace" against the freedom to install any software they want on their own device. Tech companies really should stop treating their users like idiots who can't think for themselves. It's all about the sweet app store profits, nothing else.

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

#508

Post by anonymous_sorry »

rosnd wrote: post #356
grepLeigh wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, in the way orcs were elves once.

That's a ridiculous comparison, the Android kernel patchset is tiny https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common-patches/ It consists of "massive" changes such as: > Enable writable clock debugfs files which are required for debugging and testing and > Allow drivers to register hooks when IPIs are sent and handled. The statistics of these IPIs are helpful in predicting CPU idle states I suppose any distro backporti…

This disagreement is purely about semantics.

In case its not clear, Linux the operating system typically means the Linux kernel plus a set of unix-inspired GPL-licenced userspace tools. Some (still) call this GNU/Linux, although that is a bit of a mouthful.

Android has a completely different userspace to "Linux". The kernel is not the issue.

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

#509

Post by heavyset_go »

bayindirh wrote: post #427
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 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…

There's no reason you need to stop people from doing what they want with their devices just because you don't want to do it yourself.

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

#510

Post by piva00 »

jdmoreira wrote: post #13

He takes 30% for his platform, what's the issue with Apple taking 30% for their own platform? Quit the platform if you want. If consumers value Spotify enough they will leave Apple for it (spoiler: They won't)

> If consumers value Spotify enough they will leave Apple for it (spoiler: They won't)

That's not how reality works at all and you are very aware of it. You are trying to force an equivalence between a device ecosystem which has massive network effects once you are in it, a device most people use everyday in 2022 for most of their lives needs: maps, communication, banking, government interactions, entertainment and so on, and pitting it against a simple music/audio service.

What makes Apple behaviour even more egregious isn't only the 30% cut, it's that they provide a competitor that doesn't have to care about this overhead cost, it's undercutting the competition because they control the whole platform. If this doesn't sound anti-competitive to you then I believe you are deep into a hole.

Post reply on HN