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

751–760 of 903 posts

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

#751

Post by Ntrails »

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…

> "I don't want to WFH because..." Ok, sure, but nobody is trying to force you to.

The correct phrasing is probably "I would rather not work with a mix of remote co-workers". Which is very different, though I'd argue still a perfectly reasonable preference!

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

#752

Post by GeekyBear »

sho_hn wrote: post #650
geraldwhen wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Google play store is heavily censored and moderated and most users don’t know about side loading.

A sibling argument is saying that if side-loading were opt in, major apps would move to require it from users. This has never happened on Android.

> This has never happened on Android.

>When Fortnite launched on mobile in 2018, Epic Games very notably sidestepped the Google Play Store and pushed users to download the title directly from their website, an effort made to avoid the substantial revenue cuts that Google takes from in-app purchases of Play Store downloads. At the time, the move was understandable for Epic, which was sitting on the hottest free-to-play game of the year that was pulling in substantial revenues from in-app purchases.

Google proceeded to try to scare users away from sideloading Epic's app, and Epic sued.

>“Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvantage, through technical and business measures such as scary, repetitive security pop-ups for downloaded and updated software, restrictive manufacturer and carrier agreements and dealings, Google public relations characterizing third party software sources as malware, and new efforts such as Google Play Protect to outright block software obtained outside the Google Play store,” an Epic Games spokesperson said in a statement. “Because of this, we’ve launched Fortnite for Android on the Google Play Store.”

https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/21/epic-games-launches-fortni...

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

#753

Post by Aldo_MX »

notpushkin wrote: post #684
bayindirh wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, doing this and using a custom ROM will flat out disable SIM services menu and related functionality, which I need for my embedded e-Signature in my SIM card. Also, we have a gatekeeper called Google Play Services. In other words, even if you have a custom ROM, you need that all-encompassing framework to have nice things. Clients may differ, but the cloud platform and the connector which enables all these "An…

Or you could have the open source microG and miss out only on Google Pay (and some bank apps that wanna validate SafetyNet for some reason). If you disable FCM / push notification support, your phone won't even need to interact with Google servers at all.

How do I install that microG thing in a Huawei Mate 50? Oh wait, I can't.

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

#754

Post by Aldo_MX »

endisneigh wrote: post #86

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…

> if you don't like it

Disapproving Apple's monopolistic behavior does not imply disliking their products.

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

#755

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

boringg wrote: post #749
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm thinking companies that don't really have physical presence like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Roblox, Spotify, etc. Companies that if kicked off the App store would face an existential crisis.

So you want them to operate like a cartel? I guess they aren't price setting but they are flexing together.

No. They aren't fixing prices or reducing competition.

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

#756

Post by 6yyyyyy »

edgyquant wrote: post #734
saiya-jin wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean browsing web, the freedom I talk about allows you on Android to install Firefox and ublock origin (and other plugins), which is more privacy friendly solution in-the-box than Apple will ever allow to be installed on any Apple device. If you mean apps installed its your choice what you put on your device. Lets not forget the stuff you (and most of us) so loathe is direction Apple is actively heading for fe…

You can install Firefox on an iPhone

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-firefox-ios

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

#757

Post by danaris »

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…

If Apple did not require all apps to come through the App Store, and enforce some version of the current rules on such apps, it would not be long at all before, for instance, Facebook pulled their app from the App Store and released a new version that required changing those settings in order to sideload it (and had detailed instructions on how to do so)...and made sure that app could gather as much information as possible about your phone and everything you do on it. Up to and including silently recording you with the microphone, depending on just how well Apple has access to that locked down in the OS.

Is this a certainty? No. But it's much too high a probability for my comfort.

Furthermore, there would be a large number of developers who would just say "screw the App Store, screw Apple's frameworks, screw their rules" and similarly release their apps for sideloading only. Many of these would also have unacceptable levels of malware, spyware, terrible bugs, or just plain godawful design. Yes, the App Store has its problems, but it absolutely has value.

When advocating for a change in a major system, it is both foolish and irresponsible not to consider how those changes would be abused by people with bad intentions. Just because you and people like you would only use the extra freedom for good does not mean that no one would use it for evil.

That doesn't mean you should never make a change that can be used for evil, or course. It means you need to be aware of the tradeoffs, take them into account, and be open about your willingness to accept the bad along with the good.

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

#758

Post by jjtheblunt »

mlindner wrote: post #594
jjtheblunt wrote: post #305

Musk now says that Tim Cook and Apple never threatened Twitter. Has Musk again violated SEC rules (market manipulation)?

SEC rules don't apply here given there's no market to manipulate given Twitter is private.

He derided AAPL, which is public, and very clearly tried to foment a bandwagon of discontent against AAPL, which could easily bring SEC attention.

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

#759

Post by mullingitover »

totalZero wrote: post #725
mullingitover wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Elon probably got what he wanted from Apple and everything else is just fud for the masses I feel like Elon going Apple HQ is not a sign that he got what he wanted, it's a sign that he was summoned there to be disciplined. If he had some form of leverage over Tim Cook, it would be Cook that would be doing the traveling.

At that level, any kind of in-person visit is a sign of mutual good will. Traveling to see someone is an act of respect, and opening your doors to someone honors that person. Not every interaction is zero-sum.

Musk posted news of his visit there by showing a video clip of the pool on the Apple campus. No evidence of the two even meeting in person as peers. I get the sense that if this was a friendly visit there would've been a shot of the two CEOs together. It makes me wonder if he even got into the same room with Cook.

Cook made no mention at all of meeting with the CEO of the fifteenth-largest social network.

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

#760

Post by scarface74 »

piva00 wrote: post #744
scarface74 wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consoles have forced third party game makers to pay a license fee for every physical game sold since the 80s no matter where you sold the game.

My example was about subscriptions, no console maker takes a cut of a subscription to a game done through the game publisher's own servers/service. No console maker takes a cut from sales of digital items done through the game's platform. You are moving the goalposts, licencing is a well established practice and only interferes with the sale of the initial product: the game, not subsequent upsales where the console m…

Which console makers allow you to have subscriptions that you pay for outside of the game?
Post reply on HN