Live data from Hacker News

Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

reuters.com

851–860 of 903 posts

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

#851

Kettle. Pot. Black. Monopolistic practices is what Spotify is, not just something it does. Recently they went about buying podcasts. The idea was/is to kill off the free protocol and centralise podcasts under their control... That way, listeners, advertisers and podcasters would all have to live by spotify's rules. Like streaming music. Sure. Apple give themselves every advantage, cream the market, etc. They have a m…

Two wrongs don't make a right. Spotify and Musk's conduct have no bearing on the validity of their arguments. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Well, I've never been a monopoly so... thump.

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

#852
post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it matter if software has marginal costs or not? The principle is the same, it's a product being sold by a 3rd party which Apple has no involvement at all in its production costs being distributed by the App Store which Apple takes a fee of 30% off. The costs of software services are part of the cost of a subscription, as the cost of production of something Amazon is selling is part of its cost. Streaming s…

Why is Netflix even relevant to the discussion? Netflix hasn’t allowed in app subscription prices for years

They don't allow it exactly because they have to pay the 30% on top, the same with Kindle books, etc. that's exactly why it's relevant in this discussion, mate... Not sure how to be clearer, I've been playing around with your analogies and get just a brick wall in return, exhausting.

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

#853

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…

Nein, nein, nein! You will own nothing, and you will be happy now.

Please be happy now!

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

#854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Good news, Apple is also becoming a tracking and data company. The only reason Apple went after Google and Facebook with the new privacy feature is so they can swoop in and take some of that money for themselves. Hence why you are seeing them pushing ads left and right across their platforms. MacOS will soon be as filled with ads as Windows.

It's complicated. Yes, Apple is creating an advertising monopoly for themselves (obviously only for folks within their ecosystem). No I don't like that personally.

Are they replicating the no-rules surveillance systems of the existing ad market? I have no evidence for that. I've been looking but I haven't seen it.

Saying "the only reason" Apple is countering Google and Facebook here is ad revenue completely ignores what horribly dishonest and harmful stewards of the ads ecosystem these two companies have been. Both companies have knowingly broken the rules of every platform they exist on (not just Apple platform) to work around device permissions to scoop up personal data they have been EXPLICITLY told by the user not to take. Google just had to pay several hundred million dollars for lying to customers about data capture opt-in. Facebook has settled many times as well, and has repeatedly used private APIs and exploits to gather contact info and messaging data. They have also shown no principle whatsoever about who can use that data and for what purpose. Facebook goes so far as to claim in public hearings (and in court) they don't even know how much data they gather or where it is or who can access it.

As tracking grows its access to more devices and more personal data, and as ads appear on more and more surfaces (Google and FB stated goal is every surface btw), the negative effects of this abusive behavior have become visible after decades of relative invisibility to consumers. "Why is my music app giving me podcasts about pregnancy while I'm in the car?", "Amazon shopping (which my partner can see) is showing pregnancy test promotions", etc. And still invisible, down the rabbit hole, very harmful uses of this information for individuals, businesses, and entire geopolitical regimes. I used the pregnancy example for a very pointed reason if you have been following tech concerns in USA related to political rights.

When you push the idea that Apple's product moves are just as bad as our current status quo, I cannot agree. I think you will be proven wrong about Apple's endgame (for at least the next decade, all corporate cultures change). At the very least we can be happy for a time spiting the existing tracking monopoly - who have been hurting us for a long time with no challenge. They are losing a ton of money. May it continue.

I am hopeful seeing an existential threat to healthy society being trimmed down, even if the people doing the cutting (Apple) refuse to pull it out at the root.

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

#855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-pla…

>> 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. > 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... Though that's the exception that proves the rule. Besides Fortnite, who else has pushed users i…

WeChat won’t start on Android if you didn’t give access to your contact list, this is not the case on iPhone as Apple wouldn’t allow that crippled user experience. Android already allows shenanigans so the incentives for more stores aren’t that big. I had Samsung store on my last Android phone also.

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

#856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Stop buying Apple if you don't like it" I'm afraid this is not an option most app devs can even entertain

Don’t buy Apple to consume as a user if you don’t like it. If you’re an app developer then pay by the rules… It absolutely is an option.

You can't make your end-users switch off Apple...

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

#857

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?

I remember back to when Apple allowed apps to set location privacy options. They could make it so ‘only while using the app’ wasn’t an option. So uber only let you have it always on or always off. It took Apple unilaterally enforcing an opinionated stance on what apps are allowed to do before companies stopped being anti-user in that particular way. When Apple allowed more flexibility, app makers didn’t.

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

#858

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?

I don’t want Apple to allow app-makers the freedom to provide apps that are anti-user. In practice, it seems to bethe lesser evil.

I remember when Apple allowed Uber to give users the location preferences of “always” and “never,” before they required apps to offer “only when using the app.” I guess I just tend to like what apple’s tight restrictions do to the entire ecosystem.

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

#859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He made no mention of the stock. And attacking and criticizing a company in public is not forbidden. In fact individuals have done it directly to Tesla in the past and made large sums of money on it with no repercussions.

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

#860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so break one of the only stable, reliable, useful No, people would be free to use the Apple App store if they want. Apple simply wouldn't be able force the world to pay them 30% of everything anymore. Theyd have to compete on their merits, and people would now have full ownership of their own phone. > The trains suck and I hope my devices don't go the same way. So, what, you just support the railway monopoly and op…

> Imagine if every computer in the world, you could only use internet explorer, and they forced you to pay them 30%, and use IE. Absolutely nothing like this is happening though, so what's your point? I run Firefox on my iPhone, it's free? > But let's try a different example, since apparently you support the railway monopoly. I don't support the railway monopoly you're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that break…

> I run Firefox on my iPhone, it's free?

Actually, you run Safari. Firefox and Chrome on iOS are just Safari with some different browser chrome. This happens because Apple has banned all other browser and JavaScript engines on iOS other than their own. Gecko, SpiderMonkey, Blink, etc are all banned on iOS.

Mozilla isn't able to actually bring real Firefox to iOS because of this, and has to settle with a reskinned Safari parading around as Firefox in order to stay relevant. Same thing goes for Google and Chrome, it's just browser chrome on top of Safari's browser engine.

Post reply on HN