Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

Post by victor106 » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:51 AM UTC

sgustard wrote: post #262

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'll contrast this with my TV. I want a TV that works and displays pictures & sound. Instead my TV is an Android hub with dozens of random apps installed. What it doesn't do half the time is work. Sure, I have "control" but I'd rather have "functional devices!"

Post by krick » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:52 AM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #33

nvrspyx wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't pretend to understand the limits of Safari on iOS, but having the storage amount be based on the capabilities of one's device and not on the amount of actual storage available on it is a poor user experience, especially so if 512MB-2GB is the actual limit. In that sense, I would consider the ability to download as many songs for offline use as my phone's actual storage allows to be the feature, not necessaril…

Sure, there's arguments to be made both ways. But it's a far cry from "there must be a native app because 100 offline songs isn't enough." This is kind of funny because you're describing the opposite of a ridiculously painful issue I've been dealing with: Signal on iOS eating up and refusing to free 20GB. I wish I could limit how much space an app is allowed to use. Furthermore, this is actually kind of proving the p…

Post by galangalalgol » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:54 AM UTC

PHGamer wrote: post #164

pchristensen wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want Apple to maintain a consistent set of rules that app developers need to follow. I have no power to dictate my desirable terms to Facebook, Twitter, etc, but Apple does. I'm willing to give up some flexibility with my device for that. No matter what, I'm a tiny player with no power against globally powerful tech companies, but I'll take Apple's conditions vs 1) conditions set out by other companies that I trust…

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.

Post by hamandcheese » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:57 AM UTC

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...

Post by baby » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 3:01 AM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #202

halpmeh wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android allows 3rd party app stores, you can side load apps, and you can install a different OS.

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?