Isn't Spotify free to develop their own hardware, software and ecosystem?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Says Spotify Wants 'Limitless Access' to App Store Tools Without Paying
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I completely and monaterly/logically agree withe what you are saying but also emotionally/passionately disagree with how Apple is now. As I said I'm a hypocrite because Apple right now is making me some bank🤑
I’m amazed at the amount of people here who defend Apple on this.
Tell me why they don’t do the same thing on the Mac. They should. Developing macOS must cost at least hundreds of millions a year - the hardware even more. Apple deserves developers to compensate Apple for that.
I'm not strongly disagreeing but I think this is basically a shift from previous model (develop - sell - get money to develop new thing) to subscription model, where you lay constantly... not sure if I like it (especially in case of Apple, where it seems / feels they abuse their position too much)
& how is that Spotify’s fault when that’s Apple’s decision to charge that much
Yearly dev fees in the amount of 100? Oh that’s a lot of fees 😂
It all comes down to whether you are more interested in being right or if you would rather just spend your time making statements that are rooted in ideology.
The main difference is that macOS didn't start out closed, so it would not be feasible for Apple to suddenly decide to wall off macOS one day and declare that all software had to go through the App Store. If Apple thought they do get away with doing so, they probably would.
This is in contrast to iOS, which comes with the App Store baked in, and more importantly, had never allowed users to side load apps right from the start.
So it comes down to Apple never having to change the rules governing the iOS App Store, vs them trying to do so for the Mac. It's not a matter of right or wrong. From a legal perspective, Apple is able to keep iOS closed because it had always been closed (and so users cannot argue that they didn't know this going in). Conversely, a Mac user who bought a Macbook on the promise of being able to download apps from anywhere would have an issue with Apple suddenly closing off this option, and might have a legal defence because Apple is now attempting to alter the terms of the deal after the sale of said product.
I wonder if there’ll be legal recourse the other way around with regards to iOS in Europe?
That will be between the citizens of Europe and the EU commission, but generally, I don't see it happening, much as I wish the general populace would be more vocal on this matter. Right now, it just feels like it's Spotify and Epic acting like they somehow get to speak for the entire developer community and iOS user base, but I believe that users in general don't exactly hate walled app ecosystems, and they simply don't care about a 30% fee they will never see. But this is probably not a "bread and butter" issue that they feel passionately enough to raise any concerns to their local government about either way.
Probably true. European users will just see their user experience get a little bit worse and they’ll grumble about it and complain to Apple about ‘planned obsolescence‘, or whatever the buzz-phrase is at the time.
I use grapheneOS as well, but thanks for the concern. But I like my iPhone - I need it for work it works very well with my Macs and my iPad which I also need for work. Anyway, it’s no skin off you nose either way - what I do, or whether Apple open up a bit. You can still stay in apples big cuddly warm embrace simply by choosing not to install from the big bad internet. As you say, you do you and I’ll do me. At the moment we all just ‘do Apple’.
Not me, I love my iPad. It’s the control centre to my entire network of stuff.
OK I buy your argument - so why doesn't Apple make it that every new MacBook bought has to download apps from the Mac App Store only?
I get that Apple are just being good capitalists. I'm just hoping that governments will be good governments and regulators will be good regulators and tell them that enough is enough as their platform is so big and as mobile commerce is so important, this now doesn't give them the right to skim money off any app based commerce happening on their platform.
I don't buy the security issue either. I have an android phone for work and Google Play Protect is active on my phone scanning for malware. Just as Apple do on the Mac in fact (but seep quiet about this).
so you run grapheneOS because android lacks security... and yet you want to open up iOS which could reduce security... huh?
it doesnt cut it to say "stay in Apple's big cuddly warm embrace". an OS isnt designed to make you feel anything. it's there to do a job.
"it's no skin off your nose" - well if opening up creates any possible security risk for others then it does affect them.
i've seen the effects of bad Android apps installed by users with little understanding bring a network email to a halt multiple times. if your freedom to install things Apple wouldnt normally allow and it impacts others then that's not good.
the implementation that Apple is using for the EU directive isnt going to make most of you happy either. they might allow alt app store loading but still get to vet and sign them off to allow your apps onto iPhones.
Apple havent closed the Mac App Store and enforced their way because Mac have allowed software to be installed. Always.
Look at Microsoft and their failed Win 10S mode that only allowed apps from the store.
Hahahahaha this is hilarious. Typical GrapheneOS situation. Showing the realistic security posture mistakes that you will almost have to reliably make in bold...
This is me for ref, so I'm speaking from experience. And yes I am a security mistake and outlined myself in bold.
1. GrapheneOS is cool and not google! Buy a Pixel 6A.
2. Install GrapheneOS
3. Find out none of the play store stuff works.
4. Try a play store shim / emulation layer.
5. Find out GrapheneOS doesn't work with it due to some political thing.
6. Install some hooky rebuild from god knows who off a Discord link.
7. Yay I can now install GrapheneOS Lithuanian Gangster Edition!!!
8. Install banking app.
9. Banking app refuses to work because the device is not locked / secure boot chain.
10. Try and relock the boot loader.
11. Does not work because of some firmware weirdness resulting in head scratching. Accept at this point that anyone who steals your phone can actually just dump the ENTIRE system image off it and all your data.
12. End up using your banking via Firefox downloaded from some weird APK mirror.
13. Find out when you're stuck in hospital in Iceland that they block access to your banking from outside your home country if you're using the web site but it will work in the app.
14. Use your girlfriend's crusty iPhone 11 with broken screen and activate your online banking through that.
15. Vow never to use this piece of excrement ever again.
16. Reflash the Pixel 6A with Google firmware, lock it and shovel it onto eBay.
17. Go back to iOS.
18. Never experience any of these issues again.
You can of course go back to Google's build on the Pixel 6A which is "ok" if you're happy wallowing in their swamp (I'm not).
GrapheneOS is a complete and utter half baked lie when it comes to security.
I don't think "happy" would be the word to use. Because iOS controls such a notable part of the mobile OS market, I'd say it's more like app developers “tolerate” the fee. They don't leave because it's too big of a market to just walk away from and, except maybe in the EU, there is no other way to access that major market segment other than the App Store.
Back when Spotify premium subscriptions were available through the App Store, they would charge customers a higher price to subscribe through the App Store. It was cheaper to subscribe through Spotify's website. Therefore, if the App Store commission was lowered or removed Spotify would presumably charge the lower price. In that sense, it would be a "savings" to those choosing to subscribe through the App Store compared to what Spotify might otherwise charge if a full commission was there.
Does that mean you essentially think antitrust laws shouldn’t exist because other companies can build their own versions/alternatives? Microsoft shouldn't have been sued in the 1990s because computer makers could've built their own operating systems, Netscape could've built its own hardware, etc.? Companies like AT&T should never have been broken up because other companies could’ve built their own phone networks? Basically no company can have "too much" control, power, dominance of a market?
#1: doesn't need to be. That's FORCED by Apple and is likely to change as laws see the monopoly that is Apple.
#2: Tied to #1. And really, who cares?
#3: Free to developers. That's Apple's choice. They could charge for them if they wanted.
#4: Part of the OS. Not Spotify's responsibility to pay for what the OS manages.
#5: Billing? Apple doesn't charge me every month. Spotify does. You can't even buy anything in the app as far as I know. Am I wrong?
Spotify isn't a hardware company, whereas Apple is. There's the difference and the reason Apple needs to be scrutinized even more.
It’s like living rent free. Not that Spotify is squeaky clean. Being software doesn’t mean freedom from scrutiny. Ask Microsoft.
I’m confused, if Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony can do this why can’t Apple? I’m struggling to see a significant difference between the offering besides one being a video game console and another being a phone.
The choice is the phone you buy, same as the console. I don’t see anyone taking Nintendo to the EU commission complaining that they can’t publish on the switch without paying Nintendo 🤔
The choice is the phone you buy, same as the console. I don’t see anyone taking Nintendo to the EU commission complaining that they can’t publish on the switch without paying Nintendo 🤔
apple is ********ing again as it does ever. Ofcourse apple can asks anything she wants for hosting any app on their applestore even a million for a free app, what is unethical and I believe illegal as it comes to monopoly is that apple doesn't allow any other stores on the platform.
Give the authority for anyone hosting its own store and you can charge whatever you want for yours. That's how competition will work, any other solutions are just ********ing.
Claims that other applestore will be security risks is for the client to judge, if client doesn't care about your "security strict" rules can choose whatever store he/she wants and taking the risk for himself.
Give the authority for anyone hosting its own store and you can charge whatever you want for yours. That's how competition will work, any other solutions are just ********ing.
Claims that other applestore will be security risks is for the client to judge, if client doesn't care about your "security strict" rules can choose whatever store he/she wants and taking the risk for himself.
Well certainly we devs would love to “tolerate” zero fees, but we’re also realistic and understand TANSTAFL.
There’s another group, largely living in the EU, that appear to have an inferiority complex and want free stuff 🤷🏻♂️