Apple Says Spotify Wants 'Limitless Access' to App Store Tools Without Paying

[GroovyCatticus]

Why oh why would you want to run an iOS version when a Mac version exists?
Guess you are just taking the p*ss now...
Go the whole (extreme) hog, boots and all, and claim you want to run iOS Safari on your Mac...
Or iMovie... you like the touch interface and want it on you laptop. How dare Apple not make a touch Mac... hahaha

Yes, this guy is deeply unserious 😂

 

[truthsteve]

What are going on about

I don't know what you're asking. That sentence is incomplete.

 

[1129846]

Not true. I remember removing IE from my computer. The problem was that Windows ME was so attached to IE that it got removed too.

Solved it by installing Linux. I haven't used Windows ever since.

Don’t give me the nightmares of window ME. What a **** show that OS was. I don’t miss it at all or any of the window 9.x lines but I really hated ME. That OS was just asked to to way to much and it showed.

XP was fine but it started showing its age at the end. The last MS OS I used was windows 7 and I have not used windows either professionally or personally since then. My wife knows I am useless when it comes to windows.

Yes I am showing my age talking about windows ME.

 

[Apollo68]

I don't know what you're asking. That sentence is incomplete.

It is not an incomplete sentence. He's asking what the hell you're talking about. Fairly common phrase in British parlance.

 

[wbeasley]

Don’t give me the nightmares of window ME. What a **** show that OS was. I don’t miss it at all or any of the window 9.x lines but I really hated ME. That OS was just asked to to way to much and it showed.

XP was fine but it started showing its age at the end. The last MS OS I used was windows 7 and I have not used windows either professionally or personally since then. My wife knows I am useless when it comes to windows.

Yes I am showing my age talking about windows ME.

There was no Windows 9...

"Why Windows 9 skipped?

Marketing. One reason for skipping Windows 9 was marketing. Microsoft wanted to make a clean break from Windows 8, which was not as well-received as previous versions of Windows. By calling the new operating system Windows 10, Microsoft was able to start fresh and create a new identity for the product.4 July 2023"

ME was awful though.

Mac OS is now a much nicer upgrade route for those who just had a Win7 machine die on them.
Mac OS is easier to adjust to. A friend is doing this right now. Two days and he's productive again on an 11 year old MacBook Air. Had to workaround for an install of Pages that suited it (wasnt hard to log in and download) and now he can open his Word files again without any annual subs.

Never worry about showing your age... I still have a bagged set of Win 3.1 on 7 floppy discs... like they will come in handy some day hahahah

 

[Hails09]

I don't know what you're asking. That sentence is incomplete.

Maybe you should look at the previous thread

 

[Ethosik]

Finding it insane all the complaining about how bad and nasty Apple is, yet at the same time insisting on being part of it.
I don’t get it… you know why I find kinda not so nice to use? Windows. So you know what I do? I DONT USE WINDOWS (99% of the time). I don’t go to the WindowsRumors equivalent and start complaining or start throwing lawsuits so that windows becomes what isn’t meant to be.
People rave about Linux, understandable as it’s efficient, stable, etc… but I’m not a server, I’m not on 24/7, I’m a human and prefer the most user friendly less convoluted offer of an OS.

I don’t go to Toyota asking them to make Hondas. In fact, I don’t use cars 340 days of the year, so I let the cars and cars manufacturers be.

What’s up with the last years wanting to bend everything to their will? What’s wrong with just going with what’s already offering what you are looking for whether you are a business, a user or a bureaucrat of the EU?

I agree. I can’t stand windows now. And it sucks as a gamer as everything is on Windows. I’m moving more to the PS5 now because I just can’t take Windows. But there are FPS and other games exclusive to windows or work better with mouse and keyboard.

 

[bluecoast]

Not really.

A phone is a consumer device.
A PC is general purpose tool.

Totally different things.
Sure they share a lot of hardware and software (as a company that is vertically integrated leverages it's strengths does). But all along, Apple has pitched their devices at different tasks. sure it stops cannibalizing sales but they have also said each product is designed for the best experience at it's main task.

We dont expect to use laptops for phone calls (we do expect to use them for group video calls though).
We dont cart a laptop around to pay for groceries.
Most dont take photos on their iPads.

If you want a pocket PC, but a pocket PC. They exist. 7" screens running Windows.
But few find value in it after the novelty of the min eeePCs in the early 2000s.

I agree that Smartphones are a significant evolution of personal computing.

That Apple put in 'guardrails' and made the iPhone easy to use etc. are no small contributors to its success.

But seeing it as a locked down consumer device, rather plays into its arguments about needing to take x% of commerce that happens on apps in the platforms.

Whereas the point that the EU are making, is that Smartphone platforms - meaning iOS and Android - are so crucial to our lives now, that one company can't say the it reserves the right to forever take its cut.

A thought experiment - imagine if Windows had made IE the only web browser that could be used on it and made it so that for every e-commerce transaction, the vendor had to pay Microsoft money.

Would we be OK with that?

 

[Abazigal]

I agree that Smartphones are a significant evolution of personal computing.

That Apple put in 'guardrails' and made the iPhone easy to use etc. are no small contributors to its success.

But seeing it as a locked down consumer device, rather plays into its arguments about needing to take x% of commerce that happens on apps in the platforms.

Whereas the point that the EU are making, is that Smartphone platforms - meaning iOS and Android - are so crucial to our lives now, that one company can't say the it reserves the right to forever take its cut.

A thought experiment - imagine if Windows had made IE the only web browser that could be used on it and made it so that for every e-commerce transaction, the vendor had to pay Microsoft money.

Would we be OK with that?

To me, the question would then be - what are we getting out of it?

With iOS, the value proposition is clear. Apple has aggregated the best customers in the world, which translates to more money for developers even after paying Apple their cut. Consumers get a curated App Store which is generally safer, and this had led to consumers being more trusting and being more open to purchasing apps. Apple has also introduced features to streamline the overall process, from iTunes (developers never get our payment information), subscription tracking, ATT and Sign in with Apple.

So while many people may argue that Apple doesn't deserve 30% for its efforts, my argument is that Apple at least deserves something for the role they have played in growing the overall pie for everyone.

In contrast, if Microsoft is just going to allow any app onto their platform willy nilly, and not even do the bare minimum to screen out the bad actors like malware and viruses, then what exactly are they collecting a commission for? I would expect them to at least do something to streamline the overall process of downloading apps, such as managing updates centrally or letting me authenticate purchases via biometrics.

Therin lies the difference.

 

[truthsteve]

Maybe you should look at the previous thread

You're making even less sense. I'm moving on.

 

[treacher]

With iOS, the value proposition is clear. Apple has aggregated the best customers in the world, which translates to more money for developers even after paying Apple their cut. Consumers get a curated App Store which is generally safer, and this had led to consumers being more trusting and being more open to purchasing apps. Apple has also introduced features to streamline the overall process, from iTunes (developers never get our payment information), subscription tracking, ATT and Sign in with Apple.

This is true of the Mac as well! It's starting to make sense that so many are choosing Apple products specifically for the curated, safer App Stores.

 

[wbeasley]

I agree that Smartphones are a significant evolution of personal computing.

That Apple put in 'guardrails' and made the iPhone easy to use etc. are no small contributors to its success.

But seeing it as a locked down consumer device, rather plays into its arguments about needing to take x% of commerce that happens on apps in the platforms.

Whereas the point that the EU are making, is that Smartphone platforms - meaning iOS and Android - are so crucial to our lives now, that one company can't say the it reserves the right to forever take its cut.

A thought experiment - imagine if Windows had made IE the only web browser that could be used on it and made it so that for every e-commerce transaction, the vendor had to pay Microsoft money.

Would we be OK with that?

Your IE analogy is nothing like a phone.

There is a choice even for EU users... if you dont like the Apple way, buy one of the many Android phones available.
You arent being forced to buy an Apple phone. You choose to. You know the way the app store works. Consumers dont care - its the companies that dont want to pay Apple. And there are ways around it. If a company doesnt want to pay, let the user sign up and pay outside the app store as happens already.

Computers and phones are two very different devices. They operate in many similar ways but one is tailored to portabliity, touch operation and battery use life. They share code and tools and APIs for sure. But still are targeted to different tasks. Not every tool needs to do everything.

The EU are being pushed by a few companies not consumers.

 

[wbeasley]

This is true of the Mac as well! It's starting to make sense that so many are choosing Apple products specifically for the curated, safer App Stores.

you forgot your sarcasm tags...

 

[treacher]

if you dont like the Apple way, buy one of the many Android phones available.
You arent being forced to buy an Apple phone.

I mentioned this elsewhere, but I don't believe this was always our position. As the late Steve Jobs succinctly put it: “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

I got the feeling that competition, at least at the comparable level, was not wanted. Is Android's existence okay now?

 

[wbeasley]

I mentioned this elsewhere, but I don't believe this was always our position. As the late Steve Jobs succinctly put it: “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

I got the feeling that competition, at least at the comparable level, was not wanted. Is Android's existence okay now?

Apart from your comment having nothing to do with the original post...

Jobs often aid things that later changed. Pencil? AppStore?

The biggest surprise was Jobs did say they have patented the heck out of the iPhone and they never really acted on that.

Now back the to real topic...

 

[treacher]

Huh? You can change your position on things?

 

[cupcakes2000]

Huh? You can change your position on things?

I did. I used to support Apples nonsense until I realised that it’s all a con. I still love Apple stuff and am fully invested in the eco system - to those that say ‘shut up or buy Android’. But I’m disgusted at their anti competitive anti consumer moralistic behaviour now I can see it outside of their bubble.

 

[bluecoast]

Your IE analogy is nothing like a phone.

There is a choice even for EU users... if you dont like the Apple way, buy one of the many Android phones available.
You arent being forced to buy an Apple phone. You choose to. You know the way the app store works. Consumers dont care - its the companies that dont want to pay Apple. And there are ways around it. If a company doesnt want to pay, let the user sign up and pay outside the app store as happens already.

Computers and phones are two very different devices. They operate in many similar ways but one is tailored to portabliity, touch operation and battery use life. They share code and tools and APIs for sure. But still are targeted to different tasks. Not every tool needs to do everything.

The EU are being pushed by a few companies not consumers.

Well OK, but of course many people just want another iPhone - they like it, they know how to work it. They're not going to switch. Apple knows this full well, which is why the extra skim is aimed at devs and not added onto user purchases.

 

[bluecoast]

To me, the question would then be - what are we getting out of it?

With iOS, the value proposition is clear. Apple has aggregated the best customers in the world, which translates to more money for developers even after paying Apple their cut. Consumers get a curated App Store which is generally safer, and this had led to consumers being more trusting and being more open to purchasing apps. Apple has also introduced features to streamline the overall process, from iTunes (developers never get our payment information), subscription tracking, ATT and Sign in with Apple.

So while many people may argue that Apple doesn't deserve 30% for its efforts, my argument is that Apple at least deserves something for the role they have played in growing the overall pie for everyone.

In contrast, if Microsoft is just going to allow any app onto their platform willy nilly, and not even do the bare minimum to screen out the bad actors like malware and viruses, then what exactly are they collecting a commission for? I would expect them to at least do something to streamline the overall process of downloading apps, such as managing updates centrally or letting me authenticate purchases via biometrics.

Therin lies the difference.

You make some v good points.

I'm generally one for open platforms.

But as I said in another comment, I recognise that Apple made downloading new software fun and safe, whereas before, it might suddenly do something weird or leave loads of files around when you deleted it (which still happens on the Mac).

And in fairness, they made making software profitable and a huge huge addressable market (by devs) that simply wasn't there before the iPhone.

The best outcome would've been for Apple to have recognised that they couldn't still keep on charging what they have done previously, to have lovebombed devs and tell them how much they are valued and made some reasonable compromises to them.

But they have been reluctant to do this at every step of the way and that's a very unattractive aspect to them.

I'll fully admit though, that even if they had said to Spotify - 'OK, we'll only take 5% of your subscription money, that would've been too much for them'.

Again though, I'd lay the blame at Apple's door for letting this resentment spiral out of hand.

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

Which is exactly what I want. Don't do web apps. Create good iOS apps.

When the tools are bad (Xcode), the marketplace is full of junk and you need to buy Apple's own hardware to develop on, there's simply no incentive for developers to create native apps. Steve Jobs had it right in the beginning, the internet just wasn't ready for web apps back then.

 

[wbeasley]

Huh? You can change your position on things?

If you dont change your mind based on new evidence, you run on dogma

And before you start your usual twisting "oh Apple could change the store to open it"... they could indeed IF THERE WAS ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO IT

Why else would a for profit company do any differently?

 

[wbeasley]

Well OK, but of course many people just want another iPhone - they like it, they know how to work it. They're not going to switch. Apple knows this full well, which is why the extra skim is aimed at devs and not added onto user purchases.

There are plenty of Android switchers too. 13% last year. It goes sup and down but the trend has been to Apple for years. So the Apple environment, even with the walled garden, must be tempting them to jump for some reason...

 

[wbeasley]

You make some v good points.

I'm generally one for open platforms.

But as I said in another comment, I recognise that Apple made downloading new software fun and safe, whereas before, it might suddenly do something weird or leave loads of files around when you deleted it (which still happens on the Mac).

And in fairness, they made making software profitable and a huge huge addressable market (by devs) that simply wasn't there before the iPhone.

The best outcome would've been for Apple to have recognised that they couldn't still keep on charging what they have done previously, to have lovebombed devs and tell them how much they are valued and made some reasonable compromises to them.

But they have been reluctant to do this at every step of the way and that's a very unattractive aspect to them.

I'll fully admit though, that even if they had said to Spotify - 'OK, we'll only take 5% of your subscription money, that would've been too much for them'.

Again though, I'd lay the blame at Apple's door for letting this resentment spiral out of hand.

How many devs come on here and dont complain about 30%? Quite a few.

APple do not need to "lovebomb" devs. They set the rules and it was a much better proposition than many faced with physical stores. Easy updates. No wasted packaging and returns. 30% (or 15%) is a very attractive deal already to most smaller devs.

The spiraliing is a few noisy big companies who want it all free.

They have it free now.
Subscribe outside and download app free. That's it. They pay Apple nothing more than $99 a year.

But they want to push the envelope, against the rules, and sell inside the app.
If they sell in physical stores code cards they pay at least 30% probably.
They just want a free way (and they'll ditch retail stores altogether.)

 

[wbeasley]

When the tools are bad (Xcode), the marketplace is full of junk and you need to buy Apple's own hardware to develop on, there's simply no incentive for developers to create native apps. Steve Jobs had it right in the beginning, the internet just wasn't ready for web apps back then.

A million apps and billions paid to them says there's plenty of incentive...

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

A million apps and billions paid to them says there's plenty of incentive...

Look at marketplaces like Temu and Wish. What's the bar for quality there? Quantity means jack.