Why is it when users are in apples walled garden, it is the users choice but when users use google services where their data is collected it isn't the users choice to have their data collected to have a better experience within the google 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.
Congress Reportedly Asks Spotify for Information on Apple's Alleged Anticompetitive Behavior
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not what I said. I said: “even if you don’t use their services”. So stop trying (yet again) to twist around what I said to fit your narrative.
Google has tracking code embedded in millions of websites which tracks users even if they don’t actually use any Google services. If someone emails me with a Gmail account then information about me also gets collected by Google even though I gave them no permission to. Same goes for any other interactions I might have with a person using a Google device or services (my contact details/phone number they store on their phone, call logs, MMS messages and so on).
If I run a small business and send people email receipts, then all those receipts/purchases get logged/tracked by Google (if they use Gmail). Users who visit my business website with Chrome also end up sending a ton to information to Google about my business. All without my permission.
I could use an old feature phone, a generic PC with no Google services or software whatsoever and STILL have enormous amounts of data vacuumed up about me. You think that’s acceptable?
Last edited:
In most cases I would argue Apple shouldn’t be able to do things they specifically tell developers they can’t do. So if Spotify (or any other app) can’t use push notifications to promote their product then Apple shouldn’t be able to either. Same thing with developer guidelines on subscription pages. If the guidelines say pages need to be designed a certain way then Apple should have to follow those guidelines too.
[automerge]1570393929[/automerge]
Can you only get apps from the Microsoft store? Or does it depend on which version of Windows you’re using?
Developers do not need to pay Apple for the platform because they are already paid by the one who bought the phone. SDK which is used to create apps for the phone should be free to encourage developers to create more apps for Apple customers and thus encourage more new customers for Apple, no one will want to buy iPhones without 3rd party developers. Apple is asking developers to pay a subscription fee to have access to the SDK. Basically developers are already paying for the maintenance and development of the SDK.
I believe it was George Carlin who suggested that we think of the intelligence of the average person, then realize that about half of all people are stupider than that. Let it sink in.
Either way, a developer should be able to choose what works for them and their own business needs, especially when Apple is directly competing with them. If they want to take on the added friction and possibly increased risk of a different payment system, they should be able to make that choice.
I agree that Apple should follow its own rules, but Apple’s usage of push notifications (that which I’ve seen here and on Reddit, at least) is not in violation of the App Store Review Guidelines, or at least not in violation of how they have historically enforced them.
The wording isn’t terribly clear, but I think it’s pretty obvious that the intent is to prevent developers from selling notifications as ads for third parties (where the first and second parties are the user and developer). Otherwise, so many apps would have been banned from APNS by now — McDonald’s couldn’t notify customers of a promotion on their food, so many “free-to-play” games would be unable to notify players of a sale on whatever IAP trash, and so on. It’s also important to note that the guideline only applies to push notifications and not local notifications, which can be an important distinction.
If you’re worried about all the data that you believe people care about you, there is a simple solution here.
Stop using the internet.
Apple does not distribute their app free of charge as you say, they have to pay a 200 USD fee yearly which is way more than any hosting service would charge.
If that was the case, I would consider fairer for them to pay a hosting fee rather than giving away 30% of their business, that’s an insane amount of money.
You're missing the point. I'm not really that worried. The people who should be worried are the companies gathering all that data to monetize. What will they do if government regulations start to restrict the data they can get? It's literally the only source of their revenue.
I think a good comparison may be the relationship between an artist and an art gallery. The more prestigious and better located the gallery is, the larger percentage they charge the artist. However, if the artist is very well known, the gallery may waive some of its commission. This leads one to conclude that Apple should, in the name of fairness to Spotify, charge a considerably lower commission in their case, given that Spotify is one of the apps that probably drives a fair amount of traffic to the app store. (In my case, and probably for very many users, the iPhone would be less desirable without being able to use Spotify on it, a factor Apple should seriously consider.) They same should probably apply to all of the most heavily downloaded apps. Quantity discounts are a well established business practice and are never considered to be favoritism.
Last edited:
wha?
I use my credit card or ApplePay for Uber here in Canada and registered via email account. Seems pretty standard to me. What’s proprietary about their payment system that others in iOS are not using?
Careful what you wish for, it just might happen.... and be far worse than originally thought. Anything Spotify says should be taken as a look in the mirror type of advice. No doubt about it all these services are competing against each other but in some respects competing against themselves. Should be interesting to see what "info" Spotify puts out.
The issue with your argument is the art gallery is not the only way to buy art. You can buy direct from the artist, from a gallery across town, or really however you want. With iPhone, the app store is the only way to buy apps.
I will argue that when you buy an iPhone, you are implicitly buying into the Apple ecosystem, which amongst other things, includes their vision of how a curated App Store ought to be run.
What you view as a lack of options with regards to payment systems, users like myself may appreciate as an added means of convenience and security. Going through iTunes mean that I am able to consolidate all my subscriptions in one place for easier management, and developers never get my payment details. Obviously, given the choice, developers would rather you use their own payment option to bypass all these benefits (to me), which is why I feel it is imperative that Apple not give them that option at all in the first place.
Because very often, what is good for the developer isn't always good for me as the end user (and yes, vice versa), which is why as the end user, I have no qualms about Apple implementing supposedly "developer-hostile" initiatives like "sign-in with Apple" if they can benefit me as the end user.
Because the App Store does not exist for you app developers. It exists for us customers.
Same with allowing apps to only be made available via the App Store. This means that all app developers have to abide by Apple's rules (the infamous example of Epic forcing android users to side load the Fortnite app via a third party installer comes to mind), which in turn means better security and protection for me as the customer. Yes, I acknowledge that the App Store isn't perfect, but by and large, it does seem better maintained than the google play store.
What you view as an unreasonable tax on developers (that 30% revenue cut), I may view as a reasonable price to pay, given the role the App Store plays in app discovery and facilitating the relationship between the developer and the end user. Given the sheer amount of resources Apple pours into curating and maintaining it, I don't think you can really make the argument that $99 a month suffices.
Does this make me a terrible person for supporting what Apple does at the expense of living, breathing developers who too need to eat? Perhaps. Maybe when developers show that they can police their own community, I might stand with them, but for now, I view what Apple is doing as a necessary evil, because for every one good developer out there, there are numerous questionable ones, and someone has to do the dirty job of keeping them honest.
Just my 2 cents.
It literally isn’t their only source of money, but I’ll address that some other day.
If the govt restricts this, there will be other avenues to explore for monetization. Keep in mind that Apple and others rent data centers from other telecoms and don’t control the internet.
What you are desiring will cause all to suffer. Big companies can’t pay the bills. Data centers shut down. Progress of technology halts or go backwards. Apple loses their forward progress
I would argue that at this point, app developers have been so thoroughly commoditised by the App Store that it is the customer who has the power in this relationship. And Apple by extension of owning the best customers. Right now at least, my loyalty to the Apple ecosystem is such that if Google were to remove all their iOS apps right here and now, I would show them the middle finger and stay on iOS, so as to send the message that if they want to reach me as a customer and profit off me, they will support the iOS platform the best they can. Because I am most certainly not going to switch over to Android for them.
At this very moment, there are so many developers releasing similar versions of any one app that even if a couple left, there would be still be others to step in and fill in the gap. And I have no doubt that they will, because iOS is ultimately where the money is.
And while we are on the topic of apps, I see the merit of Apple giving their own stock apps 1st-party status. This way, the apple ecosystem will never be held hostage to any one app, no matter how popular or indispensable it may be. If Spotify tries to play punk, I have Apple Music as an alternative. Even if all the movie-editing apps disappeared overnight, I would still have iMovie.
If anything, it would appear that Apple makes their stock apps only about 80% of the way there to give other third party apps a fighting chance. How do you compete against a stock iOS app that benefits from being the default preinstalled app with system-level integration? You target a niche and focus on bringing features and functionality that you know Apple can't or won't introduce. Like how Spark to Mail, Bear to Notes, Overcast to Podcast, or even Fantastical to Calendar. So in other words, the stock iOS apps provide a minimum bar that other apps have to clear if they even want to be considered.
At this point, I realise I am likely coming across as being way more mean and vindictive to app developers than I probably intend. My intention is not to tar all developers with the same brush and insinuate that all of them are crooks who need to be reined in with an iron fist, but on the other hand, there will always be bad actors, and sometimes the process of managing them means the "good guys" have to suffer along and chafe under such strict and oppressive rules, and that's the way it goes.
And since we are on the topic of stock apps, I do go back and play around with them every now and then, and I find that maintaining a united front of Calendar, Mail, Reminders, Notes, and so on tends to lubricate the interactions between my devices, Siri, iCloud, and the apps themselves. I can't really explain it, but I am slowly coming to the realisation that the more I give in to accepting that some of these stock apps provide the core functionality I need in a certain app, the less I find my mind wandering toward exploring an endless array of options and falling into a rabbit hole of tweaking workflows and deluding myself into thinking it’s helping in some way.
Something’s changed. In the past few years. I’ve lost my taste for fiddling a little bit, and the stock apps have gotten better. Enough for me to truly consider using them over third party alternatives.
Anyways, thanks for listening to me rant before I turn in for the night.
No, please address it now. Almost all of Google revenue is from advertising. Same with Facebook. How are they going to generate revenue outside of advertising?
Apple doesn’t control the Internet? What does that even mean?
Please. All will suffer? What a pile of.... A mile high pile. Please explain in detail how “all” will suffer.
But you can buy any number of digital products for use in App Store apps, outside the App Store. Examples are: Spotify, Tidal, and other music service subscriptions; video purchases and rentals such as from Amazon; ebooks such as from Amazon, Google, Nook, etc. Yes, you have to go outside of the App to do these purchases, but the inconvenience level is very low, a very 1st world problem.
To expand my analogy, an artist may like the convenience of selling via a gallery. Art customers may prefer a more exclusive gallery to a less exclusive one across town. The App Store is like a preferred art gallery in the view of many customers and developers. But choices do exist, to a degree. If Apple were forced to allow the installation of Apps from outside the App store, I for one would be unlikely to use such sources.
I fully agree with you - I love Apple's ecosystem. But the point is Apple plays by a different set of rules than they expect their developers to adhere to. That is their prerogative as the keyholders, but Microsoft was sued for similar behavior so I guess Spotify is thinking they have precedent. The real question is, is Apple a monopoly? I'm not a lawyer versed in this area so I can't say.