This post wins my official award for most ridiculous argument of the thread. Congratulations!
As if Apple should be forced to operate the App Store on the few million a year that they receive in annual developer fees.
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.
Spotify Accuses Apple of Using App Store Approval Process as a 'Weapon to Harm Competitors'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As if Apple should be forced to operate the App Store on the few million a year that they receive in annual developer fees.
Everyone should have a problem with Apple charging a 30% tax or even 15% for services it doesn't provide. At best, they should be getting miniscule Apple Pay level fees for facilitating subscription transactions. Anything more is crazy.
still stands that ios is the only os with a single distribution method and on top of that it is held with an iron grip, and they hold vast majority of mobile profits. something is wrong there, too much powerSo? There is a difference between "no alternative" and "I want that one because it's good for me."
The web is a sweet alternative to distribute apps on iOS.
no offline mode and surely lack of other features I cant think of for web apps
Last edited:
I don't have time to look it up right now but I seem to recall that Google Play and Apple App Store accounted for less than one third of global app store downloads. When it comes to monetization the results are much more heavily Apple but there are multiple other major players as well as many minor players.
I think you and I have very different perspectives on when to swing the hammer of anti-trust. Spotify is welcome to bring suit if they like (or push various sympathetic attorneys general to bring suit) but I'm 99% sure the reason they do not is they know they would not prevail. Not being able to win a lawsuit of course does not mean that one is correct however it does then bring it into the realm of the philosophical and here is where I believe we find ourselves and disagreeing based upon our differing worldviews.
As to developers' nightmare of someone else "stealing" an idea. Having been involved in software I can tell you that resting on one's laurels thanks to a hot development is a recipe for failure. There will always be others nipping at your heels whether large organization or small. Someone will try to do it better and take marketshare and all will leverage what they have at their disposal to do so. The only way forward is to continue to innovate your own solution to stay ahead of the pack and further differentiate yourself in the marketplace. There are protections for development that is truly new and novel but just because you are the first to render hypertext graphically or provide short text communications between users or network people together with social connections or stream pre-recorded audio across the internet to a mobile device doesn't mean that you should be shielded from competition regardless of of the size and format that competition may be (up to the limit of anti-trust law). Any David vs Goliath will be difficult but providing value proposition to your customers will retain them and grow your brand.
edit to add: this is the reality we find ourselves in under our capitalist (and even the hybrid in place of China) system. If we want to suggest or try alternative economic systems we can do so; there are some that interest me given some societal change to support them. Absent that though this conversation continues to just be a philosophical discussion between us. In Spotify's case though I feel they are trying to manipulate public sentiment to produce their own market advantage (ironically).
Last edited:
HTML5 does allow you to run offline web apps.
http://sixrevisions.com/web-development/html5-iphone-app/
But, yes, different platforms have different features. What's your point?
You edited your post and still left in the same misinformation. iOS does not have a single distribution method for apps. They allow web apps as well. And those web apps can operate completely offline with homescreen icons.
if Spotify could work well as a web app they would just do it. I'm sure you cant cache 20 gigs of music in a web app
experience is also worse
ios is the only os that restricts non web apps through one distribution channel
hilarious that you are trying to equate web apps to apps though
Apple isn't upset because all the apps you listed play ball with Apple and don't seek to subvert them in the press and through breaking App Store rules.
To your point about fees Apple and Google have veeeeeeeeery different business models so comparing how they charge isn't really appropriate. But to the point on taxes, that $300 does not nearly cover the costs that Spotify generates for apple.
The do have a web app! Sheesh.And a moment ago you were sure that offline web apps didn't exist and Spotify didn't offer a web app.
And a moment ago you were sure that offline web apps didn't exist and Spotify didn't offer a web app.
because if you could do it this wouldnt be a problem, obviously the app experience is better
I couldnt care less about spotify specifically
no other os would get away with locking down distribution like ios does. sure it doesnt have majority marketshare but it has vast majority of profitshare and you guys love to argue how that is more relevant anyway, but when it comes to regulation ah no of course it is irrelevant.. marketshare must be the primary metric for judging abuse..
Last edited:
Again. You are simply wrong. There are tons of platforms that lock down distribution. xBox and Nintendo being obvious examples.
game consoles are the only examples (of consumer products) and they are not general consumer computing OS, ios' stance is unprecedented
Again. That's not true at all. I'm not going to just keep making counter-examples every time you want to move the goalposts. Thanks for the chat!
you dont have any examples!! maybe some obscure os that never took off, or some corporate niche use case os. Im sorry i didnt mention game consoles (ios is not a game console it is a pc replacement, apple even says so), if you look at my past posts I usually do..
windows
osx
linux
android
all have multiple distribution channels
even if we include clunkers like
windows phone
blackberry
fireos
they still do have multiple distribution channels
pardon me I should have said they all have multiple non web app distribution methods before you call semantics again
Last edited:
OK show your proof. Where can app vendors sell applications to iPhone/iPad users other than the Apple store and those iPhone/iPad users can download and install apps on their devices outside Apple's app store ... and don't say setting up a development kit because that is not practical.
Because there were only so many pieces written by Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Schubert, Haydn, etc. as they are no longer alive.
First of all, I just don't see all of the people you mention. I'm an happy iPhone user but every Android user I know has no problem with malware. Maybe I should ask more Android users, or maybe you should...
Anyway, the Google Play Store is curated (badly, you might think, but still...): it's the equivalent of the App Store from Apple and it has nothing to do whatsoever with side-loading applications (which has no equivalent in iOS unless you take jailbreaking into account).
Right, but how are customers supposed to know how to get premium, then? We know we can go to Spotify's website. Do your grandparents know that?
Is it illegal to complain about unfair terms and conditions? Specifically the rule that Spotify is complaining about is: no ad in spotify app directing users to the web to sign up.
Why are people talking about like Spotify wants everything for free? Spotify already pays the yearly developer fees to Apple that cover app distribution and customer billing. Spotify doesn't want to use Apple's customer billing and people are acting like Spotify is stealing from Apple.