Except that what Spotify is looking for would be more like someone walking into a shop, picking up a product and being able to see copy promoting an alternative and possibly cheaper way to buy that product through the company's website. HP, for example, promotes its Instant Ink subscription and website on packaging for its products found in retail stores. Apple is preventing something similar with apps.
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 Lauds $2 Billion EU Fine, Says Apple Has 'Muzzled' Streaming Music Services
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except that what Spotify is looking for would be more like someone walking into a shop, picking up a product and being able to see copy promoting an alternative and possibly cheaper way to buy that product through the company's website. HP, for example, promotes its Instant Ink subscription and website on packaging for its products found in retail stores. Apple is preventing something similar with apps.
There are certainly issues with Apple’s products. I’m not sure this thread is the place to bring up your concerns. If you enjoy Spotify, pay for the service and move on.
I'm covering the costs for both services and am fully aware of what I'm receiving. After highlighting a significant issue with Apple Music, I noticed some users bending the truth to favor their preferred service, as though adhering to an ideology. Appreciate your advice. Feel free to move on as well.
If you're not going to admit that your screenshot was based on something completely erroneous, there's no point in me continuing as you're just simply trying to dig yourself out from your earlier mistake. I'm moving on.
"gee, didn't we all bash apple for making artists front the bill for Apple Music trials?"
Hard to see that point when you used Microsoft as an example when they themselves are doing it too.
It's a bit different considering there's no alternatives for printers to print cheaply on ink/toner. I'd argue at that point the gov should step in. However, on mobile, there are plenty of alternatives so the gov should stay out as long as users have a choice of which product they want to buy. and if not, the gov should incentivize more choices and not force change existing solutions.
hard disagree here. that would be limiting consumer choice. there should always be a completely closed and an open system for users to choose.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Just because you say Apple pays more for maintaining the app store does not mean it does. We will not know the costs, but if the alternative app store charges, say 5% compared to Apple's 30% (an example), then we will know they are cheaper. If they do not let scam apps litter the store like Apple does in the AppStore, then we know that they are doing a better job than Apple is doing on its AppStore for lesser money. We have to wait for the EU to force Apple to be reasonable to see all this, though.
Maybe you’re just willfully ignorant, but a link to your payment service in your app is not an “Ad”.
If you want to tell people where to subscribe, pay for an ad on TV, the web or any other place that accepts advertising money.
I would appreciate it if you could point me to any Law, US or any other countries, that says Apple can keep NFC locked on the phones it had sold to the customers. (I do not remember complaining about NFC not being open to all on iPhones, but I do agree in principle that that should be the case). In any case this is moot as Apple has opened it for all in the EU. I am not sure if that is the case in the US. Not sure who the loser is here, the consumers in the EU for having more choice regarding the NFC on the phone that they bought or the consumers in the US whose NFC is locked reducing their choice.
I can already see a future years from now where after Apple spends billions bringing Vision Pro to mass market status some company invents a random app and complains how unfair Apple is to it for not letting it freeride on VisonPro and the EU sides with it.
Spotify says that Apple’s rules “muzzled” it and other streaming music services from communicating with their own customers in their apps about how to upgrade subscriptions, access promotions, discounts and other perks.
Spotify, if it uses in app billing, would have to pass on the Apple tax to customers which makes it costlier than AM. That makes it hard to compete so it removed the subscribe option in their apps. That is why it is free. But Apple tried to force Spotify to go for in app billing through several shananigans. You can see it all here.
Timeline - Time to Play Fair
www.timetoplayfair.com
Can’t deny the fact that AM has the karaoke feature and that’s amazing, i cancelled AM and I’m currently using YTM, i love YTM better because i feel it knows my taste, after choosing a song the playlist that YTM will continue to play for me is awesome, I don’t get that from AM.
If you think that the 'Browse Now' section in Apple Music offers content completely irrelevant to the user, then I'm at a loss for words. If you're okay with a user who listens to classical music ( for example ) being presented with a 'Browse Now' section filled with pop and hip-hop, then I'm throwing my hands up in disbelief. As I mentioned, this issue seems particularly pronounced in certain countries. The 'Browse Now' content doesn't even align with the country's musical preferences. I'm not sure what more I can say. So, I must be mistaken if it meets your needs.
You are correct. It's BS.
If store A sells you a product that is more expensive than Store B for the same product. It is not the responsibility of Store A to tell you the customer, about store B having a cheaper price.
Nor is it the products job to tell the customer while in Store A to inform about Store B's cheaper price.
The consumer is supposed to "shop". And in this case, Spotify not purchasable via the AppStore. Clearly was able to inform customers to purchase outside of the AppStore.
I did not read the entire reddit thread but what you posted here is info from one artist. They could have a bigger following in the places that Spotify is dominant.
Yet they still put their music on there, saying as much about them as it does on Spotify.
sweet child... you know that it's only in the EU, only because UE forced apple to do so and yet apple pulled a moronic move to charge any alternatives... 🙄
oligopoly is not free market... 🙄
Android user here😉 love MPB but can't stand iPhone ;-)
Do your research. It's often been proven that many smaller artists benefit from being paid more on Spotify than Apple Music. It's just that the Sheep don't like that, so they like to bypass the fact. Spotify works much better than AM, and the way Spotify users listen promotes lesser-known artists more.
What do you prefer, getting $50 this month from AM or $300 from Spotify? Sure, you got paid more per listen on AM, but you got more reach with Spotify. I'm not saying that is the case for them all due to the way payouts work, but it's not just as simple as the AM pays more per listen.
You already know Spotify has the biggest pie, you're just willfully pretending to resist to play a character and get a cheap laugh. I understand this behavior.