My understanding is that not even Apple themselves can access that data, and this is not something I want developers being able to access either.
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
My understanding is that not even Apple themselves can access that data, and this is not something I want developers being able to access either.
So, are you ok with banks being asked to pay commission? So, you think that the banks that offer these financial services do not have the right to charge commissions but Apple that offers nothing here has a right to charge commission? You will trust Apple but cannot trust the bank that offers the actual protection because they are governed by laws? This is the height of RDF.In Australia we have four Big Banks.
When Apple Pay was touted only one bank was happy to sign up. The others wanted to forced access to NFC so they could do it their way and avoid commissions. Banks who love charging merchants and customers fees
Eventually the other three had to get on board.
I like Apple Pay because it is way more secure than passing card details around. Been scammed before a petrol station where they used card twice. Once after I left the store. This way, they don’t get anything but an acknowledgement the funds were ok and paid.
We are all ok when banks receive transaction commission. we have no choice. you tap your card and you or the business pays the commission. that's life. banks have Terms and COnditions that set this out. You use your card knowing the fees. there's no difference.
you can be as unhappy as you want. or use cash.
online it's a bit hard to use cash
I trust Apple because I know my card details arent being transmitted on a device that could be intercepted. Apple dont send the card details through. You card is tied to your ID and already verified when set up. its a totally different transaction.
Windows 11 had special hardware requirements or it wouldnt work. Even when the processor and memory were up to the task. It's not that uncommon for restrictions.
Even Apple upgrade iOS and MacOS to run on older hardware but eventually stop support.
They decide whether the hardware is up to the OS requirements for a good user experience or not.
You have no say. You might even think it the hardware would cope. There are iPad features they only allow on M1 powered devices.
Apple allow NFC for Wallet access on public transport. It's useful for users.
If they opened it to banks, would dodgy cryto banks want access?
The alt payments they are doing in EU still require Apple to vet each bank and work with them on what they let them access on a per case basis.
this site is less rumor and more whiner these days.
when you demand Apple change things to suit you rather than suggest changes you could see benefiting most people then it's a whinge. you knew what you were buying. more so than Joe Public did.
when you demand Apple change things to suit you rather than suggest changes you could see benefiting most people then it's a whinge. you knew what you were buying. more so than Joe Public did.
I already clarified what I said about average royalties and I've proven that stat with a data point.
You're trying to backtrack what you suggested about premium royalties being the same across platforms. That is literally false.
Yes. I literally just stated personas. Facebook will not be able to build their own personas using Apple's sensors on the Vision Pro and Apple is literally competing in that space where you have group meetings using personas.
Then there are air tags with the U1 chip where no one but apple can have an app that can precisely locate an AirTag.
Then there's bluetooth and system UI access where Apple is able to transmit things like AirPods battery status just by opening the lid and making the panel appear on iPhone while other AirPods competitors cannot do this on iOS in the same way.
Then Apple has full control over the neural engine while developers can only access the neural engine through Core ML which doesn't provide the full level of control like Apple does. One example is that Core ML limits the amount of unified memory that is available (roughly 75%) on the machine. Apple has full access, so they can do things like cinematic mode on their camera app, Final Cut object tracking, Photos app indexing via AI without being constrained. Other apps can implement similar functions but will not be able to use more than ~75% of available memory on device (which on an iPhone, can be essential to making a feature feasible).
You expect a law to be written for each of these in order for it to be legal for Apple to do? I think not.
Besides, the original assertion was "Face/Touch ID and Secure enclave are not limited to Apple.". They are limited to Apple. You're moving the goal post.
Last edited:
Both Apple and Spotify have cheaper subscription prices in some countries than in others. Spotify has a higher percentage of their customers in countries that pay lower prices.
Yes, Apple technically pays more per song streamed. But using that statistic alone to imply that Apple is somehow more generous with their payments to artists? That's lying with statistics. (Not necessarily intentionally... I'm not saying you are lying.)
I did not initially take the differing subscription rates per country into account, so in that sense, you were technically right and I was wrong. But my overarching point was about fairness in how much rights holders are paid.
The normalized rate is likely extremely similar, and both Apple and Spotify say that (they both specifically quote the 70% number).
It reminds me about a story I heard about a school that accepted women at a lower rate than men, even with similar test scores. Wow, was it because of sexism? No, it turned out it was because women applied to a more exclusive program at that school. There was actually a higher acceptance rate for women in each individual program.
Simpson's paradox - Wikipedia
If I personally subscribe to Spotify and Apple Music for $10.99 each, and listen to the same number of songs on each service, is the same amount of my money from going to the rights holders through each service? Because that's the question that ultimately matters.
Last edited:
I mean that is my primary point.
There are different justifications for earning total $ amount from a streaming platform. Imagine if Spotify scored a deal with Twitch where if a streamer streamed a song to his 100k viewers, that counts as 100k listens. Spotify will pay more, but in return, Spotify asks to devalue the rate and requires viewers to have a Spotify account linked to their Twitch account to hear the music audio track, otherwise it's muted. So in a way Spotify cuts royalties but goes for volume. Will the musician earn more total $? Likely sure but the work is severely devalued and that's a different discussion.
Normalized rate? Likely Apple is higher. If you have data to show this is the same, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, my earlier LinkedIn post shows Apple pays more per play which tells me Apple is likely to pay more in other countries.
Your LinkedIn post doesn’t specify countries, so it’s incomplete information. That’s my whole point. Neither us of can determine the normalized rate from the data we have shared.
But we have this from Apple:
And this from Spotify:
Apple dropped their original plan of not paying rights holders for free trials, so presumably they are close to the 70% rate now. And Apple says it’s an industry standard, so presumably they know what other companies are paying.
Apple Music and Spotify are the same price in the US, so if other countries also have pricing parity, it seems they must be paying similar normalized rates per paying listener.
The pay per stream number is literally just to make gullible people feel good and think they are contributing more to the artists they listen to. None of that is true, that's not even how it works, that number is based on how many listeners a service has and how many streams a service gets (artists take home the most money on Spotify for this reason alone despite "lower" payouts), and anyways a majority of your money is probably going to Taylor Swift and Drake on both platforms even if you don't listen to them. It's all just pooled together, given to the record labels, and tallied out later based on who is the most popular.
To be honest, if you're subscribed to any streaming service at all, be it Apple Music or Spotify, you're not doing the artists any favors. Buy an album.
To be honest, if you're subscribed to any streaming service at all, be it Apple Music or Spotify, you're not doing the artists any favors. Buy an album.
Last edited:
1. Are they monetizing it? Who are the competitors? Are they having to pay Apple to monetize their apps?
2. Is it available for iOS, because VisionOS Appstore is not a gatekeeper just as MacOS and iPadOS appstores are not. Only iOS Appstore is a Gatekeeper and hence regulated.
3. If developers complain about Neural Engines and other things, then there will be action about it. How is Apple monetizing its access to neural engine and who are the competitors to whom it is restricting access to?
1. It is all about competition. When Apple limits NFC to itself and uses that to charge its competitors, then it becomes a problem.
2. You must be aware that Apple has opened the NFC to third parties.
3. Users using dodgy apps to lose money will always be there. Are you telling me that no user has lost money to scam apps in the Appstore until today?
I am sure even the bank apps also use tokenization. In any case, in the EU, the banks have to adhere to PSD2-SCA standard, which is what Apple Pay adheres to. There are several provisions in the PSD2, including tokenization, which will reduce the liability for customers, except in case of low value transactions at stores and other places.We are all ok when banks receive transaction commission. we have no choice. you tap your card and you or the business pays the commission. that's life. banks have Terms and COnditions that set this out. You use your card knowing the fees. there's no difference.
you can be as unhappy as you want. or use cash.
online it's a bit hard to use cash
I trust Apple because I know my card details arent being transmitted on a device that could be intercepted. Apple dont send the card details through. You card is tied to your ID and already verified when set up. its a totally different transaction.
I already have. But being complacent with status quo (basically Apple and Google create abusive monopolies in their own regard) isn't the best option...
Of course criticising anything on this forum results in being lambasted by "fans"
banks have become better only given the huge fraud losses. funny how losing money motivates people...
and yet, Apple arent falling over themselves to open up iOS.
if they were losing money (to Android) they would. but data shows Apple picks up 11-15% of Android switches for the last few years. must be something attractive to them beyond freedom to install whatever...
same people every day arguing to open up. not that many, just the regulars.
<cue comment it is only the regulars supporting Apple ... save you time>
the majority arent concerned enough to ask for change. it works well enough for them.
sure they have a list of "would like" and "would prefer" (we all do) but they dont make noise about it.
any alt app stores available yet? anyone using them? anyone making money from it?
dev accounts have had a while to test it before it was released so surely you'd expect someone would have tried by now.
the daily stouch of open vs closed continues...
it's sounding a bit like the Sting intro on Dire Straights "Money For Nothing" (which could be the theme tune for the open camp given they think Apple collects money for doing nothing).
"I want my, I want my, I want my ... open iOS".
it's sounding a bit like the Sting intro on Dire Straights "Money For Nothing" (which could be the theme tune for the open camp given they think Apple collects money for doing nothing).
"I want my, I want my, I want my ... open iOS".
Of course but you said likely around the same. I say it's likely higher. I can have the same exact guess as you, except mine was backed up with at least one data point.
"presumably"
"Apple will now pay royalties to both record companies and music publishers for the use of music during the trial period, according to the Times. The company declined to state how much money the policy change will cost the company."
Last edited:
First you claimed:
"XYZ are not limited to Apple."
I showed it is. Then it moved to:
"Does Apple have an app that uses this data while denying it to its competitors thereby being anticompetitive?"
I showed that Apple does have an app and it denies competitors (Facebook).
Now you moved it to:
"Are they monetizing it?"
Sorry, but clearly you're constantly moving goal posts. I'm moving on.
not wanting regulation is suddenly "complacent with status quo"? yawnI already have. But being complacent with status quo (basically Apple and Google create abusive monopolies in their own regard) isn't the best option...
Of course criticising anything on this forum results in being lambasted by "fans"
You are right. I should have stopped the moment I sensed you did not understand what anti-competitive behavior was. My mistake was trying to explain it further. Please let me know, in your own words, why Apple opened up NFC in the EU to developers then.
The majority do not know that it can be better. Also, this is for developers. According to some study, opening the app digital app markets can let the market grow to 110 billion euros (can't give you the source). That is why it is a priority for the EU. When there is competition, the customer benefits. Imagine they had not reined in MS earlier? We would still be using IE as our browser. People would not have known enough to complain.
The first thing any sensible user downloaded with IE was Chrome or Firefox. Share grew quickly.
Your unnamed source seems more intent on siphoning 110B from Apple than improving customer experience. Sounds widely inflated amount too. Most apps people who want an alt store are going to be free or pirated games ROMs. No money there.
And let’s not forget that essential vaping app mentioned
Well, they would have had to keep IE their default browser if MS had been allowed to have its way. You see the benefits now of government regulation?The first thing any sensible user downloaded with IE was Chrome or Firefox. Share grew quickly.
Your unnamed source seems more intent on siphoning 110B from Apple than improving customer experience. Sounds widely inflated amount too. Most apps people who want an alt store are going to be free or pirated games ROMs. No money there.
And let’s not forget that essential vaping app mentioned