Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
They don't need it, they have Car Thing now. 🤡

View attachment 1776831
Lol right. Nothing’s stopping them from having their app thingie on the Car Thing and then creating a Home Thing with an in-built Calling Jig. App Store circumvented & Bye Felicia to Apple. Spotify to the moon. 😆

The name is so stupid that it starts off quirky and dorky, sets off a parade with streamers, dancers, and a marquis, and then loops around, caves in on itself, and becomes actually, seriously stupid.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
So, from what your saying, the way the app store works is that app developers with deep financial pockets and resources pay for the free loaders (free apps) to stay in the store. If that is how it works then companies such as Epic and Spotify have every right to demand that Apple allow them to do their own thing with their app. Why should companies such as Epic and Spotify pay for the free app developers to stay in the store??

Apple have no right to force companies such as Epic and Spotify to use Apples pay system to help pay the hosting and distribution costs of app developers who provide free apps.

No that’s not what I’ve said and I’ve tried to correct you multiple times. You’ve latched onto this idea despite me telling you explicitly it is wrong and explaining how it actually works. I’m not going to reexplain here as it is already clearly laid out in previous posts. Please reread them. Carefully. And btw Epic’s own store works the same way and has the same dynamics as the App Store does, so does the Google play store, so does Steam, so do the online stores for consoles.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
Your wrong, every app developer has to pay a yearly fee of $99 to publish their apps in the Apple app store. If an app developer wants to provide paid services, such as in-app currency/tokens, they have to use Apples own payment system which Apple politely demand that app developers use. If they don't they are politely told to leave the app store.

Therefore, even if Spotify win their case, they will still have to pay the yearly $99 fee. Thus the claims that Spotify will pay nothing for using the app store is completely false.

Fine, Spotify will have to pay Apple $99. Do you really think that is what they are after, a rebate on their developer fee? When we are talking tens or hundreds of millions in payments, $99 is NOTHING.
 
So, from what your saying, the way the app store works is that app developers with deep financial pockets and resources pay for the free loaders (free apps) to stay in the store. If that is how it works then companies such as Epic and Spotify have every right to demand that Apple allow them to do their own thing with their app. Why should companies such as Epic and Spotify pay for the free app developers to stay in the store??

Apple have no right to force companies such as Epic and Spotify to use Apples pay system to help pay the hosting and distribution costs of app developers who provide free apps.
Yeah, false equivalency in your argument here. First off, Apple has a vested OS security interest in distributing apps; that helps stabilize the entire platform for the benefit of themselves and users alike. Would they do it for free? I doubt it, but that doesn't automatically imply a malicious motive or some unjust enrichment. I think Apple views the App Store as a win for consumers in terms of security, a win for them in terms of profitability and platform success, and a win for developers in terms of distribution and time/cost savings. Any developer knows that the App Store and the many SDKs they release at every WWDC saves a Fk* ton of effort when it comes to reinventing the wheel, dealing with subscription management, customer service, etc. Apple is directly providing developers with economic benefits in exchange for taking a gamble on their success.

One important thing to Apple is the self-sustenance of each independent component/department. If something cannot be profitable on its own, it will only serve to vampire off of the company at large, and that's a well-guided assumption. (This is very likely why they have not sold consumer displays for a long time.)

No individual app is subsidizing per se free apps. There's not even really a basis to believe that just based on the economics of the business alone. It's only incident to the overall economics that the distribution of revenue is tilted strongly in favor of successful apps which are in the vast minority. It's like a record studio. You kind of gamble on a million duds to get a hit. Nothing is owed between the parties who are entering into a contract with the record studio. In Apple's case, it's also the record studio letting in every aspiring teenager under the sun—lots of expense in their doing that—just to have a generally available platform for anyone to succeed. They just want everyone to play by the same rules and have already reduced the barriers to entry for small developers recently.

When you say they "have no right", you're not using that concept properly. These developers are willfully engaging in a private contract with Apple. Except under limited circumstances, only the law applies to govern it, not rights. Your argument isn't that the App Store is monopolistic, so I'm not sure about what angle you're coming from there. Anyone's moral impression of the App Store is going to be subjective. They can kinda do whatever they want just like they were free to initially create you the iPhone in the first place. Lol.

* a newly discovered element yet to be added to the periodic table
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
Your wrong, every app developer has to pay a yearly fee of $99 to publish their apps in the Apple app store. If an app developer wants to provide paid services, such as in-app currency/tokens, they have to use Apples own payment system which Apple politely demand that app developers use. If they don't they are politely told to leave the app store.

Therefore, even if Spotify win their case, they will still have to pay the yearly $99 fee. Thus the claims that Spotify will pay nothing for using the app store is completely false.

First off, your you're's wrong. Next, Apple doesn't just demand the use of their payment system to siphon off their commission that developers agreed to; it's also to provide a consistent user experience of payment, subscription management, averting fraud, enhancing trust with regard to unknown developers, sparking conversion—I could go on. You're taking the negative perspective to everything by omitting what developers and consumers get from this system.

I really just don't understand the criticism about the economics of the App Store itself. The $99 paywall also helps minimize people from creating a stupid Hello World app and launching it to the public as a college project requirement. I wish we could all just think about this a little—the App Store is a tremendous social good. That's pretty much chump change to all except the starving app developers. A program could be introduced for that if it's a huge issue; I don't think it is.

I do still think we should do a little bit to limit the authority of Big Tech to squeeze competition by using metrics accessible only to them to stifle the market. There's a monopoly argument for sure, but I pray we can balance that with retaining the immense benefits of the App Store in protecting us against the unlimited nature of malevolent development and its impacts on iOS. I really, really, really hope Apple prevails in the lawsuit, and I think they will.
 
And the only reason Apple Music was not streaming was also due Apple’s success in moving downloadable music iTMS. Apple had to work hard to get labels on board with downloads. The licenses actually forbade streaming. It’s why any song you played from your iTunes Match library had to be physically downloaded to your phone and played locally.

Spotify actually got a bit of a head start with streaming but it is obvious Apple would rework the licensing to add streaming to Music on their platform.

honestly I don’t believe there was anything regarding streaming in any legal terms from music labels. If there was, or loosely inferred it would make streaming legal; remember AM/FM radio?! That’s how traditionally music was advertised for everyone to know and purchase singles (45’s to 12”), to LPs etc.

so unless you can show severa of their legal documents dating back to 1996, I think you’re wrong on that.

that said I think they were VERY resistant to Napster and illegal downloads which kicked it off, and with drummer Lars of Metallica spearheading the industry musicians against Napster and MP3’s until Rince had is speech at an award show in the midst of all that chaos getting a standing ovation from just about EVRRY artist of every genre (even quieting Lars to rethink his stance/opinion), there was no ‘real’ streaming when iTunes came to market. Sure you could “preview while BitTorrenting music downloads but that wasn’t really streaming vs just previewing.
Cheers.
 
honestly I don’t believe there was anything regarding streaming in any legal terms from music labels. If there was, or loosely inferred it would make streaming legal; remember AM/FM radio?! That’s how traditionally music was advertised for everyone to know and purchase singles (45’s to 12”), to LPs etc.

so unless you can show severa of their legal documents dating back to 1996, I think you’re wrong on that.

that said I think they were VERY resistant to Napster and illegal downloads which kicked it off, and with drummer Lars of Metallica spearheading the industry musicians against Napster and MP3’s until Rince had is speech at an award show in the midst of all that chaos getting a standing ovation from just about EVRRY artist of every genre (even quieting Lars to rethink his stance/opinion), there was no ‘real’ streaming when iTunes came to market. Sure you could “preview while BitTorrenting music downloads but that wasn’t really streaming vs just previewing.
Cheers.
Quick search - From ARS; 30 AUG 2011. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/08/itunes-match-developer-beta-reveals-icloud-based-streaming/

From the top of the article:

UPDATE: An Apple spokesperson told All Things Digital on Tuesday that what appears to be iCloud streaming—described in the original article below—is in fact a " simultaneous listen and download." Sadly, it appears that iTunes Match is still limited to downloads only.

UPDATE 2: Despite Apple's semantically pedantic explanation that iTunes Match does not "stream" songs but instead "plays as it downloads," further investigation suggests that is not actually the case. Songs that are played by clicking on the title are effectively cached in full on iOS devices, then deleted automatically when navigating away from the song. These songs are not added to the library as they are when clicking the iCloud "download" icon.

Per the article and iTunes Match FAQ of the time, iTunes Match plays while it downloads and then deleted afterwards. So it appeared to be streaming but it wasn't
 
I find it amazing how many people blindly side with Apple on everything. A fair playing field and fair competition is what drives innovation. Surely nobody wants Apple to be the Walmart superstore in a small town that has driven out all alternatives.
I think it’s more interesting the people that blindly side against Apple. I mean, the folks siding with Apple don’t even have to have any favorable view of Apple to recognize that defining a “market” for monopoly purposes as “the thing a company makes” is absurd. You don’t have to be a fan of Apple to understand that defining a market as “Big Macs”, “Playstations”, “Spotify” or “Fortnite” is absurd. And, this clear logic can be applied across the board, regardless of what they feel about the product you plug into the equation, as a result. They can be consistent on that.

On the other side, they have to simultaneously define a thing Apple is doing as wrong while defining that SAME thing when being done by other companies is OK. This starts with the aforementioned absurd definition of monopoly and extends to applying other arbitrary distinctions, like “Well, iOS has calculators, you don’t see calculators on Playstations!” or “Nintendo may not subsidize their systems BUT they sell games in retail stores” or “These devices go in your pocket, though!” in order to define just why a successful company should be curtailed in their ability to do business as they see fit.

There ARE people that side with Apple on everything. BUT, even a broken analog clock is right two times a day, this is just one of those times. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
You can do this. I see it right now looking at Affinity Photo. There is a link to their website.
I went to look into this and saw they’re running a half off special with no subscription. I don’t NEED it right now, but I do want to reward them for making the effort, so… :) Thanks for the head’s up.
 
Epic & Spotify get the headlines, but there are others, perhaps many others, building their case against AAPL.
No, the only ones that have a problem are already defined by being members of the Coalition of App Fairness. And, if you look at some of the members, several of them have done things similar to what Epic has done around breaking the rules. That says a lot about the quality of those members.

No one else is “building a case against AAPL”. However, they ARE building their bank accounts and businesses, so there’s that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WiseAJ
My take is that as long as the businesses are operating within the confines of the laws they operate in, I do not have any rights to force the businesses to change, just because I don't like what was on offer.

Well of course, but if the laws are no longer good enough then we should change them and not submit to them. ex... if it was once legal to advertise cigarettes, then it should not be always legal to advertise cigarettes.
 
Well of course, but if the laws are no longer good enough then we should change them and not submit to them. ex... if it was once legal to advertise cigarettes, then it should not be always legal to advertise cigarettes.
I agree 100% with you. But you have to honestly ask yourself how all the Spotify squabbles with Apple started. It’s all about money. Because of that the court system got involved which is a waste of public funds, funds which could be better spent more productively. Have the laws changed the proper way.

Until Apple’s eco-system is classified as an essential utility/services, which is stupid by the way, I don’t see how Apple can be forced by governments to change.
 
if it was once legal to advertise cigarettes, then it should not be always legal to advertise cigarettes.
Sure, if you’re applying the law to everyone. However, as mentioned by “Mr. Spotify” they want a “narrow and focused” change such that Apple has to stop advertising cigarettes immediately, but Microsoft and Sony can continue because they subsidize their cigarettes and Epic and Spotify can continue because their cigarettes are only used in special holders. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacBH928 and WiseAJ
Normally I am in the "so don't use the platform" camp -- for example, with Epic. It gets dicier here though, because Apple competes directly in the streaming music space. The fact Spotify has to pay 30% to do in-app subs, and Apple Music does not because it's a 1P app, means Apple is leveraging it's platform ownership into a significant competitive advantage over all 3P apps. Pay to play for something like a game is fine in my view, because it's not like Apple has a competing version of Fortnight that's benefiting. In the music space it's different, because Apple Music has a huge advantage over 3P competitors in terms of being able to charge less to earn the same revenue, while still offering in-app subs.

If I were Apple's legal counsel, I'd strongly advise them to at the very least allow linkouts to the web for subscriptions where the app in question offers a service that competes with one Apple offers.
Don’t use common sense here. So many will twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why Apple is always right.
 
Sure, if you’re applying the law to everyone. However, as mentioned by “Mr. Spotify” they want a “narrow and focused” change such that Apple has to stop advertising cigarettes immediately, but Microsoft and Sony can continue because they subsidize their cigarettes and Epic and Spotify can continue because their cigarettes are only used in special holders. :)
This is a great analogy. Add “subsidies their cigarettes by charging 30% commission on all matches used to light them” and it should even be clear to those who cannot see or believe that the App Store commissions no th game console commissions are exactly the same thing.
 
Spotify - whining instead of innovating... if you’d provide some differentiated value to Apple Music that would justify higher price people would do pay it. You don’t so it’s back to kindergarten whining
Apple fans whine more than anyone here. “It’s not fair. Leave us alone.” “Make your own phone”. Whine whine whine Posted everyday here
 
I'm tired of all this whining from Spotify/Tile. Stop complaining and actually work to differentiate yourself from Apple and entice people to use your products instead of relying on Apple to hand you everything on a silver platter for free.
I’m tired of listening to Apple fans whine all day here too.
 
This is a great analogy. Add “subsidies their cigarettes by charging 30% commission on all matches used to light them” and it should even be clear to those who cannot see or believe that the App Store commissions no th game console commissions are exactly the same thing.
LOL, no it’s not the logic they don’t see. The logic is clear and simple. They’ve had a blind mad on for Apple for awhile now, and logic isn’t going to stop that. :) When all else fails, it’s “I come here every day, to this Apple focused site where it’s guaranteed that every day some Apple folks will be whining about some Apple thing but I’M TIRED OF READING ABOUT THE WHINING!… see you tomorrow.” :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maconplasma
LOL, no it’s not the logic they don’t see. The logic is clear and simple. They’ve had a blind mad on for Apple for awhile now, and logic isn’t going to stop that. :) When all else fails, it’s “I come here every day, to this Apple focused site where it’s guaranteed that every day some Apple folks will be whining about some Apple thing but I’M TIRED OF READING ABOUT THE WHINING!… see you tomorrow.” :D
Amen! The irony right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unregistered 4U
I don’t think Apple would have had to make such great free tools for development and security (and training everyone on its usage) if they weren’t committed to making the App Store the safest software buying experience in existence. Developers have made more money off the Apple App Store than any other. This is only a concern for the big commodity software companies 😭. Bet Epic still pays its game engine licenses.
 
Are you actually hearing yourself?

Even Microsoft couldn’t do that with their insane amount of money.

Microsoft early on chose not to: Pocket-PC, PocketPC-Phone Edition OS'
Microsoft purchased Nokia's mobile phone division (which included manufacturing) - and with those Lumia phones made an entire mess of everything!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.