this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
734 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
59631 readers
3022 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And Apple released a letter that sounds petty and greedy.
Apple’s answer is fair. IF THERE WAS A WAY FOR SPOTIFY TO BE DOWNLOADED WITHOUT THE APP STORE
Either that or just don't directly compete with them. Without Apple Music no one would have complained about it.
But you can't establish a monopoly and leverage it to charge your direct competitors a high fee.
To be fair, Apple's position in the digital music market predates all of the streaming apps. They may not have gone all in on Apple Music until after Spotify started taking off, but when it came to music, Apple devices were synonymous with them for a very long time.
The problem is they created a marketplace with the App Store, allowed competition in, and for way too long we have all kind of collectively accepted the fact that because it's their platform there allowed to have special privileges over everyone else on it.
With the EU is doing is recognizing that these devices are not niche, they're not game consoles, they are devices that every single person has, and this is a marketplace that every person is active in. It is far too large for Apple to be allowed to have that kind of privilege.
It has nothing to do with what's fair to Apple because regulating capitalism properly should not be about fairness to all parties equally. It should be about balancing the scales and leveling the playing field.
To be honest: I am not so worried about the app store – the majority doesnt care anyways. Its in my opinion far more important that Apple and Google aren't able to leverage their monopoly into other areas, similar how Microsoft did so with Windows and Internet explorer.
Either ditch iMessage Apple Music, apple TV, etc completly or force apple to give their competitors an equal paying field, meaning no costs to use the app store, no default App and no free promotion.
How very much like a gatekeeper to their users their argument is.
"Their" is the keyword here, they think they own the users
That's because Spotify doesn't owe you anything. If I release a piece of software for Apple, Android, Linux, Windows, etc., I don't owe these OSes anything for that. Apple makes plenty of money selling hardware, that's good enough for them.
These delusional bastards really need a few slaps around their heads to get this concept to sink in.
I can see an argument for owing something for hosting the app in the App Store, but certainly not 30% of what every user pays or whatever ridiculous amount Apple charges. Price it like hosting a file on S3, perhaps.
Perhaps! But only if they allowed third party app stores. Because as it stands right now, they're basically inventing a cost that they pass on to developers, and then rewarding themselves handsomely for the cost that they would have never needed to pay if they allowed others to compete in this area. It's still a tactic they could not get away with if they were not a monopoly.
Hell nah. They cannot be the sole gatekeepers, alternative app stores that are outside of Apple's control need to exist.
You already pay to host your app in the app store.
And the thing is, that if the app is so popular, it gets installed a lot. Which means it only improves their devices.
Apple and app developers are a symbiotic relationship. Both need each other in order to function. Yet Apple is consistently taking a bigger piece than they should.
Damn that's petty. They're like a 5 year old child that got their toy taken from them
They're used to being treated like God's special little tech company here in the states, so of course they're going to throw a fucking tantrum when faced with a regulatory body that actually treats them as they should be treated.
"Mah, but I helped spotify! Wah"
That's a ~~paddlin~~ anti-trust forced breakup!
The beatings will continue until ~~morale~~ anti-consumer practices improve.
Lmaooo
"Spotify doesn't even pay us!!!"
Edit: omg its so tone deaf, the pot calling the kettle black:
"In short, Spotify wants more. "
Once more, lmaooooo
They're getting punished for keeping the users in a golden cage, and they are mad that they might have to give some of that power away. You can tell by the fact that not a single paragraph actually addresses the reason for the fine. The EU doesn't give a damn how many times you flew engineers to Stockholm, this is about the conditions in which iOS operates that hurt both developers and users. But we already knew that Apple doesn't give a fly about users, it's money and nothing else for them. “Spotify doesn't pay Apple” oh cry me a river.
Oh noooooo, Apple is only making most of the money, instead of all the money 😭
Eat shit and die, Apple
It’s as if Ford wanted a dividend of all contractors revenue that use a F150.
Good metaphor, and their argument is "but we are also paying the gasoline". Still sounds like slavery with extra steps.
And the devs are already paying $100/year for said fuel.
And it’s so utterly ignorant of WHY the fine was issued. This isn’t about a competitors market position, it’s about Apple using its own dominant market position to push its own service. Using a monopoly to create another monopoly is anti-competitive.
I am wondering if it's really true, that Spotify pays nothing to Apple. If my information is correct every app provider needs to have at least one active Apple Developer subscription (in the case of Spotify there is probably far more than just one account involved). If it is true that Spotify pays nothing to Apple the only possibility is that Apple invited them to bring their app to iOS and granted them free access.
I know 99 USD is not what Apple is after, but it seems dishonest to not disclose this.
They’re just bitter that Spotify is leading the market and not Apple Music and they crybaby because of that. They’ve been bullying Spotify from the beginning and there has been bad blood on both sides for years. Apple has not made it easy for Spotify, why would Spotify give them any more money? They could have worked together, allowing HomePod and Siri to control Spotify and other cross integrations then that would have maybe been a reason to share revenue. But that’s kinda like The Little Red Hen here.
Wait, you still can't use HomePod/Siri to control Spotify? How the fuck does this company continue to exist? Why do people put up with their fucking garbage?
The only service available on HomePod to voice command is AppleMusic. For Spotify, you can AirPlay from your phone’s app like a Bluetooth speaker but you can select a song by voice. Only play pause and volume and only when you have your phone available for that.
Yeah, that's really really fucking stupid.
That’s on Spotify, HomePods have been able to stream from other music services for years: https://screenrant.com/apple-homepod-supported-music-services-how-many/
It's very much not on Spotify. It supports services apple decided aren't competing with Apple Music. Look at all the things missing, as your article points out.
It's crazy how much bullshit Apple can pull, and even semi educated people will come to their defense blaming other people for apples failings.
So, Apple's in the wrong because Spotify didn't add the Siri music API?
https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/21/ios-17-play-spotify-music-on-homepod/
https://www.techradar.com/audio/speakers/apple-homepod-finally-gets-hands-free-spotify-thanks-to-this-ios-17-workaround
Like, I get it: the internet has a hate boner for Apple, and in a lot cases it's justified. But it's 100% on Spotify for this one.
And coincidentally YouTube, Spotify, and Amazon Music, all of Apple Musics competition, just all happened to not implement this? All of Apples competition just decided to not add a pretty critical function to the people of that ecosystem? When they all do it in Google's?
Yeah, I don't buy that. At all. Sure the API might be there, but you know who gatekeeps those APIs? Apple. This smells a lot more like Apples fued with Google over turn by turn directions bullshit. Especially when we can see how blatantly hostile to Spotify Apple is willing to be.
It seems a lot more likely that Apple is holding that API over their heads and refusing to allow access to it, than it does that all their Apple Music competition just happens to have all conveniently forgotten to implement a pretty core feature in Apple's ecosystem, while remembering to do it in Googles.
YT Music
https://www.techradar.com/audio/audio-streaming/your-apple-homepod-finally-supports-youtube-music-heres-how-to-set-it-up
Tidal
https://9to5mac.com/2022/04/21/tidal-is-the-latest-music-streaming-service-to-add-siri-integration-heres-how-it-works/
You were saying?
I mean, in the sense of billions of dollars, having a few developer accounts is nothing. From apples side, they're making it sound like Spotify and others are pissed they can't charge users directly through apples apk store without paying a commission. That would be something to collapse the apple store, steam, and Google play store, if everyone just started going around helping to pay for the platform they want to sell on.
It reads like a child throwing a temper tantrum...
Doesn’t it‽ it’s nuts how bad it sounds.
Nice interrobang!
I made a keyboard shortcut on my phone to type ‽ when I type ?!
... so that Apple fans can identify with it.
I'm confused now. What is a "reader app"?
Spotify wants to make subscriptions an app functionality and Apple restricts that to it's own payment system - and the alternative they provide is external websites?
Why the heck is it called a "reader rule" and "reader app"?
IIRC it's because it comes from before when Apple was sued over charging 25-30% of all eBooks sales while pushing iBooks.
See: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/12/eu-investigating-whether-publishers-conspired-with-apple-on-e-book-pricing/
It was a while ago though so hard to find good sources now.
This is some of Apple's own terminology. It applies to any application who's main purpose is to serve up audial, visual or text-based media.
Apple allows these apps to access existing accounts via apps but not create new ones.