https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
You can buy/sell it on eBay. Or next upgrade cycle change brands.
Music that you bought from iTunes has been DRM free for ages.
Most movies purchased from iTunes are transferable to Google Play, Amazon Video and Vudu vis the Movies Anywhere app.
edit: typo
It's a 30% cut for using Apple's distribution channel. And no Apple doesn't let app developers use the channel whilst telling their users how to bypass the 30% cut.
Just like I can't go to any retail store today and on any of the clothes or boxes find a giant sticker that says "buy this product on our website for 20% cheaper". No retailer would tolerate that.
You'd have to add that it's more like you own a car that will only take you to that one store.
Even the dodgy ones on eBay seem to be 10% off max, and I'm fairly sure those are primarily used for money laundering and/or credit card fraud.
Yes, but like with any other purchase, you have to get it from a reputable retailer.
I usually load up at brick-and-mortar places on Black Friday weekend and then use them the rest of the year.
I see Apple as a plaza owner who opens up a few of their own shops in that plaza. Or Safeway selling some store “generics” branded by them.
Should we also stop Google from surfacing reviews, hotel reservations, etc before competitors since it doesn’t have to pay itself for top placement?
Should we stop console makers from also being publishers since they don’t have to pay themselves a licensing fee - yes physicsl media from third parties have to pay a licensing fee.
Should we stop physicsl distributors from having store brands?
Given the debate at hand, this link is definitely worth a read.
Completely forgetting that Apple Music is premium only service, while Spotify' minority of paying customers carry majority of freeloaders. Very "fair" comparison.
(I know that Spotify have ads, but ad revenue is significantly less than 10$/m)
The top grossing iOS app (Tinder.app) somehow is not really complaining about this though, but that's because most their revenue comes from the iOS in app purchases.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/21/17764424/netflix-feature-...
this article implies that no, it is indeed 30% for any new user, at least for netflix, but then that matches up with what spotify claims. spotify also claims that apple changes what policy applies to each company. it does mention the second year reduction, but that seems to be for other apps?
i think it's at least clear that apple makes it a little unclear what they exactly do. i have heard from more than one app developer (from big companies) complain about apple's arbitrary app store processes.
A few clicks is practically Mt. Everest for end users. Look at the search engine in Safari. It's a "few clicks" to change it but Google still pays Apple 8 billion dollars a year to be the default.
https://timetoplayfair.com/facts/ https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/
none of that is hard to believe. it shows clearly that apple uses its position to cause favor for its own apps.
Apple disallows Spotify access to full Watch APIs and Siri APIs they themselves leverage for Apple Music.
Apple also occasionally bullies Spotify by keeping app review in limbo.
Additionally, Spotify eats the 30% Apple tax, and I would imagine the costs for music licensing rights are fairly inelastic.
Apple is not playing fair. They don’t even follow their own App Store rules.
Seen no evidence that Apple is sending effectively system notifications masquerading as Apple Music.
> Push Notifications must not be required for the app to function, and should not be used for advertising, promotions, or direct marketing purposes or to send sensitive personal or confidential information. Abuse of these services may result in revocation of your privileges.
But that's not what I am talking about. It's this alleged situation where Apple is sending Apple Music notifications not from the app but from the OS itself.
Serious question: how do I report apps that violate this guideline?
Spotify doesn’t “eat” the 30% cut. You haven’t been able to sign up for Spotify through the App Store in years.
They don't because they disabled it years ago. Also it's not really Apple's problem that Spotify paying for distribution makes their business worse off. They should just eat the cost just like they do when all those wireless carriers that bundle Spotify take their cut.
So far, HomePod is looking like a Version 0 product from Apple. Given that it’s not even sold in many countries yet (compared to iPhone/iPad/Macs), it will be a while until it becomes a little more open. Looks like Apple hasn’t yet completely figured out the market and utility for it.
It's a cost for the distribution channel i.e. a cost for Spotify to easily access the hundreds of millions of iPhone users with just a few clicks on an app submission form.
You mean like Siri only offers music from Apple Music and no other service?
It's trivial to change retailer, not so changing which app-store you use, especially not on Apple hardware.
I can't buy a Tesla, Tiffanys etc at any other place except their retail store.
You can goto any city on this planet and find hundreds of small third party stores who will repair it. Everything from cracked screen, new case, battery replacement etc.
In the case of Apples App Store, you can't change store without a significant cost in both time and money. You literally have to buy a non-Apple phone to be able to change retailer. Potentially also having to leave behind significant already paid for products, both hardware and software.
These are things inside one store, as in Spotify and Apple Music are both for sale in the one store, and while Apple takes a cut, which could force Spotify to increase their price, they do have full pricing autonomy.
I’m not entirely against the fact that Apple has a walled garden in the form of the App Store, just because they do seem to invest in keeping a certain standard of quality unlike Google, but I’d say that’s a separate issue.
And Spotify probably doesn’t want to be in the store business anyways even if Apple allowed it, Epic Games is probably the first major case I heard of a company doing similar on Android (where it’s allowed) and almost immediately they opened a security vulnerability into everyone’s phones so...
I read that comment as regarding similarities between two different apps that stream music, and two different brands of the same product in a store.
The store the two brands are in isn't really relevant past the fact the same company that that owns the store owns one of the brands, and certainly the nature of the store doesn't affect the comparison.
If they thought that having multiple stores was important to them they would use Android.
Nobody is going into the phone purchasing process blind.
What most people do understand is based on experience in the physical world, where expectations of fair pricing is reasonable, because when you can select whatever store you want, that is an expected effect.
No, but maybe they chose Apple because on Android their lockscreen got taken over by the top result for flashlight which is actually malware (something that happened to a family member and drove me to recommend Apple)
Also what kind of strange victim blaming is this? You want to know why they got a flashlight app instead of knowing why the top Play Store result is malware?
That's the name that eluded me; my initial comment was going to mention Grooveshark but was sure there was another player who was in on the game very early on so thanks for jogging the memory there.
Apple just had the market clout to make labels acquiesce to doing it legally.
The fact that this is true not for lack of willingness on Spotify's part, but because Apple restricts integration for third-party developers is the reason Apple should be absolutely nailed to the wall with an antitrust charge.
No matter the app store, I imagine the developers would want their users to have recent versions installed, at least the ones who would update them on Google Play.