Since Apple makes the hardware and the software I don't have a problem with them preinstalling their own products.
However, when a user is clearly searching for alternatives on the app store, it matters how far down you have to scroll to find a 3rd party app.
Spotify being the 23rd result for a "music" search is absurd.
If I delete Apple's Calendar, install a third party Calendar app (like Fantastical), and click a date link, I'll get a message asking me if I want to reinstall Apple's Calendar. I think it's pretty darn clear in that scenario what the user actually wants.
That strikes me as a frivolous concern, but if it worries Apple, there's an easy solution—add a "defaults" menu in Settings, like every other OS. Set it up so the default can only be changed by the user, and remains associated with the first party app even on uninstall.
We're coming up on the 13th version of iOS, and Apple hasn't done this yet. I don't think it's because they haven't gotten around to it.
Actually, I suspect that advantaging their own apps is a key part of Apple's business strategy for the future. Consider their recent shift towards "services". If the iPhone didn't exist, it would be silly to expect Apple to outdo major incumbents like Spotify, Netflix, and Venmo, but Apple thinks it can leverage its status as iPhone platform holder against competitors.
This becomes a vicious self-justifying cycle that is profitable for Apple but harmful to those consumers, who are kept tech illiterate when they're denied the opportunity to step outside their comfort zone and learn something new.
Other apps can take advantage of this too. Apps like Reddit and Outlook have similar settings to do the same. They even offer options for other browsers like Firefox. But, developers would need to add each browser option themselves, instead of relying on a defaults system from Apple.
1: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/opener-open-links-in-apps/id98...
So each individual app would need to request Chrome, something I'm sure Google's apps can do, but [insert random app here] won't.
What ruined companies (and what MS was actually prosecuted for) was Microsoft telling PC manufacturers "we will only sell you Windows OS if you agree to NOT install any other browsers on your computers." Those agreements were how MS abused their OS monopoly to wrongfully exclude other browsers from the market. Up to that point, Netscape was selling their browser direct to Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. to be preloaded on machines they sold.
Microsoft was a supplier to PC companies and the market they distorted was the software supplier market. Apple themselves are the device manufacturer and have under 50% share in that market; it's not a comparable situation.
Notice this key quote from below, "However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future."
Not really a loss I would say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
I have hard time believing this was not intentional.
Edit: on Android Spotify is at place 2-4. iTunes is nowhere to be seen but that could be explained with the horrible reviews it has received (some are even legit).
Google Play says nada about trackers. Exodus project (and therefore F-Droid) does.
If you come from CopperheadOS I can recommend /e/ or LineageOS + microG (/e/ also contains microG). microG does not implement GAds. You will still need to block trackers though.
My understanding is that GrapheneOS[0] is the successor to CopperheadOS, and I think that's what I'll try next. There isn't an Exodus Privacy or F-Droid for iOS and these are sorely missed.
It goes: 1. Apple Music 2. Music 3. Music> 4. Spotify New music and podcasts
YouTube - Music Channel
music.youtube.com
play.google.com/music
play.google.com/store/music
Music - Wikipedia
MusicChoice.com
Youtube Music on the App Store
Mtv.comFor me Google even has a "Related search: Music platforms" box that contains YouTube, Google Play, SoundCloud, iTunes and TIDAL (no Spotify)
That search term is so broad it's difficult to figure out exactly what the users intent is for that. Do they want to listen to music? Do they want to create or record music?
FWIW, I just searched for "music" and saw: An ad, a story ("run with music"), apple music, two music players I've never heard of and finally Spotify in position 6.
I disagree. It's broad in the sense that that the user could be searching for any number of things. It's not broad in the sense that the user is likely looking for a music listening app.
Think of the real world equivalent. In common conversation when someone says "I like music", do you presume that they enjoy listening to, or making, music?
I'd say the intent is pretty clear for the majority of users.
Search optimization. Determine what most users ultimately end up selecting for specific queries, build up your data set over time, then weigh priorities and determine result order based on that.
That still feels like Apple is penalising Spotify ...
It's 5th for me today, not including the Pandora ad at the top.
Quote from the infographic in the article:
"Before Apple Music arrived in the App Store, Spotify was for years the first result in searches for “music.” Shortly after Apple Music was added to the store in June 2016, it took the top spot. By then, Spotify had fallen to fourth place. In Feb. 2018, Apple apps suddenly appeared in the top six results for “music.” By the end of 2018, there were eight, some of which were unrelated to music. At this point, Spotify was the 23rd result. Spotify complained to European regulators in March that Apple was abusing its role as the gatekeeper of the App Store. By April, all but two of Apple’s apps disappeared from the top results for “music.”"
If I search for "Music" on google (incognito, google.com), spotify is nr 16 (page 2).
* Search ad for Spotify.
* App Store story for "Run With Music".
* Apple Music.
* Some app called "Music".
* Some app called "Music>".
* Spotify.
* YouTube Music.
* SoundCloud.
Not only that, but the autocreated links to addresses in the messaging app will not work with other map apps. In fact, if you've uninstalled the apple maps app, the address links in messenger are completely useless.
* unless i'm mistaken, but I'm a fairly adept technical user and haven't found a way to make address links work.
Meta comment regarding HN community... looking at the comments here it seems like most people didn’t read the article, and just assumed what is being reported.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
(Just for what it's worth, I did read the article in full before commenting, and I don't think the paraphrased portion changes what I wrote.)
Not to mention all the Samsung bloatware.
1. Granting more permissions to third party apps won't cause the iPhone to ship with Samsung bloatware.
2. I'm not necessarily advocating for 3rd party app privileges to be significantly expanded. However, Apple's own apps should mostly play by the same rules. If they can't, that's a sign the rules are too restrictive.
Apple tends to open capabilities up once they’re confident they’ve been able to make them reasonably airtight against abuse. That seems like a very sensible policy to me, even if it means that certain features come at a glacial pace.
In order to remain competitive, they’d be forced to release half-baked/under-tested APIs, which is never good. That’s exactly how the Android developer story got as bad as it did at its lowest points.
Whose apps should have come preinstalled on iPhones? Samsungs? No apps, let the user install everything from scratch?
The whole value proposition from Apple is that you get something that "Just works".
It might have issues and bugs, like everything has, but the idea behind "just works" => is more or less ready, no fiddling required for the regular Joe.
At Redmond, we believe everyones apps should come pre-installed. Bought a PC for serious work? well f--- you and please enjoy some candy crush!
That's because at that time Microsoft had a monopoly.
>At apple, they even don't know what these words mean... /s
That's because Apple never had a monopoly. Their market share was always on the low 10% (desktop), or the mid-40s (mobile).
Permissions are the bigger issue, though.
Pixel 3 lacks a basic pre-installed app which iOS includes: Voice Notes/Recorder. Scouring the Play store for a simple functionality like this seems silly, and it made me appreciate that Apple's pre-installed kit includes this staple feature.
Scrolling a dozen entries to find an alternate Podcast app, however. That's a joke.
While the pre-installed option is a convenience, it should be much easier to find an alternative, when desired.
However, if I were Spotify, I wouldn't be too concerned about this particular problem. Apple Music and Apple Podcasts come preinstalled on every iPhone, so Spotify effectively lost the discoverability battle before the user even got to the App Store.
By contrast, I'd be quite concerned that Apple is outright preventing me from making my app as good as their first party offerings. Spotify will not ever be able to open Podcast links shared from Safari, or fully integrate into Siri.
Apple is abusing its market position, it has been obvious for me long before this article and the lawsuits. But coming from a country not a member of EU or strong enough on its own, its hard to do anything about it.
1) Apple's apps come preinstalled on every iPhone.
2) Apple's apps have permission to do things that 3rd party apps cannot.
If I search for "Web Browser" on the App Store... well, technically I'll get results from third parties, but every single one is just a UI skin around Apple's own browser. That strikes me as a much larger problem.