I want the option to control my devices. I don’t understand the arguments that claim Apple needs to rule the device with an iron fist. What problems does it cause to make the locked down experience the default with the option for me to disable that and take control of the device after I buy it?
I want to own my stuff. I want to repair it and I want complete control over it. I think that in 10 years we’ll all have cars with a half dozen subscriptions forced on us and the apologists will still be here telling us how 10 companies all doing the exact same thing to deprive us of true ownership is a healthy, competitive market.
Stop buying Apple if you don't like it. Seriously. At the end of the day all of these companies would do the exact same thing as Apple if they were in Apple's position.
The real solution to this is improved functionality of web apps and complete migration to those, then you can be free of the duopoly. Other than using phone specific features, why can't all apps run on your desktop, laptop or elsewhere?
I'll never get why Apple makes their rules very clear, and people buy Apple and then complain it's restricted. By people purchasing non-Apple phones you incentivize the production of non-Apple phones, helping break their hold on things.
> The real solution to this is improved functionality of web apps and complete migration to those
Progress on that front is hampered because fruit company only allows their own browser and puts just enough effort into it to keep it relevant as a web browser.
I personally don't like it and will not stop buying apple phones. The CPU's on an iPhone are far ahead of Android. I could buy either the Pixel 4 or the iPhone 11 for the same $450 price a month after launch from my carrier.
Governments have a responsibility to protect consumers from anti-competitive practices. Saying "just don't buy it" isn't enough, in fact if governments only protected people from things that nobody bought, that would be quite pointless.
Yeah, it's interesting. Who are the loudest voices here? Customers of Apple or the the companies deciding to play by Apple's rules to access Apple's customer base?
It's going to be a lopsided discussion on HN because of the biases of the users here versus the average non-HN member. What does the average customer want?
>At the end of the day all of these companies would do the exact same thing as Apple
and with that sentence you've just described the exact reason precisely why antitrust legislation is long overdue and whyy your solution doesn't work. Running to an alternative will, in due time, just reproduce the same result. In fact Spotify is itself a walled garden for artists suffering from the same dynamics.
>"Stop buying Apple if you don't like it. Seriously."
Easy to say, but this isn't going to work. This kind of "just don't buy it" maxim grossly oversimplifies the situation and gets used post-facto to rationalize that the problem in question wasn't actually a problem because Apple is still around.
Customers (and developers) could move to Android. They have a vibrant market for manufacturers and less vibrant but much more flexible app market. They just don't want to. Apple makes good products but their forte has always been marketing. Users think Android is for poor people.
Buying Apple? Musk and Ek are tired of playing Apple's stupid game to be on their platform because if they aren't on their platform they might as well not exist.
It's pretty obvious that legislation or anti-trust action will come that opens up mobile computing platforms.
Considering the whole of a large market share mobile computing OS a private market, and not subject to competitive pressures, leads to monopolistic capture similar to what utilities could achieve without regulation. Why not just move to another neighborhood if you don't like your electric bill? Well then you're subject to the monopoly on that side of the fence just the same. Illusion of choice/competition
Competitive markets are what drive down margins, thus feed those margin savings back into consumer's pockets. Cheaper goods+services are what enriches broader society and are a net positive in my view.
Some states solve the natural monopoly problem with utilities by allowing consumers to choose the energy provider separately from the utility itself. e.g making the power provider a competitive market.
If Apple's app store and browser are the best, and people prefer them, they can continue to use them. But they will have other choices in the future
I'm less optimistic about the inevitability of this in the United States. We haven't been able to maintain competition in any utility spaces I can think of -- internet, cable, gas, electricity, etc. There's no freedom of choice in the healthcare industry either. In many parts of the country, almost all grocery stores are part of the same massive conglomerate. The FCC is completely captured by the ISPs, and currently missing a chair, IIRC.
So what makes you so optimistic about regulation in the tech space breaking up these monopolies?
The restricted App Store does add customer value, and that customer value is degraded if there are other App Stores available.
Namely - if a user buys Apple products because they want the security/curation/whatever that comes with Apple's walled garden, that advantage is broken by forcing Apple to have other app stores on their platform because now that user cannot get all the content through their trusted source as they could before.
People are digressing into all kinds of matters unrelated to the article and issue.
The heart of the matter is not control of the device, it's about the Apple tax, and how it makes no sense in particular scenarios, such as subscriptions.
Sure enough, the app store services are worth something. Real labor, infra and costs go into it. Although Apple could very well subsidize it, it's not 100% unfair to ask for some kind of fee, such as the fee to set up a developer account.
This fairness argument goes completely out the window in the case of Spotify or Twitter subscriptions, it no longer is related to any real costs made. When you pay 10$ to stream from Spotify, it's absurd to have to pay $3 to Apple for this "privilege". Nothing about the streaming or value delivered is in any way related to the App store. They leech enormous sums of money from creators, companies and consumers.
The argument that they're a private company that can do whatever they want is moot. They're an unavoidable ecosystem middleman that affects the entire digital industry. It is insanely hostile to every player except Apple.
The fact that you can't even MENTION an alternative payment in your app should tell you how draconian and power hungry Apple is. You shouldn't cloud your judgement by liking Apple in general or disliking Spotify.
Elon just tweeted from Apple HQ and is meeting with Tim Cook. Elon also deleted the tweet meme that he's going to war over the 30%.
All talk and no substance, this thing won't go anywhere. Elon probably got what he wanted from Apple and everything else is just fud for the masses. Elon does not care the 30% or what Apple does in China. He wants Twitter to stay in the app store and Apple to pay for advertising on Twitter.
Monopolistic practices is what Spotify is, not just something it does.
Recently they went about buying podcasts. The idea was/is to kill off the free protocol and centralise podcasts under their control... That way, listeners, advertisers and podcasters would all have to live by spotify's rules. Like streaming music.
Sure. Apple give themselves every advantage, cream the market, etc. They have a monopoly. So does Spotify!
What happens when an artist doesn't like Spotify's take-it-or-leave-it terms? Why should apple treat you better then you treat others? Cry me a river.
I feel like Apple is a much stronger offender than Spotify. You can literally not use billions of devices on this planet for your app* if you don't send something like a 25-50% cut of all your possible profits (15-30% of revenue(!)) to them. That makes apple effectively (in monetary terms) an owner of many businesses they shouldn't own.
I wish this guy would take some of his ample spare time and get his engineers working on the support for HomeKit devices that customers have been demanding for years now[1].
Can someone explain why Apple is always the target for these complaints regarding fees? Is it just shorthand for both companies or a target people rally against? As Android has the same 30% fees for in-app billing, it's not like it's cheaper for Spotify on Google's platform. I get there's theoretically F-Droid and sideloading, but I don't see Spotify on fdroid so presumably there's not enough users to make it worth it.
Sharecroppers complaining that the land baron has stacked the deck in his own favour.
Spotify and Twitter began life on the web, not in the app store. No feature they offer requires a native app. Hence there was no reason to corral half the US userbase into someone else's pen and leave them there for over a decade.
Epic has already gone to court on this matter (re: Fortnite on App Store) and lost. And Fortnite wasn't even web-first!
Sharecroppers complaining is part of what created the Russian revolution.
And as for Spotify you are factually incorrect. Spotify started its life as a C++ desktop application and back then something similar could not have been built on the web.
Maybe not Twitter, but I don't see how Spotify's offline downloads would work through the iOS browser. Also, Spotify started as a native desktop app. The web player and full transition to electron wasn't until a couple of years later.
It's a bit ridiculous to see people – who I believe to be tech literate – argue how Apple allowing more access to the device is going to be the end of the world.
In my opinion, Apple could very well give a special entitlement to developers who want full system access, maybe even by requiring to register the UDID somewhere on Apple's website for that entitlement to be valid, whatever. Any apps signed with that entitlement can do whatever they want for the given UDID.
Why they don't do it is pretty clear. But sure, it must be because they care about us :)
That covers the technical side of why they could do it, but it doesn’t provide a legal or ethical reason why Apple must open up their walled garden more. Everyone agrees they have the right to control their ecosystem to a great extent. This is just the free market fighting out how far that limit is. It’s ultra wealthy companies using their leverage to limit their costs and improve their margins… same as it ever was.
No substance, same arguments repeated from both sides all the time. Seems like a stalemate.
I see to ways out for a company that feels it’s getting ripped of by Apple:
1. Don’t publish in App Store, do a web app or encourage your customers to get a different platform device. Not sure which one since Google Play Store AFAIK has the same rules.
2. Charge users +30% more when buying through IAP if same is offered any place else and eat this as a cost of doing business.
He takes 30% for his platform, what's the issue with Apple taking 30% for their own platform? Quit the platform if you want. If consumers value Spotify enough they will leave Apple for it (spoiler: They won't)
For those debating privacy here, we are still waiting for the year of Linux on desktop what makes you think that a fully featured smartphone with true privacy control is possible? Good luck staying away from Google on Android, it is a matter of choosing the less evil, and in my opinion Google is worse than Apple. Not only their entire business model is ads, they also run hardware divisions to get more ads revenue. Sure, Apple will never pass on the opportunity for some extra ads revenue but might have less pressure from its board and stakeholder to squeeze every single penny given the argument that this would impact the main revenue stream. Google does not have this luxory
>"So how much longer will we look away from this threat to the future of the internet? How many more consumers will be denied choice? There's been a lot of talk. Talk is helpful but we need action," Ek wrote."
This from a man who built a company that has forced most of the artists on its platform to give away their work for pennies. This man has no problem with the "threat" to their livelihoods. And who can forget this quote from him:
"You Can’t Record Music Every Three Or Four Years And Think That’s Going To Be Enough" [1]
He also has no problem propping up the the oligopoly that is "record industry" where only three record companies control 70 percent of the market.
And he has no problem with Spotify having exclusives on things like podcast that were once open to all.
Daniel Ek is a hypocrite and an ass. He is best ignored.
Honestly tech folks need to accept that everyone except them likes what Apple does. There is literally no other phone than an iPhone that I'd be comfortable to give my non technical mother or my underage children. They would get scammed, hacked or exploited and the tech companies behind those "you can do what you want with your phone" devices would hold up their hands and say we can't do anything about it, just like Instagram, Facebook or TikTok say now they can't protect our children from seeing harmful content or self harm material. I am so tired and sick of some privileged rich CEOs who campaign so hard to make the Apple ecosystem as toxic as their own platforms so they can get even richer. If you don't want to pay Apple 30% then don't put your stuff in the App Store. You don't like what Apple does, then don't do business with them. Stop whining. Consumers love Apple, young folks feel comfortable to install an online banking app on their grandparents iPhones and parents feel comfortable to give their teenagers an iPhone. I feel like every time some rich AF CEO complains about Apple's 30% Apple should increase it by 1% until they all shut their mouth.
I am constantly amazed how Apple continuously keeps getting defended online, even on HN, one would assume that you got paid for it, not that someone is spending their free time defending them.
I always love reading the arguments in the comments. "Apple's platform, Apple's rules".
I just want to know what would those same comments say if it was Microsoft who came out and said that any app on Windows 11 must pay a 30% "tax" and that you have no freedom to install the apps you wish.
It doesn't matter if you like the current status of the Apple platform, if it breaks the law, it must be stopped, the same way Microsoft was stopped 20 years ago.
I’m super surprised that people here are taking these corporations’ cries about “freedom” and “choice” at face value. This isn’t about the security checks of the App Store. It’s about the 30% cut, but not just the vig. It also about the privacy protections.
Zuck is now complaining about the app store[0]. Why? They can’t track users on iOS. That’s it. They want the freedom to exploit you.
[+] [-] donmcronald|3 years ago|reply
I want to own my stuff. I want to repair it and I want complete control over it. I think that in 10 years we’ll all have cars with a half dozen subscriptions forced on us and the apologists will still be here telling us how 10 companies all doing the exact same thing to deprive us of true ownership is a healthy, competitive market.
[+] [-] endisneigh|3 years ago|reply
The real solution to this is improved functionality of web apps and complete migration to those, then you can be free of the duopoly. Other than using phone specific features, why can't all apps run on your desktop, laptop or elsewhere?
I'll never get why Apple makes their rules very clear, and people buy Apple and then complain it's restricted. By people purchasing non-Apple phones you incentivize the production of non-Apple phones, helping break their hold on things.
[+] [-] wvenable|3 years ago|reply
Progress on that front is hampered because fruit company only allows their own browser and puts just enough effort into it to keep it relevant as a web browser.
[+] [-] DefineOutside|3 years ago|reply
I personally don't like it and will not stop buying apple phones. The CPU's on an iPhone are far ahead of Android. I could buy either the Pixel 4 or the iPhone 11 for the same $450 price a month after launch from my carrier.
single-thread geekbench: iPhone 11 (September 2019): 1311 Pixel 4 (October 2019): 662 Pixel 7 (October 2022): 1058
The geekbench for the Pixel 7 is 1051 single thread... still slower than my three year old phone.
Android needs to have better CPU's for me to consider it.
[+] [-] madeofpalk|3 years ago|reply
Do they? They prevent app developers from explaining the rules to users.
[+] [-] siquick|3 years ago|reply
https://open.spotify.com/
[+] [-] robbie-c|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpflan|3 years ago|reply
It's going to be a lopsided discussion on HN because of the biases of the users here versus the average non-HN member. What does the average customer want?
[+] [-] Barrin92|3 years ago|reply
and with that sentence you've just described the exact reason precisely why antitrust legislation is long overdue and whyy your solution doesn't work. Running to an alternative will, in due time, just reproduce the same result. In fact Spotify is itself a walled garden for artists suffering from the same dynamics.
[+] [-] sschueller|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CogitoCogito|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BitwiseFool|3 years ago|reply
Easy to say, but this isn't going to work. This kind of "just don't buy it" maxim grossly oversimplifies the situation and gets used post-facto to rationalize that the problem in question wasn't actually a problem because Apple is still around.
[+] [-] Aldo_MX|3 years ago|reply
Disapproving Apple's monopolistic behavior does not imply disliking their products.
[+] [-] tootie|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamandcheese|3 years ago|reply
There are two bad choices, not exactly a thriving free market.
[+] [-] TeeMassive|3 years ago|reply
I'm afraid this is not an option most app devs can even entertain
[+] [-] mr90210|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olliecornelia|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adam_arthur|3 years ago|reply
Considering the whole of a large market share mobile computing OS a private market, and not subject to competitive pressures, leads to monopolistic capture similar to what utilities could achieve without regulation. Why not just move to another neighborhood if you don't like your electric bill? Well then you're subject to the monopoly on that side of the fence just the same. Illusion of choice/competition
Competitive markets are what drive down margins, thus feed those margin savings back into consumer's pockets. Cheaper goods+services are what enriches broader society and are a net positive in my view.
Some states solve the natural monopoly problem with utilities by allowing consumers to choose the energy provider separately from the utility itself. e.g making the power provider a competitive market.
If Apple's app store and browser are the best, and people prefer them, they can continue to use them. But they will have other choices in the future
[+] [-] vanilla_nut|3 years ago|reply
So what makes you so optimistic about regulation in the tech space breaking up these monopolies?
[+] [-] veilrap|3 years ago|reply
Namely - if a user buys Apple products because they want the security/curation/whatever that comes with Apple's walled garden, that advantage is broken by forcing Apple to have other app stores on their platform because now that user cannot get all the content through their trusted source as they could before.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tootie|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fleddr|3 years ago|reply
The heart of the matter is not control of the device, it's about the Apple tax, and how it makes no sense in particular scenarios, such as subscriptions.
Sure enough, the app store services are worth something. Real labor, infra and costs go into it. Although Apple could very well subsidize it, it's not 100% unfair to ask for some kind of fee, such as the fee to set up a developer account.
This fairness argument goes completely out the window in the case of Spotify or Twitter subscriptions, it no longer is related to any real costs made. When you pay 10$ to stream from Spotify, it's absurd to have to pay $3 to Apple for this "privilege". Nothing about the streaming or value delivered is in any way related to the App store. They leech enormous sums of money from creators, companies and consumers.
The argument that they're a private company that can do whatever they want is moot. They're an unavoidable ecosystem middleman that affects the entire digital industry. It is insanely hostile to every player except Apple.
The fact that you can't even MENTION an alternative payment in your app should tell you how draconian and power hungry Apple is. You shouldn't cloud your judgement by liking Apple in general or disliking Spotify.
[+] [-] sschueller|3 years ago|reply
All talk and no substance, this thing won't go anywhere. Elon probably got what he wanted from Apple and everything else is just fud for the masses. Elon does not care the 30% or what Apple does in China. He wants Twitter to stay in the app store and Apple to pay for advertising on Twitter.
[+] [-] dalbasal|3 years ago|reply
Monopolistic practices is what Spotify is, not just something it does.
Recently they went about buying podcasts. The idea was/is to kill off the free protocol and centralise podcasts under their control... That way, listeners, advertisers and podcasters would all have to live by spotify's rules. Like streaming music.
Sure. Apple give themselves every advantage, cream the market, etc. They have a monopoly. So does Spotify!
What happens when an artist doesn't like Spotify's take-it-or-leave-it terms? Why should apple treat you better then you treat others? Cry me a river.
[+] [-] JanSt|3 years ago|reply
* no, not any application can run fine in safari
[+] [-] yobbo|3 years ago|reply
And there is a difference in scale between Apple's control and everyone else's.
[+] [-] mullingitover|3 years ago|reply
[1] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/iOS-Implement-Na...
[+] [-] adamwk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rchaud|3 years ago|reply
Spotify and Twitter began life on the web, not in the app store. No feature they offer requires a native app. Hence there was no reason to corral half the US userbase into someone else's pen and leave them there for over a decade.
Epic has already gone to court on this matter (re: Fortnite on App Store) and lost. And Fortnite wasn't even web-first!
[+] [-] jeltz|3 years ago|reply
And as for Spotify you are factually incorrect. Spotify started its life as a C++ desktop application and back then something similar could not have been built on the web.
[+] [-] nhooyr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nvrspyx|3 years ago|reply
Maybe not Twitter, but I don't see how Spotify's offline downloads would work through the iOS browser. Also, Spotify started as a native desktop app. The web player and full transition to electron wasn't until a couple of years later.
[+] [-] paxys|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scifibestfi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adam_arthur|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bern4444|3 years ago|reply
This is especially disappointing as this (Siri integration) is one of the few areas Apple has opened up to 3rd party platforms!
Practically it's annoying, I can't `hey Siri play ...` and instead always have to start a song through my phone or computer and then airplay it over.
This has been ongoing for years now [0].
It's only Spotify that hasn't supported this. Apple Music of course, Pandora, and a host of other 3rd party apps support this but not Spotify!
[0]https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/iOS-Implement-Na...
[+] [-] kif|3 years ago|reply
In my opinion, Apple could very well give a special entitlement to developers who want full system access, maybe even by requiring to register the UDID somewhere on Apple's website for that entitlement to be valid, whatever. Any apps signed with that entitlement can do whatever they want for the given UDID.
Why they don't do it is pretty clear. But sure, it must be because they care about us :)
[+] [-] cainxinth|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdfhbdf|3 years ago|reply
I see to ways out for a company that feels it’s getting ripped of by Apple:
1. Don’t publish in App Store, do a web app or encourage your customers to get a different platform device. Not sure which one since Google Play Store AFAIK has the same rules.
2. Charge users +30% more when buying through IAP if same is offered any place else and eat this as a cost of doing business.
Apple owns the platform. Apple sets the rules.
[+] [-] cramjabsyn|3 years ago|reply
That’s funny Ek. Seems like Spotify gives itself every advantage while at the same time stifling innovation and hurting musicians.
[+] [-] jdmoreira|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Halan|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bogomipz|3 years ago|reply
This from a man who built a company that has forced most of the artists on its platform to give away their work for pennies. This man has no problem with the "threat" to their livelihoods. And who can forget this quote from him:
"You Can’t Record Music Every Three Or Four Years And Think That’s Going To Be Enough" [1]
He also has no problem propping up the the oligopoly that is "record industry" where only three record companies control 70 percent of the market.
And he has no problem with Spotify having exclusives on things like podcast that were once open to all.
Daniel Ek is a hypocrite and an ass. He is best ignored.
[1] https://www.stereogum.com/2093393/spotify-ceo-daniel-ek-stre...
[+] [-] dustedcodes|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sethd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newbie578|3 years ago|reply
I always love reading the arguments in the comments. "Apple's platform, Apple's rules".
I just want to know what would those same comments say if it was Microsoft who came out and said that any app on Windows 11 must pay a 30% "tax" and that you have no freedom to install the apps you wish.
It doesn't matter if you like the current status of the Apple platform, if it breaks the law, it must be stopped, the same way Microsoft was stopped 20 years ago.
[+] [-] jonathankoren|3 years ago|reply
Zuck is now complaining about the app store[0]. Why? They can’t track users on iOS. That’s it. They want the freedom to exploit you.
[0] https://stocks.apple.com/A0-hW1tGKRs6TFkPCyFVJ8w