4 ms·
It makes it more difficult for the user to leave the service, since they need to continue using Apple Music in order to stream their music, as opposed to simply
by benbenolson 10y ago
It makes it more difficult for the user to leave the service, since they need to continue using Apple Music in order to stream their music, as opposed to simply launching a different music player.
- zepto 10y agoThat's like a bank employing pickpockets to steal people's money so that they incur more ATM fees. Do you seriously think that could be part of Apple's strategy?
- King-Aaron 10y agoI feel this is a straw man argument.
- zepto 10y agoIt's not a strawman - it's an analogy. If you don't thing the analogy fits, it should be easy to make a distinction to show that.
- sintaxi 10y agoSomething like this probably doesn't happen without some things being lost in translation between departments however I think it is entirely plausible that this was done on purpose to create a higher dependency on the service. All it takes is a higher up to say "If we have the song on our service assume every mp3 on the users machine is a cache and you are free to delete it."
- zepto 10y agoHow could it create a higher dependency if people didn't know they were going to lose their files?
- sintaxi 10y agobecause most people would just resubscribe after they see that their music no longer plays. Most people wouldn't go through the effort or even understand what happened.
- zepto 10y agoWe are talking about files they owned before they subscribed. Nobody would just resubscribe. In any case, you are accusing Apple of using a deliberately deceptive and destructive business practice to retain an insignificant number of users with a massive downside if discovered. It's both unprecedented and implausible.