Someone just posted this, about Spotify trying to lock in users: https://freeyourmusic.com/blog/spotify-trying-to-lockin-users/ https://freeyourmusic.com/blog/s

Someone just posted this, about Spotify trying to lock in users: https://freeyourmusic.com/blog/spotify-trying-to-lockin-users/ https://freeyourmusic.com/blog/spotify-trying-to-lockin-user... Spotify isn't really complaining about "unfairness". Business complaining are really just them trying to mobilize customer outrage to force a better deal for them. Apple created an ecosystem, and is allowed to charge what they want for it. Other vendors charge markups: retail, a business with notoriously low profit margins, charges about 15% markup. This is because price elasticity of groceries is exceedingly high: customers have extensive choice and it's not an immediate/emergency good. Restaurants charge about 60%. Clothing can be 300%, high fashion more. But nobody complains about that. We need to stop thinking of the app store as a "tax" and more as a retail outlet, because it is just a digital retailer. The 30% effectively amounts to a markup. > [Apple] frequently decides to interpret (and re-interpret) them [App Store rules] This is a hard line for Apple to walk. Other platforms have issues with this too, and can't always come to one perfect interpretation. See some of the issues with Youtube policing pedophilia recently and having to take some drastic (and very unpopular) steps. What was okay previously isn't now. On Apple's payment system: they run a walled garden. Though there are disadvantages to this, there are also advantages to it. The case could be made that this has massive security benefits (iOS malware, anyone?) and can also keep users from having their payment details tricked out of them by forcing them through one channel. Think it wouldn't happen? An app tried to trick iPhone users into scanning their fingerprint to authorize a large Apple Pay charge to the scammer. It could be worse without the security. > Siri still won’t talk to us today Need some more technical detail here, but why is the onus on Apple to do the work to integrate with your platform the way you want to do it? Apple does provide SiriKit: https://developer.apple.com/sirikit/ https://developer.apple.com/sirikit/ > [they] won’t work with us to develop an app for it [the Apple Watch] Again, why should Apple have to work with you? What you're effectively looking for is a support contract. Pandora managed it. > Apple Music doesn’t have to pay the 30% IAP charge Yes, it's called vertical integration and there are huge benefits to it. It's been one of Apple's core business practices from day one. They control huge parts of their supply chain, even developing their own phone chips (which may well end up as desktop-grade CPUs and could provide a huge consumer benefit in terms of microarchitectural advancement). This isn't unfair. Undercutting is not unfair. App store tightening is of course designed to protect Apple's revenue stream. They've seen other developers stop using IAP, and want to ensure the App Store remains dominant. Not unfair. It's Apple's right to say what they sell and don't sell on their store. > "level playing field" See the article linked at the top of this reply. Spotify is trying to keep users in its platform by preventing playlist transfer (and even prohibiting apps that do it for them, so not an issue of just not developing the functionality). That's at least as anti-consumer. Business do this sort of stuff all the time, and Spotify is more committed to its revenue than to "fairness". Spotify is just salty because they didn't get the deal they wanted and because Apple is trying to push users toward its products over Spotifys. Not really nice of Apple, but not "unfair".