9 ms·

But I think the key here, and probably a big reason Spotify went after Apple and not Google, is that on iOS you have to use Apple's app store. You can't distrib

• ChrisRR 6y ago
  And aren't even allowed to mention in your app that you can sign up outside of the app.
• simonh 6y ago
  Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care. Users benefit from consolidation in the app store space, it much easier for me to have all my apps come from one app store with one set of rules and policies. I benefit from the fact Facebook can't bypass the App Store rules for security and privacy through side loading and an alternate store. Why do you want to take that away from me? Also as a user I don't see any evidence that I am suffering from this, are app prices significantly lower on Android App Stores other than the Play Store? The vast majority of Apps are free, or rally pretty cheap. Show me the evidence. I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious. Does it really benefit users on Android? Side loading didn't work out for Fortnite very well. At the end of the day it's Apple's product and they get to decide what code they do or don't write and what features they do or don't support and how they work. They get to decide, and are accountable for the security architecture. As long as hey are meeting trade, advertising and safety standards it's up to them.
  • simion314 6y ago
    So if you personally won't benefit from it you should not be against someone else benefiting right? If you want to buy Cyberpunk 2077 you have the option of at least 3 stores, I did not see any Steam user getting damaged by the fact the game is on other stores too.
    • ericmay 6y ago
      As the topic has been beat to death a million times, the danger is that adding additional app stores will result in decreases in the exact thing the OP likes the App Store for. All of the hard work fighting for privacy, security, etc., goes out the window. Facebook will put their app on a 3rd party store and now we’re back to them and others abusing privacy and tracking users and not sharing what and how they’re tracking. Apple’s benevolent dictator approach has revealed some nasty stuff these companies and others were doing. With a third party app, companies don’t have to tell me how they are using my data or give me an anonymous sign in option. Naturally they’re fighting back. The App Store gives Apple a way to collectively bargain against app makers on behalf of users. Take that away and we lose what little power we have.
      • simonh 6y ago
        Exactly, I like the fact that if Facebook want to be on my phone they have to meet Apple's security and privacy standards. That directly benefits me, and it's one of the reasons I buy iPhones. Forcing Apple to change their product to allow side loading and alternative stores takes that away from me.
        • d1sxeyes 6y ago
          The question really is do you think that it's fair to expect app developers to meet the criteria and then pay the Apple tax? To be clear, I'm not decided on my opinion yet, I can see merits on both sides of the argument.
          • simion314 6y ago
            Maybe we need to consider users, they are the larger number of victims. Should information be hidden from them? Should the user not decide if the wants to be tracked? Should the user not be allowed to donate to a developer without giving Apple a big cut?
        • simion314 6y ago
          The standards could be in the SDK and the sandbox. Like you don't allow location data or access to photos to any apo (not even Apple ones). So even if I sideload an app or start a Apple app I should get same prompts("Do you want to let this app ignore your firewall rules? This might be insecure The app dev is "Facebook/Apple/Unkown) . And if Apple does not like Facebook tracking people maybe they should lobby for anti-tracking laws. They should also not allow lootboxes, gems or other gaming related shit (to be consistent with their puritanical PR spin)
  • bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    >Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care. I suspect the law is not structured so as to take your personal interest into consideration. >I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious. this seems a very American concept of anti-trust, benefiting consumers is only one part of what concerns European anti-trust, in this case the question is does Apple Music have an unfair advantage on the platform against other music services - the answer would appear to be yes, for actually two points - 1. because they don't have the pay the fee the other music services have to pay 2. because they are not artificially restricted from communicating alternative methods of subscribing to their customers (because they don't need to because they are Apple)
• f6v 6y ago
  You also don’t have to buy a subscription in the app, do you? You can pay on the web directly to Spotify and use the subscription in the app.
  • Macha 6y ago
    A fact Spotify is not allowed inform you of, and is not allowed make the only way to buy a subscription
  • ahiknsr 6y ago
    > You also don’t have to buy a subscription in the app, do you? You can pay on the web directly to Spotify and use the subscription in the app. Apple doesn't allow App developers to Inform users about Alternate payment options.
  • seszett 6y ago
    Spotify is forbidden to mention it in their app, though.
    • ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Thats a violation of freemarket
      • lodovic 6y ago
        Say you buy a can of Coke at Walmart. Would Coca-Cola be allowed to print on that can that it can be bought for less at 7-Eleven?
        • thayne 6y ago
          The way I've seen the rules inforced (though inconsistently) it would be more like walmart not letting Coke put their website on the can, because you can buy coke directly from the website.
        • ClumsyPilot 6y ago
          Wallmart and Appstore are not equivalents: I don't need to accept a huge licence agreement before I enter a supermarket If I were to piss off their staff and get banned from Wallmart, they don't get to take away everything I bought from Wallmart in the past 10 years. If I buy a game from Walmart, and the game sell in game items, I don't need to call wallamrt employee to come to my house to collect the money for that - that's effectively the epic lawsuit.
• anoncake 6y ago
  While the situation is better on Android, not using the Play Store isn't a real option in most cases. Alternative stores cannot provide auto updates.
  • georgyo 6y ago
    The bigger difference is that the play store does not mandate using Google as the payment processor for transactions and subscriptions. Spotify would have no reason to look for an alternative app distribution mechanism on Android.
    • realusername 6y ago
      > The bigger difference is that the play store does not mandate using Google as the payment processor for transactions and subscriptions. The rules have changed, they do now.
    • halostatue 6y ago
      Fortnite was kicked out of the Google Play store for the very same violation of rules and consumer trust that they pulled with Apple. Epic are also suing Google under the same concocted story.
      • mfost 6y ago
        No they sue Google for a different reason althougher. On how they blocked OEMs from making a deal with Epic to include their store/launcher on phones (thus allowing it the same capabilities for autoupdates and the like than the Play Store)
    • kevingadd 6y ago
      Google requires you to use them for payments, that's been policy for a while. (They do it because Apple proved you can get away with it)
  • MiddleEndian 6y ago
    >Alternative stores cannot provide auto updates. That sounds nice to me. Want me to update? Provide an appealing update! Although I am still not a fan of having any sort of app store in the first place.
• FredPret 6y ago
  That fact is key to the advantage that the iPhone ecosystem offers. I, and millions of users like me, like the closed garden. I’m effectively outsourcing the duties implied by caveat emptor to Apple. I don’t have the time/inclination to check the safety & honesty of each app developer.
  • ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    "millions of users like me, like the closed garden." Alcapone was popular, but he was still a criminal and a murderer
    • FredPret 6y ago
      If you think about it really carefully, Apple vetting apps before I get to see them is not... exactly... the same thing as being a murdering gangster
      • fouric 6y ago
        It's pretty clear that the parent was not stating that those were the same thing, but instead that popularity does not mean correctness (either in the technical sense or the moral sense).
    • rattlesnakedave 6y ago
      Peak hackernews comment. This is an inane comparison. Murder is not the same as me being satisfied that every app publisher under the sun cannot make their own app store to pollute my phone further.
  • fouric 6y ago
    > That fact is key to the advantage that the iPhone ecosystem offers. That's not an advantage - that's a disadvantage. Having an open ecosystem is a strict superset of the functionality of a closed ecosystem. If I can sideload, then I can sideload and use Apple's app store. If I can't sideload, then I can only use Apple's app store. It's a strict downgrade. > I, and millions of users like me, like the closed garden. Meanwhile, I, and millions of users like me (more, if you count every Android user as not liking walled gardens), do not like the closed garden. Popularity does not make you right. Absolute popularity doesn't even matter - only relative popularity does. > I’m effectively outsourcing the duties implied by caveat emptor to Apple. I don’t have the time/inclination to check the safety & honesty of each app developer. Apple doesn't do those duties consistently - malware repeatedly appears on the app store, and Apple doesn't even attempt to make sure that the vast majority of apps adhere to their privacy labels.