7 ms·

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

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]. [1] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/iOS-Implement-Native-HomePod-Support/idc-p/5388594 https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/iOS-Implement-Na...

s3p 4y ago
Spotify corporate seems to be actively hostile toward their community. I see post after post with user questions that just get left unanswered.
- chimen 4y ago
  Unanswered != hostile
kitsunesoba 4y ago
It's hard to take Spotify's call for openness seriously when they're just as controlling as Apple is when it comes to how it allows its users to use its product. Most egregiously, they never delivered the promised playback-capable replacement for libspotify, probably because they want to keep their users in their little walled garden where Spotify can subject them to incessant A/B test tweaks to the UI designed to herd them towards the most profitable content. Third party clients that just act like normal music players and don't change constantly would be an affront to that. As you've pointed out, when Apple has made affordances to allow better support for third party services, Spotify has been slow to take advantage of them. HomePods have had APIs that third party music streaming services can hook as well as the capability to set your default streaming service to things that aren't Apple Music for a year and a half now, and as of this writing Spotify has not used them, despite smaller streaming services like Deezer and Pandora having implemented support months ago. Why? I can only guess because HomePods aren't Spotify Connect devices and thus aren't under the control of Spotify the way that Spotify Connect devices are. Spotify isn't upset by the lack of openness, they're upset that Apple won't give them the same VIP treatment that they've gotten from other platform/device vendors (including Microsoft, with Spotify being bundled with Windows 11).
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  You can take him completely seriously: he just wants to be able to sign up paying users on iPhone without handing 30% to Apple. I don’t think that’s particularly opaque.
  - 95014_refugee 4y ago
    This is essentially just the typical corporate aversion to taxation. They want to benefit from the infrastructure, but don't want to pay for it. Nothing new here, other than the weird tech bros leaping to defend the behaviour...
    - starik36 4y ago
      The situation where you can purchase a service for 30% less elsewhere but not on the iPhone is pretty insane. And on top of that, you are not allowed to tell your users how to get a better deal. Regardless of his reasoning, Apple and some others have too much power.
      - juve1996 4y ago
        How can Apple have "too much power" here, when there is a clear alternative where it is cheaper?
        wbkang 4y ago
        It's not a "clear alternative" when Apple doesn't even allow you to mention that. There are other reasonable alternatives such as letting developers mention the alternative payment methods as long as they explain what the benefits of Apple payment ecosystem. I read a lot of people writing comments like "I prefer to go through Apple because of the ease of unsubscription." If the benefits are so clear, why are developers not even allowed to mention the alternative?
        juve1996 4y ago

s3p 4y ago

Spotify corporate seems to be actively hostile toward their community. I see post after post with user questions that just get left unanswered.

chimen 4y ago
Unanswered != hostile

kitsunesoba 4y ago

It's hard to take Spotify's call for openness seriously when they're just as controlling as Apple is when it comes to how it allows its users to use its product. Most egregiously, they never delivered the promised playback-capable replacement for libspotify, probably because they want to keep their users in their little walled garden where Spotify can subject them to incessant A/B test tweaks to the UI designed to herd them towards the most profitable content. Third party clients that just act like normal music players and don't change constantly would be an affront to that. As you've pointed out, when Apple has made affordances to allow better support for third party services, Spotify has been slow to take advantage of them. HomePods have had APIs that third party music streaming services can hook as well as the capability to set your default streaming service to things that aren't Apple Music for a year and a half now, and as of this writing Spotify has not used them, despite smaller streaming services like Deezer and Pandora having implemented support months ago. Why? I can only guess because HomePods aren't Spotify Connect devices and thus aren't under the control of Spotify the way that Spotify Connect devices are. Spotify isn't upset by the lack of openness, they're upset that Apple won't give them the same VIP treatment that they've gotten from other platform/device vendors (including Microsoft, with Spotify being bundled with Windows 11).

madeofpalk 4y ago
You can take him completely seriously: he just wants to be able to sign up paying users on iPhone without handing 30% to Apple. I don’t think that’s particularly opaque.
- 95014_refugee 4y ago
  This is essentially just the typical corporate aversion to taxation. They want to benefit from the infrastructure, but don't want to pay for it. Nothing new here, other than the weird tech bros leaping to defend the behaviour...
  - starik36 4y ago
    The situation where you can purchase a service for 30% less elsewhere but not on the iPhone is pretty insane. And on top of that, you are not allowed to tell your users how to get a better deal. Regardless of his reasoning, Apple and some others have too much power.
    - juve1996 4y ago
      How can Apple have "too much power" here, when there is a clear alternative where it is cheaper?
      - wbkang 4y ago
        It's not a "clear alternative" when Apple doesn't even allow you to mention that. There are other reasonable alternatives such as letting developers mention the alternative payment methods as long as they explain what the benefits of Apple payment ecosystem. I read a lot of people writing comments like "I prefer to go through Apple because of the ease of unsubscription." If the benefits are so clear, why are developers not even allowed to mention the alternative?
        juve1996 4y ago