4 ms·

Most comments here seem to be convinced that this is because these companies don't want to put in the engineering hours to build and support an app on a niche p

Most comments here seem to be convinced that this is because these companies don't want to put in the engineering hours to build and support an app on a niche platform. Is it possible that this is actually a coordinated message to Apple that these large media companies are done paying the 30% Apple tax? Especially if this thing has a fully-featured, desktop-like web browser. The blocking of the existing iPad apps tells me it's the later.

siva7 3y ago
At Youtube or Spotify scale this has nothing to do with engineering hours or project costs. It is for sure a power play message.
- bgentry 3y ago
  In Spotify’s case I would wager it has more to do with them not having a core group of empowered and capable iOS engineers. Their app still doesn’t support AirPlay 2 many years after it was introduced, a feature that solo developers like Marco Arment (Overcast) supported long ago. I suppose it could be some bizarre internal political vendetta against Apple has led them to be unwilling to invest in improving the iOS app, but that seems like an odd strategy.
  - perryizgr8 3y ago
    Why would spotify support a feature that competes against them? Does apple music support spotify connect?
    - dijit 3y ago
      If you're serious: because third party apps can absolutely kill first party ones, and they do, all the time. Netflix remains the dominant player over Apple TV+, for example. Chrome remains more dominant than Safari. Outside of Apples specific ecosystem: Do you know anyone who seriously uses Windows Media Player or built-in Calendar/Mail apps? (Outlook is not the built-in). If your third party app is better and has better social capital: it can kill the first-party app. I'm just forgetting which ones completely died because: they are history.
      - tristan957 3y ago
        Where are you getting the figures that Chrome is more dominant than Safari on Apple devices?
        dijit 3y ago
        Good question! Chrome has 77% market share across desktop operating systems & Safari has 8%: https://kinsta.com/browser-market-share/ https://kinsta.com/browser-market-share/ OSX has 16% market share which would indicate thar its somewhere ~around 50% of OSX users using Safari: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide The inference being made here of course that all the remaining people not using Safari are using Chrome which is or course not true; but it shows somewhat the fragility of the incumbent software: as Safari is actually quite good for users, chrome has very few feature advantages compared.
        frompom 3y ago
        btw using statcounter for browser market share so you're comparing apples to apples says Safari usage is around 19%: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
        dijit 3y ago
        If OSX has 16% desktop operating system share how can Safari have 19% desktop browser share?
        frompom 3y ago
        They aren't my stats. Just pointing out using one stat from source A and another stat from source B to draw a conclusion when source A has both stats seems like hunting for stats that support a predetermined conclusion.
  - rchaud 3y ago
    > "Once again, Apple has demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to protect the profits they exact on the backs of developers and consumers under their app store monopoly," Spotify said in a statement. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68018618 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68018618
  - machomaster 3y ago
    The example you gave has nothing to do with Apple system specifically. It's all about the bad quality of Spotify in general - be it on iOS, Android or web. They truly are terrible, missing the most basic of features, and this has been the way they operate from the very beginning. A long time ago, during the Flash time, the recurring theme on the Internet was the low quality of engineering in Adobe products. There was a popular response to that whining which superficially sounded like a rebuttal: "Hey, be cool and always remember that not all of the bad programmers are employed by Adobe". I guess there was enough of them to fill all the positions at Spotify.
etothet 3y ago
Possibly as some sort of protest, but also rememebr that Spotify and Netflix already don’t pay Apple’s tax and YouTube is free (or at least most people probably use the free version). I think companies want to go where users are and if and when there is some sort of mass adoption of Vision Pro these companies will at the very least enable their iPad apps to work on it.
- shortrounddev2 3y ago
  Spotify has an audio book service which they don't let you purchase on mobile due to apples 30% rent
simiones 3y ago
We may get to find out. Google blocked MS from developing their own YouTube app for the Windows Phone (by changing YT APIs in incompatible ways whenever MS made it, no less). If they want to attack Apple, they will probably do the same.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  Google also has blocked Amazon's competing smart speaker with a display from accessing Youtube, the Amazon Echo Show. Google later blocked Amazon's Fire TV as well.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    And Amazon refused to sell Chromecast for a while. I think most of those moves ought to have invoked regulator wrath.
    - GeekyBear 3y ago
      Roku would be another example of a competing platform that Google blocked Youtube access for.
- rchaud 3y ago
  Will they? Google pays Apple billions to keep their search engine the default on iOS.
whywhywhywhy 3y ago
> because these companies don't want to put in the engineering hours to build and support an app on a niche platform Like who would at this point till it's established? Look at all the time and effort wasted on Apple Watch apps, Apple TV apps for very little returns. Apple needs to realize that expecting developers to write apps for 5 different operating systems to get coverage across their ecosystem is absurd in both engineering time and engineering team money. End of the day the $3500 vision pro needs Netflix more than Netflix needs the vision pro, and they already had a VR app that Apple could have supported but chose to build something completely new and bespoke requiring all devs to write completely new code.
tonyedgecombe 3y ago
>Is it possible that this is actually a coordinated message to Apple that these large media companies are done paying the 30% Apple tax? It's an interesting problem for the rest of us. We seem to be heading to a situation where there are a bunch of tech companies, each with their own silo and little direct competition between them. If they won't talk to each other or cooperate then we all end up with diminished solutions.

siva7 3y ago

At Youtube or Spotify scale this has nothing to do with engineering hours or project costs. It is for sure a power play message.

bgentry 3y ago
In Spotify’s case I would wager it has more to do with them not having a core group of empowered and capable iOS engineers. Their app still doesn’t support AirPlay 2 many years after it was introduced, a feature that solo developers like Marco Arment (Overcast) supported long ago. I suppose it could be some bizarre internal political vendetta against Apple has led them to be unwilling to invest in improving the iOS app, but that seems like an odd strategy.
- perryizgr8 3y ago
  Why would spotify support a feature that competes against them? Does apple music support spotify connect?
  - dijit 3y ago
    If you're serious: because third party apps can absolutely kill first party ones, and they do, all the time. Netflix remains the dominant player over Apple TV+, for example. Chrome remains more dominant than Safari. Outside of Apples specific ecosystem: Do you know anyone who seriously uses Windows Media Player or built-in Calendar/Mail apps? (Outlook is not the built-in). If your third party app is better and has better social capital: it can kill the first-party app. I'm just forgetting which ones completely died because: they are history.
    - tristan957 3y ago
      Where are you getting the figures that Chrome is more dominant than Safari on Apple devices?
      - dijit 3y ago
        Good question! Chrome has 77% market share across desktop operating systems & Safari has 8%: https://kinsta.com/browser-market-share/ https://kinsta.com/browser-market-share/ OSX has 16% market share which would indicate thar its somewhere ~around 50% of OSX users using Safari: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide The inference being made here of course that all the remaining people not using Safari are using Chrome which is or course not true; but it shows somewhat the fragility of the incumbent software: as Safari is actually quite good for users, chrome has very few feature advantages compared.
        frompom 3y ago
        btw using statcounter for browser market share so you're comparing apples to apples says Safari usage is around 19%: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
        dijit 3y ago
        If OSX has 16% desktop operating system share how can Safari have 19% desktop browser share?
        frompom 3y ago
        They aren't my stats. Just pointing out using one stat from source A and another stat from source B to draw a conclusion when source A has both stats seems like hunting for stats that support a predetermined conclusion.
- rchaud 3y ago
  > "Once again, Apple has demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to protect the profits they exact on the backs of developers and consumers under their app store monopoly," Spotify said in a statement. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68018618 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68018618
- machomaster 3y ago
  The example you gave has nothing to do with Apple system specifically. It's all about the bad quality of Spotify in general - be it on iOS, Android or web. They truly are terrible, missing the most basic of features, and this has been the way they operate from the very beginning. A long time ago, during the Flash time, the recurring theme on the Internet was the low quality of engineering in Adobe products. There was a popular response to that whining which superficially sounded like a rebuttal: "Hey, be cool and always remember that not all of the bad programmers are employed by Adobe". I guess there was enough of them to fill all the positions at Spotify.

etothet 3y ago

Possibly as some sort of protest, but also rememebr that Spotify and Netflix already don’t pay Apple’s tax and YouTube is free (or at least most people probably use the free version). I think companies want to go where users are and if and when there is some sort of mass adoption of Vision Pro these companies will at the very least enable their iPad apps to work on it.

shortrounddev2 3y ago
Spotify has an audio book service which they don't let you purchase on mobile due to apples 30% rent

simiones 3y ago

We may get to find out. Google blocked MS from developing their own YouTube app for the Windows Phone (by changing YT APIs in incompatible ways whenever MS made it, no less). If they want to attack Apple, they will probably do the same.

GeekyBear 3y ago
Google also has blocked Amazon's competing smart speaker with a display from accessing Youtube, the Amazon Echo Show. Google later blocked Amazon's Fire TV as well.
- thfuran 3y ago
  And Amazon refused to sell Chromecast for a while. I think most of those moves ought to have invoked regulator wrath.
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    Roku would be another example of a competing platform that Google blocked Youtube access for.
rchaud 3y ago
Will they? Google pays Apple billions to keep their search engine the default on iOS.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago

> because these companies don't want to put in the engineering hours to build and support an app on a niche platform Like who would at this point till it's established? Look at all the time and effort wasted on Apple Watch apps, Apple TV apps for very little returns. Apple needs to realize that expecting developers to write apps for 5 different operating systems to get coverage across their ecosystem is absurd in both engineering time and engineering team money. End of the day the $3500 vision pro needs Netflix more than Netflix needs the vision pro, and they already had a VR app that Apple could have supported but chose to build something completely new and bespoke requiring all devs to write completely new code.

tonyedgecombe 3y ago

>Is it possible that this is actually a coordinated message to Apple that these large media companies are done paying the 30% Apple tax? It's an interesting problem for the rest of us. We seem to be heading to a situation where there are a bunch of tech companies, each with their own silo and little direct competition between them. If they won't talk to each other or cooperate then we all end up with diminished solutions.