If you're trying to be taken seriously, you should avoid hot takes like this. Or perhaps you should make more sense.
> posts "try thinking harder" > complaints about "hot takes" You clearly have no desire for actual discussion here, just blindly defending apple against reason, so I'm done
Against reason? I've logically refuted each of your points and ultimately got to "you should read better". And, nice try, but I'm not "blindly defending" Apple; in fact, I've been outspoken for years about how much I prefer Android to iOS, so no, I'm not one to do such a thing. Regardint the topic of this post, read Sewell's letter again if you're still confused.
Your argument for why its okay for Apple to tell Spotify they can't tell users about premium features was literally "think harder" your logic sucks man
No, I said you should think harder since you had such trouble understanding why I didn't agree with you.
so what is your reason for why its okay for Apple to prevent Spotify from telling users about premium features in the iOs app? Other than "its their platform so they can"
Nothing in regards to Spotify, just found it ironic that a competitior's employee would accuse someone of blindly defending Apple.
.... it's their platform, so they can. If Spotify doesn't like that, they can take their app off the App Store, but like I said earlier, I don't think that's an alternative they want.
Their logic is fine. Your third time posting that fucking nonsense. Spotify complaining has nothing to do with their development. "Apple should spend more time decluttering iTunes and making Apple Music actually work on Android than replying"
yeah no. that is a shit reason that sets up a shit prescient where companies that built platforms can leverage those platforms to help other products that company builds over their competitors. Which is terrible for consumers.
Just pointing out that Spotify has more important issues to worry about than this. I mean, yeah, if the roles were reversed and Apple were complaining, I'd say exactly that.
Here you go again: “Our guidelines apply equally to all app developers, whether they are game developers, e-book sellers, video-streaming services or digital music distributors; and regardless of whether or not they compete against Apple. We did not alter our behavior or our rules when we introduced our own music streaming service or when Spotify became a competitor,” Sewell explains. “Ironically, it is now Spotify that wants things to be different by asking for preferential treatment from Apple.” It's got nothing to do with competing streaming services.
This issue directly impacts their potential revenue on Apple devices, I'd say that's just as important to them.
It's not about competing streaming services, its about competing services in general. The fact that the rules didn't change doesn't matter the rules have always been problematic, and that problem manifested itself when Apple entered the streaming music market. Apple's rules in general position themselves at an advantage at other products on their platform. They simply don't compete with most of the other products in the marketplace, so we are just seeing the problem manifest in the streaming music market. That doesn't mean its also not a problem elsewhere.
Ok, I genuinely cannot believe I have to explain this, Sewell's statement is 100% correct but still fudging details. The problem is, if someone that buys a iphone and thinks "cool I'd love to stream my music" and download Spotify. They check Apple Music and see 9.99, they then check Spotify. Spotify's only options are not showing or mentioning a subscription at all or charging 12.99 due to the Apple 30% take in. This person is obviously going to choose Apple Music as it's cheaper. This is a competitive advantage for Apple. This is the problem. Their policy, which is not new, which has been around since day one does give them a competitive advantage since they entered the streaming market. No Apple did not pull the rug out under Spotify, no they're not intentionally strong arming Spotify but due to their entrance into that market, their policy is giving them an unfair advantage. Edit: clucky beat me but w/e. Game publishers had this issue with Valve in selling PC games. Because PC is an open ecosystem they could create their own store fronts and side step the 30% charge. Because iOS is a walled garden, that option doesn't exist.
What do you recommend then? Are you in favor of Apple adopting different App Store rules just for competing streaming services? That doesn't seem right either.
Simple fix, allow spotify to notify users they can sign up on their site and allow them to link to it. Larger fix? I don't know. People a lot smarter than me and paid a lot more would come up with that.
I'm in favor of Apple adopting different App Store rules for any competing service. Dropbox should also be able to at the very least tell people about premium options. (honestly don't know how their app functions on iOs, but they are in a similar position of spotify, and so similar rules should apply) It's worth discussing if Apple should let companies like Spotify or Dropbox use their own payment system within the app itself. There, I think Apple does have at least half a foot to stand-on in wanting to protect users from fraud. But the current rules aren't about protecting users they are about protecting Apple's bottom line and I think any solution should be primarily consumer focused.
That works. I guess I do agree that Spotify should at least be allowed to say "you can sign up on our site or desktop app or whatever". I don't necessarily have a problem with that not being there either, but an option like that could help make it more equitable.
Closed platforms have owners, and the owners benefit if the platform thrives. No different than any other platform (video games, kindle, etc). Spotify can choose not to be on iOS if they'd like, but if they want to use the platform that Apple pays for and maintains, they need to abide by the same rules as everyone else. If they wanna go Comixology route, they can.
Only in a monopoly (and even then in only extreme cases), which neither iOS nor Apple Music are. Otherwise, yes, that's how it works. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Facebook .. all leverage their platforms for new services. As they should. That's how you get core investments in platforms and why they get created: high value if successful.
I'd argue the core issue is Spotify doesn't have a solid business model. That's the reason they're struggling.
Won't this issue be largely moot anyway once Apple's cut from subscription goes down? As for this specific app-store guideline: Try going to Wal-Mart and put up a sign next to a product that says "cheaper at Best Buy"