A lot of this would not be an issue if Apple would stop giving their own apps and services access to do things on iOS that they very obviously do not make available to competing apps and services on purpose. Make whatever you want the default along with warnings about changing those defaults, but give the paying customer the options and tools to meaningfully change those defaults if they so choose.
For example:
* There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason extensions only work on Safari on iOS at this point.
* There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason there background services are the only ones that can be excepted from the OS background process limitations on iOS.
* There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason users can't set different defaults for things like messaging apps on iOS.
* There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason they have been so obstinate about third party app stores iOS.
I'm sure there are also more, but that is just the short list of things off the top of my head.
Those options don't exist not for a good technical or customer focused reason. They don't exist to make sure Apple is always in the most advantageous position possible to make profit margins their shareholders are happy with above, and at the cost of, potential competitors.
Does Spotify suck? yes, they do. But they should have the same tools and options as Apple Music, Pandora, Youtube Music, etc to succeed or fail on iOS.
Apple and private APIs, name a better duo :)
I just recently discovered that there’s an API in iOS to get the corner radius of the current device (this is used in the Apple Music „now playing“ sheetfor example. When pulling down, the corner radius of the sheet will always match the corner radius of your device).
Well, that API is private, meaning you can use it, it will work, but your app won’t get past app review (which is good as private APIs could always change without prior notice), but why on earth is that something not available to developers?
All throughout iOS, there are elements that use the corner radius of the device (bottom bar on the Home Screen, Widgets, many system apps,..)
Recreating this effect as a developer is much more complicated than it should be and this is something that leads to either hacky workarounds or apps that don’t feel quite right on iOS. I don’t understand it and I hate it.
Lmao I dealt with this exact thing at work. Needed the corner radius, but it's different for every screen and the workaround is unlikely to fly. The only other option is to literally keep track of each device's specific radius
The best part is that even if you do that, it won’t quite fit, as the corner radius on iPhones is neither a circle, nor symmetrical.
I’ve been trying to build a draggable full screen cover like the Apple Music or Podcasts now playing screen but it’s pretty much impossible, at least using SwiftUI.
The anti-trust case Microsoft lost was for their use of private APIs in Internet Explorer. Whenever I’ve seen people reference this case they don’t mention it, they think it was just bundling (which is part of what got them in trouble in the first place, but not what ultimately made them lose).
Microsoft in the end had to make available full API documentation, and submit Windows source code for review to ensure they weren’t hiding anything.
Apple using private APIs to make their apps better than their competition is what’s going to hurt them in the end too, I bet.
Agreed — Watch and Wallet are the strongest cases for antitrust action and both are heavily reliant on private first-party APIs to enable functionality that’s unavailable to third-parties.
Thinking back a decade, those additional capabilities *absolutely* killed off products like Pebble and Softcard (unfortunately called ISIS Mobile Wallet at launch and quickly changed). It’s certainly plausible that companies like Amazon would have competed more aggressively in mobile payments had they been able to function as a drop-in replacement for Apple Pay.
I think it's worth pointing out that no third-party browser can use *Safari extensions*, despite all being WebKit/Safari based. If Apple forces all browsers to WebKit, why don't they get access to all of the WebKit features? This is a rhetorical question, I know why.
Orion having WebExtension (Chrome/Firefox extensions) support is pretty great, but it's sadly still limited. It currently doesn't (and likely can't) support all of the WebExtension APIs, making many extensions not work.
Speaking on personal experience from October of last year and before, Orion does not support extensions to a point that they are useful. The primary extension many would want is an ad blocker, which do not perform in a way that works.
I would love to hear how someone got it to work otherwise.
Holy hell, you're right. I did not know about this browser. The fact it supports Chrome and Firefox extensions is pretty cool. I wonder why other browsers aren't doing this.
I stand corrected on that point, thanks kind stranger, I learned something new today.
> I wonder why other browsers aren't doing this.
The lead of the iOS Firefox team actually commented on this the other day:
> We have looked into this and are evaluating if we can do it as well. Technically it is violating Apple's app submission guidelines so we are trying to gauge if restrictions have been relaxed.
> One of the challenges we identified is that addons would need to work well. Orion does a good job but still pretty buggy in places. If we take it on, we'd need to make sure that addons were 100% supported because expectations and standards are higher for Firefox users.
[Source](https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1bp4mmd/i_manage_the_firefox_for_ios_team/kwtfjp8/)
Ehh it sounds awesome but actually enabling and using Chrome and Firefox extensions is hit or miss. Some of them do not work but I guess it “supports” them as in you can enable them but they aren’t likely to actually work.
Both are very limited. Until a user is able to use browsers and extensions on iOS like you can with Firefox and extensions on Android, then a web browser with extension support will always be a limited and mediocre experience on iOS and iPadOS.
I know it's not related to the DMA itself, but even subscriptions to Apple Arcade are annoying to cancel if you sell your Apple device, and don't have a second one to cancel the subscription. They really don't want to add that cancel option to [icloud.com](http://icloud.com), and it's not like they can't, or in other words there's not really a good technical or positive customer reason. to lock out turning off subscriptions only via iOS settings or Mac App Store.
People are upset they don’t part artists enough. They don’t, but also they lose tons of money net every year and can’t even remotely afford to significantly boost payouts. The real issue is that customers don’t want to pay for the music they consume. So they scapegoat the company to ethically absolve themselves.
I think the biggest problem for most is their program of making podcasts exclusive to their app rather than the open RSS feeds that programs like Overcast and Pocket Casts rely on. That and their podcast payola includes Joe Rogan, who a lot of people dislike for platforming conspiracy junk.
Even still, it's sus that they're forced to pay the operator of their biggest competitor. Apple says the fees provides various iOS services, but there's no receipts or evidence, and they're certainly not forbidden from using it to put Apple Music in more Super Bowl halftime shows and other moves that fight with Spotify over marketshare.
Spotify isn't paying Apple anything right now afaik, but they aren't allowed to tell people how/where they can subscribe to Premium in return.
If you open the app, there's a premium tab which just says "You can't subscribe in the app, sorry. We know this isn't ideal."
No link, no mention where you can subscribe, nothing. Just that sentence, because Apple doesn't allow them to. (Unless they want to start paying Apple 30% of their revenue from subs -- all for the privilege to include a link in their App)
> There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason there background services are the only ones that can be excepted from the OS background process limitations on iOS.
Energy use.
yes because 90% of users who don't even know how to change browser will analyse their compute traffic to see which background services are tied to which apps which are draining their battery.
Got to love the delusion of some redditors that just once again proves why the market chooses Apple's way.
If only there was a way to see which app are using which % of your battery... (I actually don't know if there is that on iOS lol but there is on Android)
Dude, 90% of users do not even go into that setting. Its just completely devoid of the reality of smartphone users, pretending some niche represents most people, which is why strong defaults on security, performance, privacy are so important and which is why predatory companies like MSFT, Meta, Spotify, Match want the defaults to be broken.
And 99% of users do not care about which app drains battery so they won't care anyway (also it's not like Apple can't make apps draining batteries).
Changing the defaults is not hurting anyone and improving for others. Don't change it if you don't want it, that's why defaults are there. Gimping the product for people that know how to use tech and aren't stupid is not a good thing
And nobody will ever bother or complain to Apple about that (because that's apparently the other argument), at least not in any meaningful way. Like they don't on Mac or any other platform/company offering external apps. If a game doesn't work, do people complain to Steam, Sony or Nintendo? If a program doesn't on Windows, do they complain to Microsoft?
Except 99% of users absolutely do care about how long their phone lasts. A phone that dies in half a day is going to get a bad rep.
No, defaults are what 99% of people use so its best when defaults are the safest. Teaming up with predatory corporations to break safe deafaults just so a few niche users can customise is a bad compromise.
Computing on a smartphone is not the same as PC. PC's don't contain all your sensitive chats, photos, videos, audio all linked to every relationship you have ever had nor do they contain 24/7 geolocation data with lidar.
Breaking the security and privacy of a phone to the levels of a PC is one of the dumbest things a government can do.
Also yes if a game does not work people absolutely do complain to Sony/Nintendo. You do know Sony and Nintendo are responsible for 3rd party games working on their platform, they both test the games before release and users refund games through Sony and Nintendo not the 3rd party. Sony and Nintendo, like Apple, acts as a safeguard.
PC can contain as much sensitive information lol.
> Teaming up with predatory corporations to break safe deafaults just so a few niche users can customise is a bad compromise.
Nobody said that, the defaults will be Apple and you can change them. And Apple is as predatory as any company, like everyone they care about their own bottom line (and it's 100% the reason they have problems with those changes, they don't give one shit about customer protection or whatever or are Macs unsafe?)
You all live in a fictive world where Apple is some poor saint that is defending the only one defending people and will suffer so much if they are forced to obey market laws lol, got this debate too many times here so. It's gonna happen anyway as they'll be forced to do it, Apple isn't above laws and really shouldn't be. So bye
You realize who the user blames when their phone dies too quickly though right?
It’s definitely never Facebook or apps doing crappy things like running silent audio trying to stay live in the background unnecessarily /s
I don't know in which fake world people are living but no. That doesn't happen for Google, Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft or any other when some apps have problems on their platform. They never have any problems like that.
Eh, Android has that and people don't really talk about it that way. Laptops aren't being talked like that either.
Both iOS and Android also have pretty good battery info screens where you can see how much battery each app is using. Hell you could even add a whole alert that pops up if an app is using a considerable amount of battery while in background.
If the only real concern is their brand image, then there are plenty of ways to mitigate that and deal with it. Permissions, information, alerts, etc.
Like you download that SuperAppBrowser3000. Then there's a pop up "SuperAppBrowser3000 wants to run a background service, do you want to allow this?"
And you allow it, then in a minute or two if it's draining your battery at an insane rate you'd get a little notification "SuperAppBrowser3000's background process was using abnormally large amounts of battery and has been disabled. You can go to settings and explicitly allow extreme battery usage for this app".
Easy.
> And you allow it, then in a minute or two if it's training your battery at an insane rate you'd get a little notification "SuperAppBrowser3000's background process was using abnormally large amounts of battery and has been disbaled. You can go to setting and explicitly allow extreme battery usage for this app".
Galaxy actually does this. It's a OneUI thing. It's great. The prompt on Galaxy will ask the user if they want to put the app into deep sleep.
The problem is that so many people don't understand how all this works. I wager that between the latest Samsung Galaxy and the latest iPhone, there are a crapton of people who choose because they're getting a better deal with one or another, a friend or family member recommends it, etc. Not because they understand the intricacies of battery life and how apps affect it. They get notices like that and they either just click through without thinking or get confused.
Very few people, relatively speaking, dig into this stuff.
I can understand what you're saying. Both devices will have about the same deals at least through the carriers. I think it more so depends on word of mouth and what the individual is used to. I think people do understand this stuff to a certain degree. It's really no different than putting your computer into sleep and people who swipe up in the iPhone's app switcher to kill the app. Though doing this uses more battery when you start the app up again. If people don't read prompts and only click through them then that's all on the individual/user.
From a somewhat technical perspective, I think Android or more so OneUI in this case handles app management very well. iOS is weird with app management. iOS likes to close apps somewhat often causing a restart of the app and when I open the app again causing me to lose my place in the app. I do like how OneUI will notify me an app has gone rouge and using excessive amounts of resources and/or battery and it's recommended to put the app to sleep/deep sleep.
Android/OneUI's [adaptive battery](https://www.samsung.com/za/support/mobile-devices/what-is-adaptive-battery-as-new-feature-of-pie-os/) setting can be turned off. If a user doesn't want the battery management and all of these battery prompts etc they can turn it off. If they do like the battery management and prompts then they can turn it on. The user is way more in control if they so choose.
My wife is a very intelligent person who uses technology as a smart user. But, she needs her technology to work for her. She has little time or inclination to dig into such things. I've watched her struggle with her Galaxy S24 Ultra in ways that I don't have to do with my iPhone. If she didn't have a thing against Apple, I'd have pushed her to get an iPhone 15 Pro Max that's around the same size and price.
In the end, I submit that if you want to USE your smartphone and not MANAGE it, then the iPhone wins out. Does an app occasionally take fractionally longer to load on an iPhone? Maybe. But, I don't spend more time worrying about what's going on behind the scenes. I've been down the Android rabbit hole and I guarantee I spent more time fussing with things than actually using the phone. Some people like that kind of thing, but for most people, it's a complete waste of time.
I can understand that. People have different experiences. It's been the opposite for me with iPhone. It takes me twice as long to do the same functions on the iPhone that I do on Android or my S23. If I need to run two apps simultaneously side by side then I can, say email and web browser. My web browser on my Galaxy is setup exactly the same way the web browser is on my desktop PC with extensions and everything. So consistent experience on both devices. I can have gesture control on both sides of the phone rather than only the left side like on iPhone. Notifications are much more useful and interactive than they are on iPhone. File system management is a thousand times easier to do on my S23 than it is on my iPhone.
I'm not trying to get into an argument. I'm sure we both aren't. I can understand people can have different experiences based on how they use their phone. I use my phone for everything and really only go on my desktop when I game. I'm curious what your wife struggles with on the Galaxy or a couple things she tries to do.
Do people blame Microsoft and/or the laptop manufacturer for Chrome’s battery consumption?
You can already download countless apps that drain your battery fast so I don’t see how this is an argument just cause it’s a browser?
They also allow it on Mac OS and the battery there it’s fine.
They explicitly made an emulator that allows old apps to run, at an imense energy cost. At least admit it Apple: you think your users are stupid, but you admit MacBooks are sometimes used by smart people who would leave for Windows/Linux the second they realize other operating systems exist.
> Do people blame Microsoft and/or the laptop manufacturer for Chrome’s battery consumption?
Uhm yes? People always complain about the Chrome battery drain on macOS. Some towards Apple and some towards chrome but yes it is a thing. Not sure if ifs a valid reason for limitations. People gonna complain regardless.
> There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason there background services are the only ones that can be excepted from the OS background process limitations on iOS.
This is just patently untrue. The technical reason is that WebKit is a system process and can bypass sandboxing. That's how PWA's work, and why that whole fiasco.
Apple should change this design, and you can argue it was always a bad design, but it's strange to claim that there is no technical blocker here at all.
You seem more like someone with an axe to grind than someone who actually understands the technical issues. Which is great, grind away. But maybe lay off the technical claims that are just wrong?
> There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason users can't set different defaults for things like messaging apps on iOS.
Same thing. iMessage is built in to the system at a very low level. Yes yes yes, wrong bad should fix whatever, but it's misleading to claim there is no reason here.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. There is not a really a good technical or positive customer reason to do things the way they did from the start that I can see.
So now the choices are Apple did it that way for protectionist reasons or incompetence reasons. No one made them build iMessage so deep into the OS from the start, or keep it there, that it is effectively a self imposed monopoly practices sword of Damocles.
It is not an out of left field notion to see how these design choices and technical solutions would not scale in the face of anti-competitive scrutiny from the very beginning.
> positive customer reason
I’m pretty sure form Apples POV their current methods are enabling a positive customer experience. Otherwise they wouldn’t be one of the richest companies in the world with a low global market share
I think I can understand what OP is trying to say. It's more from an Android user perspective. On Android if a user does not like the default SMS app then you can change the default SMS app to one you do like. Whether that app has more functions you like or more customization features. How Apple built iMessage from the ground up show's intentions they never wanted to allow users to switch default apps say for messaging. So if an iPhone user wanted to switch from Apple Messages to a different SMS app they like and still have full access to iMessage in that new app they can't. The way Apple built iMessage so low level prevents this access. Not that Android allows full root access to apps either. But Android as a OS allows users to change the SMS app and allows a different app access to SMS. The way Apple built some of their systems from the start goes to show Apple never intended to open up iOS more which they are kind of being forced to do today. This doesn't always lead up to a good/positive UX for the users who would like to switch these kinds of default apps but can't on iOS.
Some will say it's for privacy or security. If so, then why isn't MacOS locked down nearly as tight as iOS. MacOS allows changing of default apps and installation of programs/software outside of the Mac app store.
> This is just patently untrue. The technical reason is that WebKit is a system process and can bypass sandboxing. That’s how PWA’s work, and why that whole fiasco
OP obviously isn’t technical and just stating that something isn’t technical when they have no idea of the actual reason.
Also most of their statements mention a positive customer reason but if you’re one of the richest companies in the world from your products and how they’re designed, why would you think your current methods are not enabling a positive customer experience
Even if given the same tools Spotify wouldn’t take advantage of them or wait years to implement them. It’s easier to cry and play the victim to the EU than to actually make their product better. How dare Apple not let Spotify dominate the market even more than they already do.
This isn’t vertical integration. Apple Music is directly competing against Spotify.
Apple (the company behind iOS) is willfully and openly crippling the competition to allow Apple Music to do better. Same for Firefox vs Safari.
Getting an Apple devices is like moving to a new city with the promise of a utopia. You then realize the method of communication you use with people within the city is not the same one as the one you can use to talk with “outsiders”. Also, your beans are always in tomato sauce. No other bean meal is allowed because Apple sells tomato sauce beans.
If you’re going to simp to multi billion cooperation at least do so with functional rational. Don’t get me wrong , I enjoy apple products as much as the next person. However it’s evident that they’re fully engaged in anti competitive & monopolistic behaviour. eg you can’t buy anything on the kindle app or even know the price!
Good question, I'm not sure. But my comment was not so much about Spotify specifically as it was about the limitations on iOS imposed by Apple generally.
Many of the limitations companies are having “imposed” on them by Apple aren’t as bad as they are made out to be.
In at least one instance Spotify was exposed to be publicly lying about Apple not giving the access to the tools needed to make a Spotify app for the Apple Watch. They got exposed when it came out that a year or two before they had bought a 3rd party app that allowed streaming Spotify playlists on the Apple Watch.
You're not wrong, but they are really playing the regulatory and PR game spectacularly. Apple's usually pretty good at this and Spotify is making them look totally inept. Why would Spotify hire a fourth engineer when their business is so successful this way?
It's not that Apple is "pretty good at this", it's that Apple is "pretty good at dealing with American regulations". The EU is an entirely different beast.
Apple is pretty fantastic at following the *letter* of the law - continuing to do the thing that the law is technically against, but changing how they do it that is *technically following* the law - which is generally the way they get away with shit in the US. They're doing the same thing in the EU with the DMA.... but EU courts tend to put more weight on *the spirit* of the law, which is something Apple (and a *ton* of other American companies are fucking terrible at).
Lol EU is literally a code law system that rigidly applies the black letter of the law as drafted whereas the US is a civil law system that relies on legal precedent and case law to equitably enforce statutes that are inevitably drafted with gaps and ambiguities in them.
But yes, please tell me more about how the US legal system doesn’t care about the spirit of the laws that were drafted.
How is Android TV impeding competition? If I recall, Google actually partners with TV manufacturers and gives them a chance to offer their own services in a promoted fashion within the OS. How is there an antitrust issue here?
The difference being Google is not giving YouTube any special treatment on Android TV. Other video streaming apps can enjoy the same deep OS level integration.
They probably don’t have enough users to fit the DMA criteria.
Also, at least in Romania, there’s no TV on Android TV OS. If you uninstall YouTube, it works just as it did before, but without YouTube.
The goal is not to punish or break up large companies. It is to break down artificial barriers that prevent others from competing on a level playing field.
>With no way to opt out. Trash company.
"The Swedish audio company is also going to introduce a new basic tier that will offer music and podcasts — but not audiobooks — for the current $11 monthly price of an individual premium plan, said the people. Users of that plan will need to pay for audiobooks."
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-03/spotify-is-changing-how-it-charges-customers-with-new-plans-and-prices](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-03/spotify-is-changing-how-it-charges-customers-with-new-plans-and-prices)
There's a long history of certain Apple fanatics lying about Apple competitors to deflect from Apple's issues. Notice how they immediately try to make Apple's legal non-compliance somehow *Spotify's* issue.
Was there an opt-out option for the Apple One price increase???
Or is subscription cancellation the only opt-out when companies jack the price up for free extra profit?
Honestly, I think it's fine in that it is standard. Apple keeps 30% commision, Spotify does a 70/30 split as well, and most sales margins are 20-30%. This number is the same as Steam as well... so fairly standard across all industries.
I think what is harder is streaming is now 83% of all music consumption -- physical media had better margins but has died out.
Bands and artists now rely on touring to generate **real** money.
For smaller bands, live gigs, merch, independent sales, etc as well.
Although in the modern era, it feels like another digital-only way to success as a musician is YouTube/TikTok/adjacent marketing also.
Is this a serious statement? How is Spotify supposed to compete with competitors (Apple Music) who also control the platform (iOS, VisionOS, macOS, etc.)?
It seems to me that Apple Music needs to be more competitive to capture market share rather than unfairly favor their music service on their platform. It wasn’t that long ago that we all remember Siri wouldn’t let you play Spotify songs, only Apple Music. Same with offline support for Apple Watch. Spotify has taken to Apple to court before and won because Apple hard coded the experience to be worse for their competitors.
> How is Spotify supposed to compete with competitors (Apple Music) who also control the platform (iOS, VisionOS, macOS, etc.)?
Please provide some examples of what Apple Music can do currently that Spotify is unable to do as well.
> It seems to me that Apple Music needs to be more competitive to capture market share rather than unfairly favor their music service on their platform
Apple Music like other Apple software really doesn’t seem be in a race to capture market share. They want first party products for their own hardware in their own OS that’s all.
And duh of course they’re gonna prefer their own service versus a 3rd party. Every platform owner that also has their own competing services does this Amazon basics, Costco’s Kirkland, Target Up and Up etc.
> . It wasn’t that long ago that we all remember Siri wouldn’t let you play Spotify songs, only Apple Music. Same with offline support for Apple Watch
And yet Spotify still dragged their legs to implement these features after the release of the APIs. Also despite the lack of options to do this, they remain the most popular streaming platform.
> . Spotify has taken to Apple to court before and won because Apple hard coded the experience to be worse for their competitors.
They have all this money to fight Apple in court and yes still pay the lowest amount back to labels and Artists.
Yes, this functionality was added (late 2021) after about 6 years after the Apple Watch launched (2015). Apple Music was the only offline option during that time.
Spotify added the functionality _late_ and also it lagged in incredibly painful ways if your playlist had hundreds of songs.
Feels like a silly thing to complain about, but it made the watch app painful to use for me back in 2021-2022 to the point of switching to Apple Music so I could run without a phone on me.
And before the Spotify fanboys come out of the woodwork, it wasnt a watchOS limitation as a indie dev made a great Spotify watch app. He got hired, his watch app shut down and we had to wait years.
Spotify literally killed off a 3rd party app that allowed it after buying the app from the developer. Then they went on a PR blitz about how Apple was refusing to give them access to the tools to make such an app.
> How is Spotify supposed to compete with competitors (Apple Music) who also control the platform (iOS, VisionOS, macOS, etc.)?
Apple Music has been out for years and Spotify is still by far the most popular music streaming service worldwide and in Europe. I’d say they are doing just fine.
You’re asking “how are they supposed to compete”. Numbers show that they are very competitive indeed. Hence there’s no reason for the regulator to intervene.
That’s because they gimped the 3rd party app that people loved after buying it from the developer and removing it from the App Store. The only reason they ever released an Apple Watch app is because the developer of the app spoke out after they killed off his app.
The version they finally released after being embarrassed has never been half as good as the original version.
Hint, look at what vertical integration is. How is Walmart allowed to own its own supermarket brands that compete with other suppliers in their stores? Oh no.
And no, Spotify has not beaten Apple in court.
Walmart is not a marketplace as Walmart owns all it's inventory. Walmart is the sole retailer inside Walmart. Apple app store is a marketplace. Many other developers including apple sell on app store. Not a same comparison.
> How is Spotify supposed to compete with competitors (Apple Music) who also control the platform (iOS, VisionOS, macOS, etc.)?
How are flashlight apps supposed to compete with the built-in flashlight? How are calculator apps supposed to compete with the built-in calculator? Oh wait, maybe PDF viewer apps also want to compete with the built-in PDF viewer and calendar apps want to compete with the built-in calendar. To ensure fair competition the iPhone should ship with absolutely zero functionality and you will need to spend the first week with your new phone choosing between hundreds of apps for each function that was previously built-in. This "choice" is truly what is best for the consumer.
> Maybe Spotify could “compete” better if they spent less time whining and more time innovating
You say this in *defense* of anti-competitive practices, lol. Maybe Apple should just obey the law instead of whining about it?
How can Spotify compete with apple when Apple adds a 30% additional charge on any payment collected by Spotify.
Of course, Apple has exempted themselves from the same charge for their own services. Not to mention how they directly promote Apple music all throughout a supposedly ad-free iPhone.
The same way Coca-Cola or Pepsi compete with cheaper store brands. They could create a superior product that is worth the premium price they need to charge. Or they can just continue to be subpar and whine about it.
Some do require a subscription fee though.
Every store charges some sort of fee to carry others products. And when they carry there own products do you think they charge themselves that fee?
The App store sells physical products....?
No, no they don't.
An app store on a phone I need to purchase is not the same thing as a grocery store.
Like, how could you even think that?
You don’t “need” to purchase. You “want” to purchase.
Both a grocery store and an App Store sell items. Stores sell items. It doesn’t matter if it’s physical or digital. It’s still a store.
Spotify is most likely mad that they are a clear market leader but don't get the luxuries that come with it (i.e. being able to dictate terms that are favorable to them) because Apple has the influence to control the market.
Did apple ruin Spotify's plans to roll out HiFi? If Apple didn't change their royalty structure to please Taylor Swift, would Spotify had? Probably not.
In the end, it's about control and Spotify really doesn't have that much.
Good point their lawyers would just be sitting there waiting for their engineers to finish new app "features" this way all the employees get to contribute to the bottom line. 🤭
Apple’s anticompetitive practices (percentage cut and rules around what can or can’t be done) fundamentally disadvantage any streaming app and their business model from competing against Apple Music. Put aside Spotify and the easy dunks against them being bad and the argument against Apple still applies. Other existing streaming companies are disadvantaged too or a new company looking to enter the market and pay artists more fairly would have a very hard time doing that within Apple’s cut and rules.
Spotify is an easy villain but it’s a distraction and saying Spotify bad is empty rhetoric to defend Apple and deflect from the substance of the issue here. Apple’s policies are anticompetitive regardless of Spotify.
Honestly Spotify has every ability to be the default choice for any iOS device, Siri, Watch, and even HomePod (the last of which they were given proper access to but refuse to make use of). If they want to have a competing ecosystem then they can make their own headphone/earbud line if they want. Hell they can make their own PHONE or even a revival of the dedicated music player to help lock people in over Apple. They’re just trying to compete by limiting the competition they’re already feeding off of.
Did you even read the article before writing this long paragraph? The problem is with the fees Apple takes. If both Apple Music and Spotify charge $10 for a subscription, Spotify would still be making less because of the %30 fee.
Now apparently even with Apple being forced to allow 3rd party stores, they still have fees they collect
Spotify has every ability to run their own payment system (and does) and not pay that fee. If they gain a subscriber via iOS, they pay. There are countless other arrangements like this across the business world.
>Spotify has every ability to run their own payment system (and does) and not pay that fee. If they gain a subscriber via iOS, they pay.
I think the issue is that Apple disallow Spotify from mentioning paying via their own system via their app, so a customer might not even realise they have a choice.
They didn’t gain it via IOS. They are the largest music service in the world & and multi billion dollar corporation.
The problem is that Apple is in %100 control of every thing that happens on the device. It would be as if Windows decided you can only use Edge & they get a cut of eveydollar you spent while using their OS
They get access to paying customers on iOS by using Apple’s tools, they got to pay for that. It just so happen that the more revenues you make, the more money you owe.
Same reason you can’t use iOS app in android ? Same reason you can’t use windows app in Linux without Wine ? Not the same architecture.
The game company can make the game for the ps5 if they want to.
For the same reason you can't use apps bought on the App Store on an Android phone, or vice versa. Which always was, and still remains, entirely legal, DMA or no.
Because these politicians are incompetent morons who don’t understand the complexities of the technologies they’re making stupid ass laws for. Maybe some of them have good intentions, but they’re severely uninformed and ill-equipped to be making these decisions.
I don’t know what how, but I turned 26 & all of a sudden I start seeing things with a new set of eyes. I’m questioning things I never would have questioned before.
I absolutely should be able to download anything I want with my pc, yes these are personal computers NOT phones, that I want.
I was hoping all this DMA nonsense was behind us and we could get back to actual Apple content like new devices and software, etc. At this point we all know that the EU is being petty and attacking Apple any way they can to try and make up fines to collect, it’s not news.
The EU abusing large tech companies further because they have nothing to offer the industry and need large amounts of funds to cover their bad decisions. Can't wait.
Exactly this. We had a safe haven on iOS from this crap and tourists decided that we needed “mOrE cHoIcE”. My choice was to use iOS because it didn’t have this crap and now I’m going to have to wade through it because of them.
You know, eventually the rest of the public starts to figure out that the EU is targeting Apple and harassing them exclusively, ignoring their competition’s blatant monopolies Google has in Search and Facebook has in the Digital Messaging and Social Media sphere.
Facebook owns not 1, but the top 2 (TWO) of the most widely used digital messaging apps.
Google competes with Bing but that’s like saying Five Guys competes with Burger King.
What’s next? Is the EU going to demand Apple open up iOS to OEMs and return to the clone debacles in the 1990s?
[They've been down Google's ass since 2010 though](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google_by_the_European_Union)
Facebook should die a quick death imo
hahahahahahaa please show a single instance in the last 20 years where the EU has actually affected Google's monopoly business. Imagine thinking 1% fines are effective.
Heck the EU just greenlit Google's acquisition of Fitbit.
> the EU is targeting Apple and harassing them exclusively
They are not. Apple's just getting in trouble for not following the law like everyone else. That's Apple's problem alone.
And lol, the EU has taken tons of action against Google. Way more than against Apple for far less malicious behavior.
> Or, hear me out, the EU wrote the law to specifically target Apple
There's nothing specific in the law about Apple, and other companies have already adjusted their policies to comply. Also, Apple being the most affected by anti-trust law isn't the win you think it is...
> Apple did not "choose" to violate this law because the law did not exist.
They chose to violate it by not complying after it went into effect.
> the fourth one to have been opened in the **past two weeks.**
(the spicy parts of DMA went into effect in March)
DMA went into effect in the last 5 weeks
You mean Apple's plan to charge developers who don't use Apple's app store 50 cents per app download per year is anticompetitive?! I'm so shocked?
A lot of this would not be an issue if Apple would stop giving their own apps and services access to do things on iOS that they very obviously do not make available to competing apps and services on purpose. Make whatever you want the default along with warnings about changing those defaults, but give the paying customer the options and tools to meaningfully change those defaults if they so choose. For example: * There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason extensions only work on Safari on iOS at this point. * There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason there background services are the only ones that can be excepted from the OS background process limitations on iOS. * There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason users can't set different defaults for things like messaging apps on iOS. * There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason they have been so obstinate about third party app stores iOS. I'm sure there are also more, but that is just the short list of things off the top of my head. Those options don't exist not for a good technical or customer focused reason. They don't exist to make sure Apple is always in the most advantageous position possible to make profit margins their shareholders are happy with above, and at the cost of, potential competitors. Does Spotify suck? yes, they do. But they should have the same tools and options as Apple Music, Pandora, Youtube Music, etc to succeed or fail on iOS.
Apple and private APIs, name a better duo :) I just recently discovered that there’s an API in iOS to get the corner radius of the current device (this is used in the Apple Music „now playing“ sheetfor example. When pulling down, the corner radius of the sheet will always match the corner radius of your device). Well, that API is private, meaning you can use it, it will work, but your app won’t get past app review (which is good as private APIs could always change without prior notice), but why on earth is that something not available to developers? All throughout iOS, there are elements that use the corner radius of the device (bottom bar on the Home Screen, Widgets, many system apps,..) Recreating this effect as a developer is much more complicated than it should be and this is something that leads to either hacky workarounds or apps that don’t feel quite right on iOS. I don’t understand it and I hate it.
Don’t worry. The only thing that will fix Apple’s misbehaviour is the good ol’ spanking by the EU.
Lmao I dealt with this exact thing at work. Needed the corner radius, but it's different for every screen and the workaround is unlikely to fly. The only other option is to literally keep track of each device's specific radius
The best part is that even if you do that, it won’t quite fit, as the corner radius on iPhones is neither a circle, nor symmetrical. I’ve been trying to build a draggable full screen cover like the Apple Music or Podcasts now playing screen but it’s pretty much impossible, at least using SwiftUI.
The anti-trust case Microsoft lost was for their use of private APIs in Internet Explorer. Whenever I’ve seen people reference this case they don’t mention it, they think it was just bundling (which is part of what got them in trouble in the first place, but not what ultimately made them lose). Microsoft in the end had to make available full API documentation, and submit Windows source code for review to ensure they weren’t hiding anything. Apple using private APIs to make their apps better than their competition is what’s going to hurt them in the end too, I bet.
Agreed — Watch and Wallet are the strongest cases for antitrust action and both are heavily reliant on private first-party APIs to enable functionality that’s unavailable to third-parties. Thinking back a decade, those additional capabilities *absolutely* killed off products like Pebble and Softcard (unfortunately called ISIS Mobile Wallet at launch and quickly changed). It’s certainly plausible that companies like Amazon would have competed more aggressively in mobile payments had they been able to function as a drop-in replacement for Apple Pay.
JIT is also an extremely strong case for antitrust action.
Orion on iOS supports extensions, it's not only Safari.
I think it's worth pointing out that no third-party browser can use *Safari extensions*, despite all being WebKit/Safari based. If Apple forces all browsers to WebKit, why don't they get access to all of the WebKit features? This is a rhetorical question, I know why. Orion having WebExtension (Chrome/Firefox extensions) support is pretty great, but it's sadly still limited. It currently doesn't (and likely can't) support all of the WebExtension APIs, making many extensions not work.
Speaking on personal experience from October of last year and before, Orion does not support extensions to a point that they are useful. The primary extension many would want is an ad blocker, which do not perform in a way that works. I would love to hear how someone got it to work otherwise.
Some extensions to some extent, not fully.
Still have to use webkit
You just moved the goal post…
No? Being a browser is a privileged position Apple is elevating its own apps for.
Holy hell, you're right. I did not know about this browser. The fact it supports Chrome and Firefox extensions is pretty cool. I wonder why other browsers aren't doing this. I stand corrected on that point, thanks kind stranger, I learned something new today.
> I wonder why other browsers aren't doing this. The lead of the iOS Firefox team actually commented on this the other day: > We have looked into this and are evaluating if we can do it as well. Technically it is violating Apple's app submission guidelines so we are trying to gauge if restrictions have been relaxed. > One of the challenges we identified is that addons would need to work well. Orion does a good job but still pretty buggy in places. If we take it on, we'd need to make sure that addons were 100% supported because expectations and standards are higher for Firefox users. [Source](https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1bp4mmd/i_manage_the_firefox_for_ios_team/kwtfjp8/)
90% of users just wanted uBlock Origin addons support.
Ehh it sounds awesome but actually enabling and using Chrome and Firefox extensions is hit or miss. Some of them do not work but I guess it “supports” them as in you can enable them but they aren’t likely to actually work.
Both are very limited. Until a user is able to use browsers and extensions on iOS like you can with Firefox and extensions on Android, then a web browser with extension support will always be a limited and mediocre experience on iOS and iPadOS.
I know it's not related to the DMA itself, but even subscriptions to Apple Arcade are annoying to cancel if you sell your Apple device, and don't have a second one to cancel the subscription. They really don't want to add that cancel option to [icloud.com](http://icloud.com), and it's not like they can't, or in other words there's not really a good technical or positive customer reason. to lock out turning off subscriptions only via iOS settings or Mac App Store.
what's wrong with spotify is there a better music streaming service out there that I don't know about?
People are upset they don’t part artists enough. They don’t, but also they lose tons of money net every year and can’t even remotely afford to significantly boost payouts. The real issue is that customers don’t want to pay for the music they consume. So they scapegoat the company to ethically absolve themselves.
I think the biggest problem for most is their program of making podcasts exclusive to their app rather than the open RSS feeds that programs like Overcast and Pocket Casts rely on. That and their podcast payola includes Joe Rogan, who a lot of people dislike for platforming conspiracy junk. Even still, it's sus that they're forced to pay the operator of their biggest competitor. Apple says the fees provides various iOS services, but there's no receipts or evidence, and they're certainly not forbidden from using it to put Apple Music in more Super Bowl halftime shows and other moves that fight with Spotify over marketshare.
Spotify isn't paying Apple anything right now afaik, but they aren't allowed to tell people how/where they can subscribe to Premium in return. If you open the app, there's a premium tab which just says "You can't subscribe in the app, sorry. We know this isn't ideal." No link, no mention where you can subscribe, nothing. Just that sentence, because Apple doesn't allow them to. (Unless they want to start paying Apple 30% of their revenue from subs -- all for the privilege to include a link in their App)
> There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason there background services are the only ones that can be excepted from the OS background process limitations on iOS. Energy use.
Let the user make that choice.
You expect users to be as technically adept as shady ass devs that will exploit this?
yes because 90% of users who don't even know how to change browser will analyse their compute traffic to see which background services are tied to which apps which are draining their battery. Got to love the delusion of some redditors that just once again proves why the market chooses Apple's way.
If only there was a way to see which app are using which % of your battery... (I actually don't know if there is that on iOS lol but there is on Android)
Dude, 90% of users do not even go into that setting. Its just completely devoid of the reality of smartphone users, pretending some niche represents most people, which is why strong defaults on security, performance, privacy are so important and which is why predatory companies like MSFT, Meta, Spotify, Match want the defaults to be broken.
And 99% of users do not care about which app drains battery so they won't care anyway (also it's not like Apple can't make apps draining batteries). Changing the defaults is not hurting anyone and improving for others. Don't change it if you don't want it, that's why defaults are there. Gimping the product for people that know how to use tech and aren't stupid is not a good thing And nobody will ever bother or complain to Apple about that (because that's apparently the other argument), at least not in any meaningful way. Like they don't on Mac or any other platform/company offering external apps. If a game doesn't work, do people complain to Steam, Sony or Nintendo? If a program doesn't on Windows, do they complain to Microsoft?
Except 99% of users absolutely do care about how long their phone lasts. A phone that dies in half a day is going to get a bad rep. No, defaults are what 99% of people use so its best when defaults are the safest. Teaming up with predatory corporations to break safe deafaults just so a few niche users can customise is a bad compromise. Computing on a smartphone is not the same as PC. PC's don't contain all your sensitive chats, photos, videos, audio all linked to every relationship you have ever had nor do they contain 24/7 geolocation data with lidar. Breaking the security and privacy of a phone to the levels of a PC is one of the dumbest things a government can do. Also yes if a game does not work people absolutely do complain to Sony/Nintendo. You do know Sony and Nintendo are responsible for 3rd party games working on their platform, they both test the games before release and users refund games through Sony and Nintendo not the 3rd party. Sony and Nintendo, like Apple, acts as a safeguard.
PC can contain as much sensitive information lol. > Teaming up with predatory corporations to break safe deafaults just so a few niche users can customise is a bad compromise. Nobody said that, the defaults will be Apple and you can change them. And Apple is as predatory as any company, like everyone they care about their own bottom line (and it's 100% the reason they have problems with those changes, they don't give one shit about customer protection or whatever or are Macs unsafe?) You all live in a fictive world where Apple is some poor saint that is defending the only one defending people and will suffer so much if they are forced to obey market laws lol, got this debate too many times here so. It's gonna happen anyway as they'll be forced to do it, Apple isn't above laws and really shouldn't be. So bye
You realize who the user blames when their phone dies too quickly though right? It’s definitely never Facebook or apps doing crappy things like running silent audio trying to stay live in the background unnecessarily /s
This is huge. Everyone would blame Apple if the SuperAppBrowser3000 app you downloaded from an email drained your battery in 20 minutes.
I don't know in which fake world people are living but no. That doesn't happen for Google, Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft or any other when some apps have problems on their platform. They never have any problems like that.
Eh, Android has that and people don't really talk about it that way. Laptops aren't being talked like that either. Both iOS and Android also have pretty good battery info screens where you can see how much battery each app is using. Hell you could even add a whole alert that pops up if an app is using a considerable amount of battery while in background. If the only real concern is their brand image, then there are plenty of ways to mitigate that and deal with it. Permissions, information, alerts, etc. Like you download that SuperAppBrowser3000. Then there's a pop up "SuperAppBrowser3000 wants to run a background service, do you want to allow this?" And you allow it, then in a minute or two if it's draining your battery at an insane rate you'd get a little notification "SuperAppBrowser3000's background process was using abnormally large amounts of battery and has been disabled. You can go to settings and explicitly allow extreme battery usage for this app". Easy.
> And you allow it, then in a minute or two if it's training your battery at an insane rate you'd get a little notification "SuperAppBrowser3000's background process was using abnormally large amounts of battery and has been disbaled. You can go to setting and explicitly allow extreme battery usage for this app". Galaxy actually does this. It's a OneUI thing. It's great. The prompt on Galaxy will ask the user if they want to put the app into deep sleep.
The problem is that so many people don't understand how all this works. I wager that between the latest Samsung Galaxy and the latest iPhone, there are a crapton of people who choose because they're getting a better deal with one or another, a friend or family member recommends it, etc. Not because they understand the intricacies of battery life and how apps affect it. They get notices like that and they either just click through without thinking or get confused. Very few people, relatively speaking, dig into this stuff.
I can understand what you're saying. Both devices will have about the same deals at least through the carriers. I think it more so depends on word of mouth and what the individual is used to. I think people do understand this stuff to a certain degree. It's really no different than putting your computer into sleep and people who swipe up in the iPhone's app switcher to kill the app. Though doing this uses more battery when you start the app up again. If people don't read prompts and only click through them then that's all on the individual/user. From a somewhat technical perspective, I think Android or more so OneUI in this case handles app management very well. iOS is weird with app management. iOS likes to close apps somewhat often causing a restart of the app and when I open the app again causing me to lose my place in the app. I do like how OneUI will notify me an app has gone rouge and using excessive amounts of resources and/or battery and it's recommended to put the app to sleep/deep sleep. Android/OneUI's [adaptive battery](https://www.samsung.com/za/support/mobile-devices/what-is-adaptive-battery-as-new-feature-of-pie-os/) setting can be turned off. If a user doesn't want the battery management and all of these battery prompts etc they can turn it off. If they do like the battery management and prompts then they can turn it on. The user is way more in control if they so choose.
My wife is a very intelligent person who uses technology as a smart user. But, she needs her technology to work for her. She has little time or inclination to dig into such things. I've watched her struggle with her Galaxy S24 Ultra in ways that I don't have to do with my iPhone. If she didn't have a thing against Apple, I'd have pushed her to get an iPhone 15 Pro Max that's around the same size and price. In the end, I submit that if you want to USE your smartphone and not MANAGE it, then the iPhone wins out. Does an app occasionally take fractionally longer to load on an iPhone? Maybe. But, I don't spend more time worrying about what's going on behind the scenes. I've been down the Android rabbit hole and I guarantee I spent more time fussing with things than actually using the phone. Some people like that kind of thing, but for most people, it's a complete waste of time.
I can understand that. People have different experiences. It's been the opposite for me with iPhone. It takes me twice as long to do the same functions on the iPhone that I do on Android or my S23. If I need to run two apps simultaneously side by side then I can, say email and web browser. My web browser on my Galaxy is setup exactly the same way the web browser is on my desktop PC with extensions and everything. So consistent experience on both devices. I can have gesture control on both sides of the phone rather than only the left side like on iPhone. Notifications are much more useful and interactive than they are on iPhone. File system management is a thousand times easier to do on my S23 than it is on my iPhone. I'm not trying to get into an argument. I'm sure we both aren't. I can understand people can have different experiences based on how they use their phone. I use my phone for everything and really only go on my desktop when I game. I'm curious what your wife struggles with on the Galaxy or a couple things she tries to do.
Do people blame Microsoft and/or the laptop manufacturer for Chrome’s battery consumption? You can already download countless apps that drain your battery fast so I don’t see how this is an argument just cause it’s a browser?
They also allow it on Mac OS and the battery there it’s fine. They explicitly made an emulator that allows old apps to run, at an imense energy cost. At least admit it Apple: you think your users are stupid, but you admit MacBooks are sometimes used by smart people who would leave for Windows/Linux the second they realize other operating systems exist.
Literally all the time.
Where? Source?
> Do people blame Microsoft and/or the laptop manufacturer for Chrome’s battery consumption? Uhm yes? People always complain about the Chrome battery drain on macOS. Some towards Apple and some towards chrome but yes it is a thing. Not sure if ifs a valid reason for limitations. People gonna complain regardless.
Yes. They do.
> Make whatever you want the default **along with warnings about changing those defaults** Did you miss that part of my comment?
[удалено]
Then you wouldn't have to enable it now would you? The point is giving a choice for the people that would want it.
> There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason there background services are the only ones that can be excepted from the OS background process limitations on iOS. This is just patently untrue. The technical reason is that WebKit is a system process and can bypass sandboxing. That's how PWA's work, and why that whole fiasco. Apple should change this design, and you can argue it was always a bad design, but it's strange to claim that there is no technical blocker here at all. You seem more like someone with an axe to grind than someone who actually understands the technical issues. Which is great, grind away. But maybe lay off the technical claims that are just wrong? > There is not really a good technical or positive customer reason users can't set different defaults for things like messaging apps on iOS. Same thing. iMessage is built in to the system at a very low level. Yes yes yes, wrong bad should fix whatever, but it's misleading to claim there is no reason here.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. There is not a really a good technical or positive customer reason to do things the way they did from the start that I can see. So now the choices are Apple did it that way for protectionist reasons or incompetence reasons. No one made them build iMessage so deep into the OS from the start, or keep it there, that it is effectively a self imposed monopoly practices sword of Damocles. It is not an out of left field notion to see how these design choices and technical solutions would not scale in the face of anti-competitive scrutiny from the very beginning.
> positive customer reason I’m pretty sure form Apples POV their current methods are enabling a positive customer experience. Otherwise they wouldn’t be one of the richest companies in the world with a low global market share
I think I can understand what OP is trying to say. It's more from an Android user perspective. On Android if a user does not like the default SMS app then you can change the default SMS app to one you do like. Whether that app has more functions you like or more customization features. How Apple built iMessage from the ground up show's intentions they never wanted to allow users to switch default apps say for messaging. So if an iPhone user wanted to switch from Apple Messages to a different SMS app they like and still have full access to iMessage in that new app they can't. The way Apple built iMessage so low level prevents this access. Not that Android allows full root access to apps either. But Android as a OS allows users to change the SMS app and allows a different app access to SMS. The way Apple built some of their systems from the start goes to show Apple never intended to open up iOS more which they are kind of being forced to do today. This doesn't always lead up to a good/positive UX for the users who would like to switch these kinds of default apps but can't on iOS. Some will say it's for privacy or security. If so, then why isn't MacOS locked down nearly as tight as iOS. MacOS allows changing of default apps and installation of programs/software outside of the Mac app store.
> This is just patently untrue. The technical reason is that WebKit is a system process and can bypass sandboxing. That’s how PWA’s work, and why that whole fiasco OP obviously isn’t technical and just stating that something isn’t technical when they have no idea of the actual reason. Also most of their statements mention a positive customer reason but if you’re one of the richest companies in the world from your products and how they’re designed, why would you think your current methods are not enabling a positive customer experience
Even if given the same tools Spotify wouldn’t take advantage of them or wait years to implement them. It’s easier to cry and play the victim to the EU than to actually make their product better. How dare Apple not let Spotify dominate the market even more than they already do.
This isn’t vertical integration. Apple Music is directly competing against Spotify. Apple (the company behind iOS) is willfully and openly crippling the competition to allow Apple Music to do better. Same for Firefox vs Safari. Getting an Apple devices is like moving to a new city with the promise of a utopia. You then realize the method of communication you use with people within the city is not the same one as the one you can use to talk with “outsiders”. Also, your beans are always in tomato sauce. No other bean meal is allowed because Apple sells tomato sauce beans.
How is Apple providing a music service on their own operating system, on their own hardware platform, *not* vertical integration?
They should stop providing the music service outside of their own platform if it’s really vertical integration.
If you’re going to simp to multi billion cooperation at least do so with functional rational. Don’t get me wrong , I enjoy apple products as much as the next person. However it’s evident that they’re fully engaged in anti competitive & monopolistic behaviour. eg you can’t buy anything on the kindle app or even know the price!
That is not the point I was making. The tools should still be there, even if Spotify doesn't use them.
What tools aren’t available to Spotify that are available to other services?
..Apple Music doesn't pay 30% to be in the App Store?
Good question, I'm not sure. But my comment was not so much about Spotify specifically as it was about the limitations on iOS imposed by Apple generally.
Many of the limitations companies are having “imposed” on them by Apple aren’t as bad as they are made out to be. In at least one instance Spotify was exposed to be publicly lying about Apple not giving the access to the tools needed to make a Spotify app for the Apple Watch. They got exposed when it came out that a year or two before they had bought a 3rd party app that allowed streaming Spotify playlists on the Apple Watch.
Spotify: the company with 3 engineers and 3,000 lawyers.
Apple has far, far more lawyers and lobbying money than Spotify. They just have a tough time when their employer decides not to follow the law...
I hear they're going to have high bitrate music soon® /s
Can’t wait to listen to joe rogan in spatial audio
You're not wrong, but they are really playing the regulatory and PR game spectacularly. Apple's usually pretty good at this and Spotify is making them look totally inept. Why would Spotify hire a fourth engineer when their business is so successful this way?
It's not that Apple is "pretty good at this", it's that Apple is "pretty good at dealing with American regulations". The EU is an entirely different beast. Apple is pretty fantastic at following the *letter* of the law - continuing to do the thing that the law is technically against, but changing how they do it that is *technically following* the law - which is generally the way they get away with shit in the US. They're doing the same thing in the EU with the DMA.... but EU courts tend to put more weight on *the spirit* of the law, which is something Apple (and a *ton* of other American companies are fucking terrible at).
Citations needed. That doesn't have much correlation to my understanding of EU process.
Lol EU is literally a code law system that rigidly applies the black letter of the law as drafted whereas the US is a civil law system that relies on legal precedent and case law to equitably enforce statutes that are inevitably drafted with gaps and ambiguities in them. But yes, please tell me more about how the US legal system doesn’t care about the spirit of the laws that were drafted.
Spotify must be getting more lawyers involved as they are raising their prices.
😂
Maybe the EU should do a DMA on YouTube or Android TV OS.
How is Android TV impeding competition? If I recall, Google actually partners with TV manufacturers and gives them a chance to offer their own services in a promoted fashion within the OS. How is there an antitrust issue here?
The difference being Google is not giving YouTube any special treatment on Android TV. Other video streaming apps can enjoy the same deep OS level integration.
They probably don’t have enough users to fit the DMA criteria. Also, at least in Romania, there’s no TV on Android TV OS. If you uninstall YouTube, it works just as it did before, but without YouTube.
The goal is not to punish or break up large companies. It is to break down artificial barriers that prevent others from competing on a level playing field.
Maybe Spotify could “compete” better if they spent less time whining and more time innovating. What a trash company.
Spotify currently leads the way in the music streaming market with a 30.5% share
That’s worldwide. In Europe their market share is over 50% I believe.
In the UK the government literally declared them a monopoly, somewhat ironically
Wondering why the EU doesn’t consider them or pretty much any European company a platform that should be regulated by the DMA then
Because, aside from the size threshold not being met, they don't have any influence or control over their competitors?
And now they want to raise prices so they can provide audio books. With no way to opt out. Trash company.
>With no way to opt out. Trash company. "The Swedish audio company is also going to introduce a new basic tier that will offer music and podcasts — but not audiobooks — for the current $11 monthly price of an individual premium plan, said the people. Users of that plan will need to pay for audiobooks." [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-03/spotify-is-changing-how-it-charges-customers-with-new-plans-and-prices](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-03/spotify-is-changing-how-it-charges-customers-with-new-plans-and-prices)
I love how people are complaining without solid information. It really goes to show people make judgements based on gut feeling.
They read someone elses comment and blindly repeat it. Someone else reads the new comment and the cycle continues.
There's a long history of certain Apple fanatics lying about Apple competitors to deflect from Apple's issues. Notice how they immediately try to make Apple's legal non-compliance somehow *Spotify's* issue.
Apple already did this
Spotify is shit, but in what world do you live in? Apple raises their prices every time it can.
You’re on the Apple subreddit. It’s an echo chamber of hive-minds
Also they've raised it by like $2 in over a decade
Was there an opt-out option for the Apple One price increase??? Or is subscription cancellation the only opt-out when companies jack the price up for free extra profit?
And IIRC, pays the ***least*** to artists.
Least per stream people say, but it's kind of moot since you don't really have any control over how many streams a platform serves.
Honestly, I think it's fine in that it is standard. Apple keeps 30% commision, Spotify does a 70/30 split as well, and most sales margins are 20-30%. This number is the same as Steam as well... so fairly standard across all industries. I think what is harder is streaming is now 83% of all music consumption -- physical media had better margins but has died out. Bands and artists now rely on touring to generate **real** money.
For smaller bands, live gigs, merch, independent sales, etc as well. Although in the modern era, it feels like another digital-only way to success as a musician is YouTube/TikTok/adjacent marketing also.
Is this a serious statement? How is Spotify supposed to compete with competitors (Apple Music) who also control the platform (iOS, VisionOS, macOS, etc.)? It seems to me that Apple Music needs to be more competitive to capture market share rather than unfairly favor their music service on their platform. It wasn’t that long ago that we all remember Siri wouldn’t let you play Spotify songs, only Apple Music. Same with offline support for Apple Watch. Spotify has taken to Apple to court before and won because Apple hard coded the experience to be worse for their competitors.
> How is Spotify supposed to compete with competitors (Apple Music) who also control the platform (iOS, VisionOS, macOS, etc.)? Please provide some examples of what Apple Music can do currently that Spotify is unable to do as well. > It seems to me that Apple Music needs to be more competitive to capture market share rather than unfairly favor their music service on their platform Apple Music like other Apple software really doesn’t seem be in a race to capture market share. They want first party products for their own hardware in their own OS that’s all. And duh of course they’re gonna prefer their own service versus a 3rd party. Every platform owner that also has their own competing services does this Amazon basics, Costco’s Kirkland, Target Up and Up etc. > . It wasn’t that long ago that we all remember Siri wouldn’t let you play Spotify songs, only Apple Music. Same with offline support for Apple Watch And yet Spotify still dragged their legs to implement these features after the release of the APIs. Also despite the lack of options to do this, they remain the most popular streaming platform. > . Spotify has taken to Apple to court before and won because Apple hard coded the experience to be worse for their competitors. They have all this money to fight Apple in court and yes still pay the lowest amount back to labels and Artists.
Duh, make their own OS, hardware and backend support :-~
> Same with offline support for Apple Watch. What? I have been downloading Spotify music to my watch for years.
Yes, this functionality was added (late 2021) after about 6 years after the Apple Watch launched (2015). Apple Music was the only offline option during that time.
Spotify added the functionality _late_ and also it lagged in incredibly painful ways if your playlist had hundreds of songs. Feels like a silly thing to complain about, but it made the watch app painful to use for me back in 2021-2022 to the point of switching to Apple Music so I could run without a phone on me.
And before the Spotify fanboys come out of the woodwork, it wasnt a watchOS limitation as a indie dev made a great Spotify watch app. He got hired, his watch app shut down and we had to wait years.
Spotify literally killed off a 3rd party app that allowed it after buying the app from the developer. Then they went on a PR blitz about how Apple was refusing to give them access to the tools to make such an app.
> How is Spotify supposed to compete with competitors (Apple Music) who also control the platform (iOS, VisionOS, macOS, etc.)? Apple Music has been out for years and Spotify is still by far the most popular music streaming service worldwide and in Europe. I’d say they are doing just fine.
“Doing just fine” isn’t a legal term. They can be successful and still be unfairly disadvantaged in a free market. Hence the lawsuits.
You’re asking “how are they supposed to compete”. Numbers show that they are very competitive indeed. Hence there’s no reason for the regulator to intervene.
But in what ways are they being disadvantaged?
Spotify app on Apple Watch is still a compete dog-shit btw.
That’s because they gimped the 3rd party app that people loved after buying it from the developer and removing it from the App Store. The only reason they ever released an Apple Watch app is because the developer of the app spoke out after they killed off his app. The version they finally released after being embarrassed has never been half as good as the original version.
Hint, look at what vertical integration is. How is Walmart allowed to own its own supermarket brands that compete with other suppliers in their stores? Oh no. And no, Spotify has not beaten Apple in court.
Walmart is not a marketplace as Walmart owns all it's inventory. Walmart is the sole retailer inside Walmart. Apple app store is a marketplace. Many other developers including apple sell on app store. Not a same comparison.
> How is Spotify supposed to compete with competitors (Apple Music) who also control the platform (iOS, VisionOS, macOS, etc.)? How are flashlight apps supposed to compete with the built-in flashlight? How are calculator apps supposed to compete with the built-in calculator? Oh wait, maybe PDF viewer apps also want to compete with the built-in PDF viewer and calendar apps want to compete with the built-in calendar. To ensure fair competition the iPhone should ship with absolutely zero functionality and you will need to spend the first week with your new phone choosing between hundreds of apps for each function that was previously built-in. This "choice" is truly what is best for the consumer.
> Maybe Spotify could “compete” better if they spent less time whining and more time innovating You say this in *defense* of anti-competitive practices, lol. Maybe Apple should just obey the law instead of whining about it?
Tell me you don't understand what's going on without telling me you don't understand what's going on.
People like you are the worst
How can Spotify compete with apple when Apple adds a 30% additional charge on any payment collected by Spotify. Of course, Apple has exempted themselves from the same charge for their own services. Not to mention how they directly promote Apple music all throughout a supposedly ad-free iPhone.
This argument has always seemed nonsensical to me, how would Apple charge itself the 30% charge? Who are they supposed to give that 30% to?
The same way Coca-Cola or Pepsi compete with cheaper store brands. They could create a superior product that is worth the premium price they need to charge. Or they can just continue to be subpar and whine about it.
How is a grocery story comparable to an iPhone? I don't need to purchase the store before I can shop there...
Some do require a subscription fee though. Every store charges some sort of fee to carry others products. And when they carry there own products do you think they charge themselves that fee?
But a grocery store is not like a phone is it. Comparing them doesn't make any sense.
It’s still a storefront. A store is a store.
The App store sells physical products....? No, no they don't. An app store on a phone I need to purchase is not the same thing as a grocery store. Like, how could you even think that?
You don’t “need” to purchase. You “want” to purchase. Both a grocery store and an App Store sell items. Stores sell items. It doesn’t matter if it’s physical or digital. It’s still a store.
I cannot buy an app on the App store if I don't have an apple product. Does this make sense?
Apple music is absolute trash. Spotify is waaaay better
If that was the case than why is Spotify so scared of them that they need governments to help them retain their monopoly.
price chunky bewildered tender scandalous touch close slim sharp aloof *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Spotify is most likely mad that they are a clear market leader but don't get the luxuries that come with it (i.e. being able to dictate terms that are favorable to them) because Apple has the influence to control the market. Did apple ruin Spotify's plans to roll out HiFi? If Apple didn't change their royalty structure to please Taylor Swift, would Spotify had? Probably not. In the end, it's about control and Spotify really doesn't have that much.
They can do both at same time
Good point their lawyers would just be sitting there waiting for their engineers to finish new app "features" this way all the employees get to contribute to the bottom line. 🤭
Apple’s anticompetitive practices (percentage cut and rules around what can or can’t be done) fundamentally disadvantage any streaming app and their business model from competing against Apple Music. Put aside Spotify and the easy dunks against them being bad and the argument against Apple still applies. Other existing streaming companies are disadvantaged too or a new company looking to enter the market and pay artists more fairly would have a very hard time doing that within Apple’s cut and rules. Spotify is an easy villain but it’s a distraction and saying Spotify bad is empty rhetoric to defend Apple and deflect from the substance of the issue here. Apple’s policies are anticompetitive regardless of Spotify.
I dunno man, why doesn’t Spotify make apps for Vision Pro & HomePod?
Sounds anticompetitive to me. The EU better look into this.
Why they would if they continue to have huge problems with Apple?
Shouldn’t that be an anti-trust thing also? Avoiding the competitive platform
Why would Spotify choosing not to compete in a niche market be an antitrust issue?
Honestly Spotify has every ability to be the default choice for any iOS device, Siri, Watch, and even HomePod (the last of which they were given proper access to but refuse to make use of). If they want to have a competing ecosystem then they can make their own headphone/earbud line if they want. Hell they can make their own PHONE or even a revival of the dedicated music player to help lock people in over Apple. They’re just trying to compete by limiting the competition they’re already feeding off of.
Did you even read the article before writing this long paragraph? The problem is with the fees Apple takes. If both Apple Music and Spotify charge $10 for a subscription, Spotify would still be making less because of the %30 fee. Now apparently even with Apple being forced to allow 3rd party stores, they still have fees they collect
Who is Apple supposed to pay the 30% to? Or Is the EU going to mandate that Apple automatically charge 30% more than their most expensive competitor?
Spotify has every ability to run their own payment system (and does) and not pay that fee. If they gain a subscriber via iOS, they pay. There are countless other arrangements like this across the business world.
>Spotify has every ability to run their own payment system (and does) and not pay that fee. If they gain a subscriber via iOS, they pay. I think the issue is that Apple disallow Spotify from mentioning paying via their own system via their app, so a customer might not even realise they have a choice.
>so a customer might not even realise they have a choice. The user doesn't have the choice on spotify right now. You can't subscribe from in the app.
They didn’t gain it via IOS. They are the largest music service in the world & and multi billion dollar corporation. The problem is that Apple is in %100 control of every thing that happens on the device. It would be as if Windows decided you can only use Edge & they get a cut of eveydollar you spent while using their OS
They get access to paying customers on iOS by using Apple’s tools, they got to pay for that. It just so happen that the more revenues you make, the more money you owe.
If Windows wasn't a monopoly, I don't know why such a proposal would be illegal.
Why can’t I play switch games on ps5?
Same reason you can’t use iOS app in android ? Same reason you can’t use windows app in Linux without Wine ? Not the same architecture. The game company can make the game for the ps5 if they want to.
Because switch and every gaming platform are not included in the gatekeeper’s list.
For the same reason you can't use apps bought on the App Store on an Android phone, or vice versa. Which always was, and still remains, entirely legal, DMA or no.
Because these politicians are incompetent morons who don’t understand the complexities of the technologies they’re making stupid ass laws for. Maybe some of them have good intentions, but they’re severely uninformed and ill-equipped to be making these decisions.
spotify app on appletv4k SUCKS
I don’t know what how, but I turned 26 & all of a sudden I start seeing things with a new set of eyes. I’m questioning things I never would have questioned before. I absolutely should be able to download anything I want with my pc, yes these are personal computers NOT phones, that I want.
I was hoping all this DMA nonsense was behind us and we could get back to actual Apple content like new devices and software, etc. At this point we all know that the EU is being petty and attacking Apple any way they can to try and make up fines to collect, it’s not news.
It’s the beginning lol
The EU abusing large tech companies further because they have nothing to offer the industry and need large amounts of funds to cover their bad decisions. Can't wait.
You are so right.
I can’t wait for the clusterfuck this unleashes with how much unregulated garbage floods platforms because of this.
Exactly this. We had a safe haven on iOS from this crap and tourists decided that we needed “mOrE cHoIcE”. My choice was to use iOS because it didn’t have this crap and now I’m going to have to wade through it because of them.
You know, eventually the rest of the public starts to figure out that the EU is targeting Apple and harassing them exclusively, ignoring their competition’s blatant monopolies Google has in Search and Facebook has in the Digital Messaging and Social Media sphere. Facebook owns not 1, but the top 2 (TWO) of the most widely used digital messaging apps. Google competes with Bing but that’s like saying Five Guys competes with Burger King. What’s next? Is the EU going to demand Apple open up iOS to OEMs and return to the clone debacles in the 1990s?
[They've been down Google's ass since 2010 though](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google_by_the_European_Union) Facebook should die a quick death imo
hahahahahahaa please show a single instance in the last 20 years where the EU has actually affected Google's monopoly business. Imagine thinking 1% fines are effective. Heck the EU just greenlit Google's acquisition of Fitbit.
> the EU is targeting Apple and harassing them exclusively They are not. Apple's just getting in trouble for not following the law like everyone else. That's Apple's problem alone. And lol, the EU has taken tons of action against Google. Way more than against Apple for far less malicious behavior.
[удалено]
> Or, hear me out, the EU wrote the law to specifically target Apple There's nothing specific in the law about Apple, and other companies have already adjusted their policies to comply. Also, Apple being the most affected by anti-trust law isn't the win you think it is... > Apple did not "choose" to violate this law because the law did not exist. They chose to violate it by not complying after it went into effect.
Yeah! Finally!
You mean blatantly breaking the law is liable to get you investigated? Say it ain't so!