The App Store, Spotify, and Europe's thriving digital music market
apple.com
apple.com
Their PR / legal team acting like children when they don't get what they want is a genuine harm to their brand. It's amazing to me that these press releases are approved.
Their non compliance was impressive. They changed the website to ensure users wouldn't see the footer with the link without scrolling. Then they edited the notice's wording by adding paragraphs in the middle of it - and sentences in the middle of paragraphs.
I really think there's some Americanism behind it. Like, "we don't care what you foreign authorities think".
I don't know who these statements are for, aside from the most devoted Apple fans. I feel like investors would be happier with shorter, more professional communication.
He pulled some childish moves that the public found out about (Engadget being banned from reporting on Apple when a reporter wrote about an iPhone prototype they found in a bar or something is one of the next examples I can think of) but it wasn’t Apple officially behaving childishly in public.
In any case, most of the broad public is not really aware of these things at all. So I doubt it really tarnishes their image much.
It says a lot that the €100 developer fee (I'd imagine Spotify pay for multiple licences in multiple countries) that Apple consider it nothing. It probably is 'negligible' given the size of Spotify but also don't even consider highly popular apps like Spotify 'contributing' to App Store ecosystem that has also helped Apple.
Their press statements are starting to become more and more snarky. They would do better to keep their chin up and keep going. This sort of snark is more befitting of Ryanair than Apple.
The App Store is packed with apps because developers saw an opportunity and wanted to seize it. Everyone's in it because it serves their interests.
The iPhone released without an App Store. Their original plan was very clearly to limit it to web apps. Apple, including Steve Jobs, spent a lot of time and energy explaining why web apps were the best option.
And then Apple realized, largely through apps developed for jailbroken phones which led to a lot of people jailbreaking their phones, that for iOS to really succeed they needed apps.
Windows Phone 7 is another example of this. It was a superior OS to iOS by most measures. It died almost entirely because of the lack of major apps.
If major app providers (Google, Spotify, Netflix, etc) had never made their apps available on iOS and had made them available on Android instead iOS would probably be looking like Windows Phone 7 right now.
I'm torn in all of this because I'm not much of a fan of either company.
They literally do consider it nothing. I've talked to some of the devs that were responsible for implementing it and they consider it entirely a spam prevention measure. They determined that $100/account was a high enough bar to prevent people from creating hundreds of them and doesn't have the overhead of manual human ID verifications.
The most recent numbers I can can find is that there are 34 million registered devs which is a cool 3.4 billion ARR and that is 0.89% of their $380 billion revenue last year.
Apple's attitude towards developers complaining about App Store was largely "Deal with it" but seems like they themselves can't deal with it.
The solution is pretty simple, let people use the devices they own as they want; allow multiple app stores; allow people to download binaries and install on their devices.
What some people may not understand is that a large percentage of Apple customers are buying iPhones because of those restrictions and not in spite of them.
But more likely than not, people choose iPhone because everyone has an iPhone. People choose iPhone because when both parents have iPhones they buy their kids iPhones and then when their kids grow into young adults, well, they're already invested in the ecosystem to such a degree that it's impossible to get out.
More likely than not, they choose iPhone because iPhones are just what people think about when they think smartphone. Because Samsung phones seem "complicated".
I really doubt people even care about privacy and security. I mean, sure, if you ask them if they care they will say yes; because that's how polls work, no one wants to say they don't care and be judged. But if you were to ask people "why iPhone" I'd say the answer will be more on the lines of "because iPhone".
The modern world is made on marketing and Apple is the best company in the world at it.
Exactly. And why is it so?
Citation needed. Do you have polls or other consumer research to back this claim?
There's almost nothing you can do on an iPhone that you can't on an Android. Conversely, there are plenty of things that the more open Android platform allows that iOS doesn't.
And yet, despite all of that, some people still prefer to buy iPhones. I think it's their choice to make.
I switched because the iPhone does what I need it to do, and then gets out of the way. It works as I need it to with my Mac, and is for the most part intuitive and well thought out. I would prefer it if I could install what I wanted from where I wanted, but it's a price I'm willing to pay. And no, allowing me to do so would not undermine any of the value I've pointed out.
I bought an iPhone _despite_ the restrictions, not because of them.
That’s a hard claim to make. The “just works”, “gets out of your way”, nature is very much helped by a closed and restrictive ecosystem.
People said the exact same thing for decades for why they preferred Macs over Windows.
The Mac was an extremely open ecosystem.
That did not stop it from “just work”ing or “getting out of your way”.
Compared to iOS, the Mac is a complete mess, just ask any non technical user.
There's a reason why AppStores are a huge success in the mobile world and why few people dared to install anything on PCs and Macs.
1. This is false. There are plenty of features and apps (including my own apps!) that are exclusive to iPhone. iMessage and iCloud for example.
2. Products are not simply lists of features. There's also something important called design.
3. Don't forget vendor hardware support, software support, and resale value.
I can say, from a personal perspective, that I didn't buy an iPhone because it's vendor locked. I bought an iPhone because I'm a Mac user and developer, so I was already in the Apple ecosystem.
I suspect that there are a lot of people who buy an iPhone simply because their family and/or friends have iPhones already.
Essencial apps were made for Windows only back in 95-2005. Your only choice was emulation and there were no alternatives. It’s a completely different picture today.
2 and 3 are not relevant to monopoly claims.
So? The alternatives to iMessage and iCloud are different from them in a number of ways, just like iOS and Android are different in a number of ways. They're not identical alternatives.
> 2 and 3 are not relevant to monopoly claims.
We're not discussing monopoly claims. We're discussing why people buy iPhones.
Alternatives are not identical, by definition.
You see, in 95-2005 you couldn't compute without Windows. The vast majority of services not only assumed but relied upon you having Windows installed. There were no alternatives. Full stop. It's a completely different situation today.
> We're not discussing monopoly claims.
I am, and so is EU.
> We're discussing why people buy iPhones.
And why they are making a conscious choice, not being hostage by a monopoly.
Ok, so if you admit that the alternatives to iMessage and iCloud are not identical, it follows that people may have reasons for specifically preferring iMessage and iCloud to the alternatives, based on the differences that you admit exist. And again, iMessage and iCloud are iPhone-only features, so a preference for those Apple services would naturally make consumers prefer iPhones.
> I am, and so is EU.
By "We're not discussing monopoly claims", I meant specifically "We" as in you and me. I'm not discussing anything with the EU, because the EU doesn't comment on HN. My original reply to you was specifically about why people buy iPhones: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39591038
> And why they are making a conscious choice, not being hostage by a monopoly.
Yes? We're both already in agreement about that. The question is to what extent, if any, vendor lockdown of 3rd party apps drives iPhone sales.
You seem to want to claim that the only relevant difference for consumers between iPhones and Android phones is App Store lockdown, and that's simply not true. There are a bunch of relevant differences.
Ah, that wasn't clear to me.
Of course there are differences between the platforms, but not enough to justify legislation, IMO. Comparing current Apple to 95-2005 Microsoft is not useful. Mac and Linux users had to run Windows in one way or another to interoperate with the rest of the world in many situations back then. Not true for Android at all.
In my view, iPhone is a very complex device with a lot of features, consumers have many different reasons for buying them, and vendor lockdown of 3rd party apps is probably not at the top of most people's lists. I've actually never heard anyone cite that as the main reason. Here's a related question: how many iPhone owners have you heard say that they'll switch to Android if Apple allowed sideloading? How many European iPhone owners are saying it now, with the DMA changes forthcoming?
And the proof you ask for is in the popularity of the device. I've heard many times that even though it is more expensive, security and reliability are important enough to justify the purchase. I'm sure design, life-style brand/marketing play a role as well, but to much lesser extent, in my opinion.
I have actually never heard a non-dev request side loading, for example. I have heard a few younger, more tech savvy users, wanting to go crazy with home screen and skin customizations like you can with Android.
I find this admission very interesting. When presented with direct evidence of paternalism, everyone rejects it. Of course. As they should.
> Many, however, will concede that being more secure and stable is more important than side loading, if given a choice. I thought this reasoning was implied.
Where exactly do you think the security and stability are coming from?
For better or worse, iPhone apps are sandboxed. As a developer, I can sideload my own apps onto my own devices using Xcode, but those sideloaded apps are as sandboxed and locked down as any App Store app.
Even on the Mac nowadays, all apps have to go through an automated malware check (notarization) before distribution. And Apple's new distribution methods in the EU also require notarization.
Thus, the alleged advantage of the App Store can come only from manual review by humans. In my experience as an App Store developer, however, reviewers are, frankly, ignorant idiots. They're clueless. They don't know anything.
"In a deposition in the Epic lawsuit, Shoemaker said that the qualifications needed to get hired as an app reviewer were that a person “could breathe [and] could think.”" https://www.wired.com/story/apples-app-store-review-fix-fail...
Even if app reviewers were competent, which they aren't, they wouldn't have the time to do their jobs competently. According to Apple itself, "Every week, over 500 dedicated experts around the world review over 100K apps." https://www.apple.com/app-store/ If you think about it, 500 reviewers doing nothing but reviewing for 40 hours per week could spend no more than 12 minutes per app on average. That's not much of a defense against clever attackers who can intentionally hide things. And after all, Epic Games itself managed to get its non-compliant version of Fortnite through app review (presumably because there was a server-side switch that triggered the new payment system).
The point of app review can't be security. They're no good at security. They're certainly not security experts. In my experience, the point of app review is mainly to enforce Apple's arbitrary rules. The first rule, or commandment, is thou shalt not avoid Apple's revenue cut.
As a natural result of this mediocre at best app review, the App Store is full of scams. These scams cost Apple users a very large amount of money collectively. I'm dubious about whether the App Store is safer than the so-called "wild west" outside the App Store. As far as I can see, the App Store is a honeypot for scammers, because once you make it past app review, you're home free, and you can easily exploit App Store search keywords, buy some of Apple's convenient Search Ads to promote your scam, give your app plenty of fake ratings and reviews, and have Apple collect your payments for you, which Apple happily does after subtracting its cut of the scam. Any anonymous person anywhere in the world with $99 can submit their scam to the App Store, and they do. And Apple tells users that the App Store is safe, which does users a disservice and lowers their guard against the scams.
> And the proof you ask for is in the popularity of the device.
That's not proof. Why would I ask for proof of something that I already know, something that's a verifiable public fact? The iPhone is very popular, of course. Duh.
> I'm sure design, life-style brand/marketing play a role as well, but to much lesser extent, in my opinion.
I wasn't asking for your opinion. I was asking for proof, which you still haven't provided.
> I have actually never heard a non-dev request side loading, for example.
Of course not. They probably don't even understand what sideloading is technically, so they're neither in favor of it nor against it, hence proving my point that people don't buy iPhones because they disallow sideloading. But as you already admitted, nobody wants more restrictions on their own usage, and they might say as much if you could explain the technical issues in a way that they can understand. Moreover, users don't know what they're missing. Literally, they don't know what apps could exist but don't exist, because Apple's arbitrary rules outlaw the existence of those apps. Only the developers know that.
> I was asking for proof, which you still haven't provided.
And won't, since that's not public information. The best anyone can do is show that it sells like hot cakes.
Reliability doesn't come from sandboxing or notarization only. But from forbidden behavior, less rope for you to hang yourself with. I think that amounts to a much higher percentage of sales than the cool factor of simply attaching an Apple logo, but the precise amount is everyone's guess, of course.
> the precise amount is everyone's guess, of course.
When I asked "Do you have polls or other consumer research to back this claim?" you could have simply and honestly answered "No", saving us both a lot of wasted time and text.
> The best anyone can do is show that it sells like hot cakes.
This is a red herring. The fact that the iPhone sells, which everyone knows, doesn't explain why it sells.
What is the other major differentiation the iPhone has to justify being among 7 of the 10 most sold phones?
You may choose to only make assertions given Tim Cook’s spreadsheets, or you can choose to infer based on the data we have. You can also skip this thread if you think that’s just idle speculation, of course.
Even with the insane idiotic second hand Apple device prices, the refurbish shops are still going broke every time they show up, so I doubt it as good as people say.
IOW, is there any evidence that if the apps that are currently unavailable on iOS became available on iOS, iPhone sales would drop?
To my surprise, many people had a similar questioning like you did in this thread, so it's probably not as obvious as I imagined.
Please answer.
If Apple was the only viable platform, then absolutely, I don't want to live in a world where I can't hack with my devices. But when you have Android, I think it's actually better for the user that a more locked down platform also exists. It's a different model to choose from.
Also, "There are side effects to allowing third-party stores" - what is this bs??? Do I need to link to Steve Jobs presenting the iPhone saying iOS is based on MacOS? Have you use installed software on your Mac from outside the App Store?
Huh?? This is an extraordinary claim, given the plain fact that if someone really doesn't want apps from 3rd-party stores on their device, they could just, you know... not install any...?
Why should Apple have that much leverage? They didn't even "build the platform", they took an Open Source platform, put the Apple logo to it, and then proceeded to EEE like good old Microsoft.
Apple is in the wrong here, or they charge the Apple tax to music apps, or they have Apple music. They can't have both.
OTOH, I don't see Apple paying 30% of their revenue to the Open Source maintainers that made "the platform" possible.
But that's not the case. And Apple themselves know this as they charge premium prices for the brand alone.
If Apple drops their prices by 30% there's no guarantee that it would "destroy spotify" at all. For one, no one on android would think of switching to apple music anyway, the concept just seems so foreign. Second, Spotify is winning the marketing/cultural battle with their wrapped. It might sound silly but the advertisement feature of Spotify wrapped is worth a lot of money.
So what's more likely to happen if Apple drops the price? Well, I'd say they'd be locked into a PR nightmare everytime they need to raise prices because there's a precedent that the service is cheaper. They wouldn't really gain significant market share against Spotify and they would just end up leaving money on the table.
In these things, price is a component of the decision that is made, it's not really the deciding factor. Not to mention that a significantly lower price also signals "worse quality" to costumers. People might easily go "Spotify costs 3 dollars more because it is worth 3 dollars more". Because people will try to justify higher prices with higher quality even when that's not the case.
Apple owes their existence to the Open Source maintainers the same way Apple claims I owe my existence to their proprietary APIs.
If the people who explicitly stated “feel free to use my software for free for any purpose you see fit” feel entitled to get any money for the stuff they wrote, they shouldn’t have said that, and, I expect, Apple would have used something else.
Writing a halfway decent OS kernel isn’t that hard, and performance-wise, you don’t really need more than halfway decent).
Also, Apple paid for many of the higher layers of iOS and/or developed them in-house (NeXT wrote NeXTSTEP, Apple bought NeXT, and then spent years before releasing Mac OS X)
(sorry for the sarcasm)
It's rather obvious that problems started when Apple decided to build a services business the size of a F100 company by directly and unfairly competing with said developers, unchained from all the constraints and costs they impose on them.
If so, don't ask me to pay $99 every year for installing my own app on a device I bought.
Apps signed with a free developer account are severely limited with a short validity period and Apple enforces a limit on the number of apps that could be installed this way on a device.
> We’ve even flown our engineers to Stockholm to help Spotify’s teams in person.
Some level playing field. Apple certainly hasn't flown any engineers to my town.
No Apple, you deliberately cripple the competition all the time — especially with music — and you're getting what you deserve.