Spotify, Tile, and Match Group call Apple anticompetitive at Senate hearing

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    What a bunch of whiny _______,
    if they had vision they’d have riches. 
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 36
    Daniel Ek (Spotify) gets a comfortable share of the cash that should have remained in the pockets of the performers of music. There are piles of guitars and other instruments for sale by musicians that cannot perform live due to Covid 19, and while Spotify keeps the dole of streaming, the performers are struggling seriously. 

    Spotify relies heavily on the performers AND the iPod technology, and what Daniel Ek is about grabbing as much as he possibly can out of the performers pockets.

    Fair and just is not a part of the equation by any means.

    His wife's hobby is real estate, and her latest project, one of the most expensive sheds ever in the Stockholm area of Sweden will probably cost around 90-100 mill USD when completed with lots of cash (and seriously bad taste judging from previous projects). 

    https://www.expressen.se/tv/nyheter/dina-pengar/spotify-grundaren-har-kopt-halvo-for-halv-miljard/

    I´m considering a crowdfunding project to ensure Daniel Ek has food on his table, as I'm not even sure he's got a decent yacht, poor man. The few dollars he's got is hard to reach as he tend to stay in Stockholm and Manhattan, and the few dollars he got are well hidden in Malta and Cyprus. I completely agree with him: Poor billionaires should not pay taxes where they live.

  • Reply 23 of 36
    I do not understand where all this can lead. 

    Are they are saying that Apple has now gotten too big to be able to release new products? Surely by that definition the big movie studios like WB, Disney etc should also stop making movies as they are stopping the independent movie makers from releasing movies as well? 

    (I totally understand this is like comparing Apples and Lemons, but more for the thought process of where would the line be drawn, if ever, with government interference in a companies decision in making new devices).
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 36
    If you create a product knowing that you don't have access to an API that would make it better and that Apple could release a product that did have access to the API, then you know from the start that your product could have a limited time frame for making money. I don't see how that's abusive on Apple's part. IMO, the abusive situation would be for Apple to remove access to an API in order to launch their own product, not use an API that has never been available to anyone else. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 36
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,428member
    n2itivguy said:
    mjtomlin said:
    Spotify would be better if their app wasn’t so clunky compared to Apple Music. 

    Well that's only because Apple is yet again being anticompetitive, because they have a monopoly over the iOS user interface and can take advantage of their UI designers.
    Sshhh, you’re letting your ignorance show. 

    See below.

    dewme said:
    mjtomlin said:
    Spotify would be better if their app wasn’t so clunky compared to Apple Music. 

    Well that's only because Apple is yet again being anticompetitive, because they have a monopoly over the iOS user interface and can take advantage of their UI designers.
    I assume this is sarcasm. 

    Seriously!? Of course that comment was sarcasm!

    I guess I assumed people would've got the complete ridiculousness of the comment? My bad.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 36
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,428member

    dpkroh said:
    Everyone here claiming Apple is right, boo hoo for the others, does not understand the differences between capitalism, competition, and free markets.  They are aso poor students of 20th century American history and the incomparable prosperity of the mid 20th century, that is no more.  That prosperity only happened once the government started breaking up large companies and monopolies.  Apple, Google, FaceBook, and the like are the "Robber Barrons" of the 21st century.  Real prosperity can only return when the government does what it did post WWII. Take down and break up the robber barons to restore free markets and completion, and restore equitable (not equal but equitable) wealth distribution.

    Capitalism and competition are NOT the same same. The goal of capitalism is profit maximization. That goal is ultimately incompatible with competition.  Profit maximization, unbridled, has the ultimate goal of destroying all current and future competition, to forever protect its monopoly at all costs. 

    Equal access competition a.k.a. truly free markets are the true drivers of innovation and prosperity.  Capitalism is simultaneously the best tool to maximize productivity, and simultaneously the greatest threat to the same, when left unmanaged.

    Free markets and competition are good for everyone, except for greed maxing capitalists.  Any capitalist that has amassed enough power or wealth to bully competition, no longer sees competition and free markets as beneficial.  They see competition and free markets as a threat to their dominance. 

    The greatest expansion of wealth in American history, occurred just after WWII, when the government went after big corporations and broke them up.  Everyone won.  Wealth was spread far more evenly and equitable and more wealth was generated than when a few big corporations controlled all.

    Now we are back to a few big corporations controlling almost everything, especially in technology.  I'm always amazed at how easy it is to train the vast majority of people to act against their own self interest.  That's the most effective and insidious form of power there is.  That is the sort of control that the system has against everyone here cheering on Apple, Google, and the like, while denigrating the others.  it's just like the first line of the chorus of the song "Banditos" by "The Refreshments".   Everybody knows the world is full of "them".


    First of all, what exactly does Apple control? Their own products, that's it. They do not control what a 3rd party can and cannot not do outside of their ecosystem. apple is not a monopoly. 3rd parties have other, larger platforms they can choose to target products for.

    Second, The App Store is not a free market. iOS is a proprietary, closed platform. Not only do you have to agree to Apple's terms to develop apps, you have to join their developer program and pay them if you want to distribute those apps. Let's not forget, it is was developers that begged Apple to open the iPhone, not the other way around.
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 36
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,617member
    Ok, I’ll be the devil’s advocate and assume “Apple’s App Store is a monopoly and should be taken away from them or broken up.” 

     Now I’ll pose this question: What should we replace the App Store with that would: 

     1) Not result in any loss in service quality or performance 
     2) Maintain market accessibility to small developers with limited resources 
    3) Deliver an equal or better level of protection from malware, smut, security breaches, privacy breaches, and criminality
    4) Provide global access to billions of customers 24x7x365 
    5) Have unbiased oversight and vetting of store content 
    6) Demonstrate at least a 2-nines level of high availability 
    7) Be self sustaining without unduly burdening customers or developers (time, effort, and money) 
    8) Have zero cost to taxpayers across the board 
    9) Fairly and equitably compensate Apple for its investment to-date 

    Blowing things up and blowing smoke are easy. Politicians and courts are extremely adept at doing those kinds of things on a daily basis. Heck, we’ve blown up entire countries, leaving them a smoldering mess and in total chaos.

    Creating things and coming up with remedies that set things straight are massively difficult, so I eagerly await hearing about such solutions that free us from “Apple’s evil grip.”
    edited April 22 patchythepiratemuthuk_vanalingamBombdoeBeatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 36
    tommikeletommikele Posts: 456member
    mjtomlin said:
    Spotify would be better if their app wasn’t so clunky compared to Apple Music. 

    Well that's only because Apple is yet again being anticompetitive, because they have a monopoly over the iOS user interface and can take advantage of their UI designers.
    So you suggest Apple let developer control the iOS user interface? Laughable and absurd.
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 36
    Capitalism is about making great products and services and letting the market sort it out. 

    Asking the government to hurt your competitors just because they’re beating you is communism. 

    Just stop already. And make better products. 

    Apple has a right to branch out into as many markets as they want. And we have the right to buy their stuff instead of yours. 
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 36
    Capitalism is about making great products and services and letting the market sort it out. 
    Asking the government to hurt your competitors just because they’re beating you is communism. 
    No. Its not.
    Communism is when the government (the communists want to get entirely rid of the idea of "a state") owns and control all production and production facilities and the citizens are provided with what they need, not what they want. A communist will contribute to his/hers society in accordance with his/hers ability. With communism there would not be any competitors to beat.

    Capitalism as system does not at all prevent guidelines, systems and laws that ensures competition is fair. The concept of capitalism is traced back to the Arabs and absorbed by de Medici++ The term capitalism origins from the same source as communism - Marx and Engels.

    What you are defining as capitalism is a "misconception" of Darwin. Social Darwinism. 


    edited April 22
  • Reply 31 of 36
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 787member
    mjtomlin said:
    Spotify would be better if their app wasn’t so clunky compared to Apple Music. 

    Well that's only because Apple is yet again being anticompetitive, because they have a monopoly over the iOS user interface and can take advantage of their UI designers.
    They don't have any monopoly over their interface. Anyone can use it and in fact Apple has reams of documents showing how to use it. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 36
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,180member
    Any business that builds on top of someone else's platform or technology is vulnerable. That's why Apple likes to own its core technologies. A lot of these companies clearly don't understand this fact.
    Exactly! You can build on it as long as you keep innovating and don’t get comfortable. 
    Beats
  • Reply 33 of 36
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,180member
    dpkroh said:
    Everyone here claiming Apple is right, boo hoo for the others, does not understand the differences between capitalism, competition, and free markets.  They are aso poor students of 20th century American history and the incomparable prosperity of the mid 20th century, that is no more.  That prosperity only happened once the government started breaking up large companies and monopolies.  Apple, Google, FaceBook, and the like are the "Robber Barrons" of the 21st century.  Real prosperity can only return when the government does what it did post WWII. Take down and break up the robber barons to restore free markets and completion, and restore equitable (not equal but equitable) wealth distribution.

    Capitalism and competition are NOT the same same. The goal of capitalism is profit maximization. That goal is ultimately incompatible with competition.  Profit maximization, unbridled, has the ultimate goal of destroying all current and future competition, to forever protect its monopoly at all costs. 

    Equal access competition a.k.a. truly free markets are the true drivers of innovation and prosperity.  Capitalism is simultaneously the best tool to maximize productivity, and simultaneously the greatest threat to the same, when left unmanaged.

    Free markets and competition are good for everyone, except for greed maxing capitalists.  Any capitalist that has amassed enough power or wealth to bully competition, no longer sees competition and free markets as beneficial.  They see competition and free markets as a threat to their dominance. 

    The greatest expansion of wealth in American history, occurred just after WWII, when the government went after big corporations and broke them up.  Everyone won.  Wealth was spread far more evenly and equitable and more wealth was generated than when a few big corporations controlled all.

    Now we are back to a few big corporations controlling almost everything, especially in technology.  I'm always amazed at how easy it is to train the vast majority of people to act against their own self interest.  That's the most effective and insidious form of power there is.  That is the sort of control that the system has against everyone here cheering on Apple, Google, and the like, while denigrating the others.  it's just like the first line of the chorus of the song "Banditos" by "The Refreshments".   Everybody knows the world is full of "them".
    Apple’s store is just that, a store and they make better products. It’s not their fault that other companies don’t. Every product they make is a 4-7 year process requiring hundreds of employees and multiple teams.

    Apple has every right to control their platform that they are spending billions to maintain and support. They allow these companies access to tools and their customer base in ways they really don’t have to. These companies get rich off Apple’s work and then get greedy and forget how they got there.
    edited April 23 Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 36
    kkqd1337kkqd1337 Posts: 343member
    Well….

    why not let tile use the findmy infrastructure?

    and does Apple run music as an entity and Pay 30% fees for Apple Music too?
  • Reply 35 of 36
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,337member
    kkqd1337 said:
    Well….

    why not let tile use the findmy infrastructure?

    and does Apple run music as an entity and Pay 30% fees for Apple Music too?

    Tile can use it already. They had access to Find My before AirTags released.

    Apple developed Find My for everyone. They didn’t have to do this as Apple owes 3rd parties NOTHING. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 36
    vvswarupvvswarup Posts: 333member
    dpkroh said:
    Everyone here claiming Apple is right, boo hoo for the others, does not understand the differences between capitalism, competition, and free markets.  They are aso poor students of 20th century American history and the incomparable prosperity of the mid 20th century, that is no more.  That prosperity only happened once the government started breaking up large companies and monopolies.  Apple, Google, FaceBook, and the like are the "Robber Barrons" of the 21st century.  Real prosperity can only return when the government does what it did post WWII. Take down and break up the robber barons to restore free markets and completion, and restore equitable (not equal but equitable) wealth distribution.

    Capitalism and competition are NOT the same same. The goal of capitalism is profit maximization. That goal is ultimately incompatible with competition.  Profit maximization, unbridled, has the ultimate goal of destroying all current and future competition, to forever protect its monopoly at all costs. 

    Equal access competition a.k.a. truly free markets are the true drivers of innovation and prosperity.  Capitalism is simultaneously the best tool to maximize productivity, and simultaneously the greatest threat to the same, when left unmanaged.

    Free markets and competition are good for everyone, except for greed maxing capitalists.  Any capitalist that has amassed enough power or wealth to bully competition, no longer sees competition and free markets as beneficial.  They see competition and free markets as a threat to their dominance. 

    The greatest expansion of wealth in American history, occurred just after WWII, when the government went after big corporations and broke them up.  Everyone won.  Wealth was spread far more evenly and equitable and more wealth was generated than when a few big corporations controlled all.

    Now we are back to a few big corporations controlling almost everything, especially in technology.  I'm always amazed at how easy it is to train the vast majority of people to act against their own self interest.  That's the most effective and insidious form of power there is.  That is the sort of control that the system has against everyone here cheering on Apple, Google, and the like, while denigrating the others.  it's just like the first line of the chorus of the song "Banditos" by "The Refreshments".   Everybody knows the world is full of "them".

















    It sounds like you believe that big corporations in itself is a bad thing, and I fully respect your opinion. However, I disagree. I believe that in addition to whether a corporation is big, how that corporation came to be big and/or be the dominant player in the market is an important consideration. To me, there is a big difference between a corporation that makes a better mousetrap and a corporation that prices its competitors out of the market and then jacks up its prices after everyone else goes out of business. 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.