Head EU antitrust regulator wants Apple to allow alternate app stores

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 83
    opinionopinion Posts: 14member
    As I got it Vestager has taken Spotifys side in this. Well then, force Spotify to let other companies and organisations to distribute music on Spotifys platform without paying them and let users pay directly to the artists instead. 
    edited June 11 watto_cobra
  • Reply 62 of 83
    temperortemperor Posts: 46member
    When EU blocked MS to install IE as the default browser, we got another "monopoly" in it's empty spot, Google with Chrome and look who is dominating the Search space ... Our privacy would have probably been better of 10 times under MS, who knows ...
    Dogperson
  • Reply 63 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,254member
    Japhey said:

    My history is a little rusty, but didn’t Europe fight a World War to defeat socialism? How the hell did we get to this point?
    Very rusty!
    baconstang
  • Reply 64 of 83
    KTRKTR Posts: 121member
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    That's the right thing, users should be able to choose.
    I don't think it would harm Apple really hard, but it would bring freedom to the platform.
    When Apple allows third party app stores, it could be done with maintaining the iOS security model (only app review is done by another company).
    Users should be able to choose their gatekeepers? That's rich.
    You'd think Epic would go after Xbox and PlayStation walled gardens in court, but nah, why do that when they can tap into the wellspring of animosity from people who wish Apple just used Android?
    It seems like people want to make money from apple products, but they don’to see apple succeed 
    edited June 11
  • Reply 65 of 83
    “The chief of the European anti-trust commission, Margrethe Vestager, wants Apple to allow alternate app stores“

    And I WANT someone to GIVE me a winning Lotto ticket!! /s
    Where do these brainiacs get these stoopid ideas???
  • Reply 66 of 83
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,286member
    gatorguy said:
    escan said:
    As I wrote under another headline, I will start trusting European commission when they do something about Spotify, which is clearly a monopoly that uses its market power to pay artists less than half of what its competitors pay. 
    It total I think I'd read that Spotify pays out as much or more than Apple Music. How's that? As I remember it (IIRC) they have many more users so that while on a per-subscriber basis they are lagging behind some others they end up actually paying out more overall. 
    Here's a breakdown.

    https://www.imore.com/apple-music-pays-more-stream-any-other-major-service

    Simply put. (in 2019)

    Spotify accounts for 44.5% of the total streaming revenue and consumes 22% of the total streams.

    Apple accounts for 25% of total streaming revenue but only consumes 6.5% of the total streams.

    Spotify has over 355M users with 155M paid subscribers and 150M users on their free tier (with ads) and Apple has 70M paid subscribers. 

    If I recollect, one of the reason that Spotify lags way behind Apple in pay out per stream is because about 50% of Spotify users are streaming music for free (with ads) and Spotify only pay out a percentage of what they receive in advertising revenue on those streams. Spotify has 2x as many free users as Apple has paid subscribers. The music labels are subsidizing Spotify free tier of 150M users. 

    But the biggest lagger by far, is Google. YouTube accounts for just 6% of the total streaming revenue but consumes a massive 51% of the total streams. 


    edited June 11
  • Reply 67 of 83
    killroykillroy Posts: 129member
    darkvader said:
    Good.

    It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone.  I should be able to load apps from any source I choose.

    And when the app bricks your phone, don't expect Apple to honor the warranty.
    edited June 11
  • Reply 68 of 83
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,020member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    escan said:
    As I wrote under another headline, I will start trusting European commission when they do something about Spotify, which is clearly a monopoly that uses its market power to pay artists less than half of what its competitors pay. 
    It total I think I'd read that Spotify pays out as much or more than Apple Music. How's that? As I remember it (IIRC) they have many more users so that while on a per-subscriber basis they are lagging behind some others they end up actually paying out more overall. 
    Here's a breakdown.

    https://www.imore.com/apple-music-pays-more-stream-any-other-major-service

    Simply put. (in 2019)

    Spotify accounts for 44.5% of the total streaming revenue and consumes 22% of the total streams.

    Apple accounts for 25% of total streaming revenue but only consumes 6.5% of the total streams.

    Spotify has over 355M users with 155M paid subscribers and 150M users on their free tier (with ads) and Apple has 70M paid subscribers. 

    If I recollect, one of the reason that Spotify lags way behind Apple in pay out per stream is because about 50% of Spotify users are streaming music for free (with ads) and Spotify only pay out a percentage of what they receive in advertising revenue on those streams. Spotify has 2x as many free users as Apple has paid subscribers. The music labels are subsidizing Spotify free tier of 150M users. 

    But the biggest lagger by far, is Google. YouTube accounts for just 6% of the total streaming revenue but consumes a massive 51% of the total streams. 


    Things have changed significantly since 2019, including the amount of revenue Youtube/Youtube Music contributes. Look for more recent stats, some of them published this year.  

    EDIT: I don't think you know where to look based on your earlier post, so I looked for you. Confirm with Ditto if you'd like:

    For 10K streams this is the payout for a selection of music services

    Spotify: $43.20
    Tidal; $125.00
    Apple Music: $73.50
    Deezer: $67.60
    YouTube Music: Also $67.60
    Amazon Music; $40.20

    - In essence, there is little difference between the payout from Apple, Deezer, and YouTube.
    - Per subscriber, Tidal is far ahead of any of them, not even close. 
    - Spotify and Amazon are relatively close to one another.
    - Based on the number of subscribers it would certainly appear that in total Spotify is paying out more than any of the others even if the per stream is lower.

    Fun Fact: YouTube Music is currently the fastest growing music streaming service among these players.
    https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/lyor-cohen-youtube-music-is-the-fastest-growing-subscription-service-out-there/
    edited June 11
  • Reply 69 of 83
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,547member
    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: in my opinion that would be no issue at all. Of course, provided that third party stores
    - ensure Following Apple’s guidelines,
    - review apps,
    - ensure server uptimes and speed,
    - pay Apple for _anything_ where that store uses Apple’s resources,
    - contributes to the App meta store run by Apple (we need one store front similar to the TV app, such that consumer experience is not harmed,

    Then let’s see them compete.
  • Reply 70 of 83
    sdbryansdbryan Posts: 345member
    Japhey said:
    and perhaps in the next 100 years, get some kind of global tax authority in place.”



    My history is a little rusty, but didn’t Europe fight a World War to defeat socialism? How the hell did we get to this point?
    I think your history is a bit more than rusty. If you are speaking of WW II the losers were the fascists (Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, …) to the Allies which included the USA, England, and others including the Soviet Union. That’s right, the USA and Soviet Union were (uncomfortably) allies in the defeat of Fascism. As for socialism most countries of in the EU have significant elements of socialism as does the USA (social security, medicare, etc.).
    baconstang
  • Reply 71 of 83
    ZeeblerZeebler Posts: 19member
    rob53 said:
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    That's the right thing, users should be able to choose.
    I don't think it would harm Apple really hard, but it would bring freedom to the platform.
    When Apple allows third party app stores, it could be done with maintaining the iOS security model (only app review is done by another company).
    Wrong on so many counts. No other iOS App Store would be as secure as Apple’s, plain and simple. 99% of Apple product users want consistency which would not be there with third-party app stores. Think about them instead of yourself. People who visit this forum generally aren’t normal users and it’s our responsibility to look out for them. 
    I rolled my eyes so hard on your post they nearly fell out. 
    Please explain how my Adobe software, Extensis, and myriad of other software on my Macs aren't safe or secure? I didn't buy them from the App Store. No problems 30 years running. Please, I look forward to your explanation? 
    Are you saying that iOS is extremely vulnerable and not capable of any security?
    Are you saying Apple doesn't know how to write a proper OS? 

    It's called choice and free-market. They aren't asking Apple to close down their App Store. They are proposing alternative app stores - like how things have always been without monopolies. 

    I don't think you have an argument and you know it. 


  • Reply 72 of 83
    killroykillroy Posts: 129member
    Zeebler said:
    rob53 said:
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    That's the right thing, users should be able to choose.
    I don't think it would harm Apple really hard, but it would bring freedom to the platform.
    When Apple allows third party app stores, it could be done with maintaining the iOS security model (only app review is done by another company).
    Wrong on so many counts. No other iOS App Store would be as secure as Apple’s, plain and simple. 99% of Apple product users want consistency which would not be there with third-party app stores. Think about them instead of yourself. People who visit this forum generally aren’t normal users and it’s our responsibility to look out for them. 
    I rolled my eyes so hard on your post they nearly fell out. 
    Please explain how my Adobe software, Extensis, and myriad of other software on my Macs aren't safe or secure? I didn't buy them from the App Store. No problems 30 years running. Please, I look forward to your explanation? 
    Are you saying that iOS is extremely vulnerable and not capable of any security?
    Are you saying Apple doesn't know how to write a proper OS? 

    It's called choice and free-market. They aren't asking Apple to close down their App Store. They are proposing alternative app stores - like how things have always been without monopolies. 

    I don't think you have an argument and you know it. 



    Mac app store is not same as the iOS app store. Pro apps for the Mac and Mac Pro are loaded differently.
  • Reply 73 of 83
    maccamacca Posts: 22member
    sdw2001 said:
    Apple should tell them to go screw, preemptively.  These bureaucrats are unreal.  “We think this should be the way Apple runs things.  Make it so!”   I’d love to see Apple *really* use it’s dominant position. Issue a statement in response saying “If such requirements are implemented, Apple will strongly consider ending all business in the European Union.”   
    We did in the U.K. so hopefully Apple will as well
  • Reply 74 of 83
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,829member
    macca said:
    sdw2001 said:
    Apple should tell them to go screw, preemptively.  These bureaucrats are unreal.  “We think this should be the way Apple runs things.  Make it so!”   I’d love to see Apple *really* use it’s dominant position. Issue a statement in response saying “If such requirements are implemented, Apple will strongly consider ending all business in the European Union.”   
    We did in the U.K. so hopefully Apple will as well
    You can hope but it won't happen. Too much 

    As for the UK ending all business with the EU. Where did you get that idea. All I keep reading about is how UK businesses with EU customers are simply opening operations inside the EU.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55786974
  • Reply 75 of 83
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,286member
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    escan said:
    As I wrote under another headline, I will start trusting European commission when they do something about Spotify, which is clearly a monopoly that uses its market power to pay artists less than half of what its competitors pay. 
    It total I think I'd read that Spotify pays out as much or more than Apple Music. How's that? As I remember it (IIRC) they have many more users so that while on a per-subscriber basis they are lagging behind some others they end up actually paying out more overall. 
    Here's a breakdown.

    https://www.imore.com/apple-music-pays-more-stream-any-other-major-service

    Simply put. (in 2019)

    Spotify accounts for 44.5% of the total streaming revenue and consumes 22% of the total streams.

    Apple accounts for 25% of total streaming revenue but only consumes 6.5% of the total streams.

    Spotify has over 355M users with 155M paid subscribers and 150M users on their free tier (with ads) and Apple has 70M paid subscribers. 

    If I recollect, one of the reason that Spotify lags way behind Apple in pay out per stream is because about 50% of Spotify users are streaming music for free (with ads) and Spotify only pay out a percentage of what they receive in advertising revenue on those streams. Spotify has 2x as many free users as Apple has paid subscribers. The music labels are subsidizing Spotify free tier of 150M users. 

    But the biggest lagger by far, is Google. YouTube accounts for just 6% of the total streaming revenue but consumes a massive 51% of the total streams. 


    Things have changed significantly since 2019, including the amount of revenue Youtube/Youtube Music contributes. Look for more recent stats, some of them published this year.  

    EDIT: I don't think you know where to look based on your earlier post, so I looked for you. Confirm with Ditto if you'd like:

    For 10K streams this is the payout for a selection of music services

    Spotify: $43.20
    Tidal; $125.00
    Apple Music: $73.50
    Deezer: $67.60
    YouTube Music: Also $67.60
    Amazon Music; $40.20

    - In essence, there is little difference between the payout from Apple, Deezer, and YouTube.
    - Per subscriber, Tidal is far ahead of any of them, not even close. 
    - Spotify and Amazon are relatively close to one another.
    - Based on the number of subscribers it would certainly appear that in total Spotify is paying out more than any of the others even if the per stream is lower.

    Fun Fact: YouTube Music is currently the fastest growing music streaming service among these players.
    https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/lyor-cohen-youtube-music-is-the-fastest-growing-subscription-service-out-there/
    You are confusing YouTubeMusic with Google Play Music. Google Play Music pays out $67.60 per 10K stream But YouTube only pays out $6.90 per 10K stream, using the same metrics. 

    That's because while Google Play Music pays out a certain percent of their subscription revenue, YouTube Music has a free tier and revenue mainly comes from ads and Google pays out a percent of their advertising revenue.

    Here's the calculator. Notice that both Google Play Music and Youtube Music are listed.

    https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-services-pay-musicians/ ;

    But Google Play Music is gone. Google merged it with YouTube Music. So that $67.60 per 10K number you listed is way off. That number was for Google Play Music before they merged with YouTube Music. There's no way that that number is accurate after the two merged.

    There are over 1.9B monthly users streaming music on YouTube Music but there are only about 30M paid subscribers (Both Music and Premium). With close to 2B consumers streaming music with Google, Google should easily be the streaming service that contributes the most (dollar wise) toward the artist royalties. But they are not. That's because 1.6B consumers streaming from Youtube Music every month, are streaming for free (with ads). Royalty payout from ad revenue is not nearly as much as from paid subscription. Which is why Google Play Music was able to payout $67.60 per 10K stream and YouTube Music was only able to payout $6.90 per 10K stream. Even though YouTube Music consumes over 50% of the total streams. 

    https://musically.com/2020/11/17/youtube-now-has-more-than-2bn-monthly-music-users/

    If google grows their subscription base, that good for the artist. But if Google grows their free base (with ads), that not nearly as good. It might be better than nothing, but not by much. As the $6.90 per 10K stream with YouTube Music vs the $67.60 per 10K stream with Google Play Music, would indicate. 

    But i will venture to say that Google probably makes more profit from their free base streaming, than from subscribers. Only because Google is best at what they do ... getting paid to place targeted ads. 





      
    edited June 12 tht
  • Reply 76 of 83
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,286member
    Zeebler said:
    rob53 said:
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    That's the right thing, users should be able to choose.
    I don't think it would harm Apple really hard, but it would bring freedom to the platform.
    When Apple allows third party app stores, it could be done with maintaining the iOS security model (only app review is done by another company).
    Wrong on so many counts. No other iOS App Store would be as secure as Apple’s, plain and simple. 99% of Apple product users want consistency which would not be there with third-party app stores. Think about them instead of yourself. People who visit this forum generally aren’t normal users and it’s our responsibility to look out for them. 
    I rolled my eyes so hard on your post they nearly fell out. 
    Please explain how my Adobe software, Extensis, and myriad of other software on my Macs aren't safe or secure? I didn't buy them from the App Store. No problems 30 years running. Please, I look forward to your explanation? 
    Are you saying that iOS is extremely vulnerable and not capable of any security?
    Are you saying Apple doesn't know how to write a proper OS? 

    It's called choice and free-market. They aren't asking Apple to close down their App Store. They are proposing alternative app stores - like how things have always been without monopolies. 

    I don't think you have an argument and you know it. 


    You know not what you are talking about.

    Safe and secure software might not be so much a matter of the software you downloaded but where you downloaded the software from. If you download software from the Adobe website or installed from a retail disc, then it's safe and secure. But one can download Adobe software that is full of malware if one were to download it from websites that are known for offering free pirated software, using a Mac (or PC). Or you might be spoofed into thinking the site you downloaded the software from was legitimate. That can not be done on iOS. Not even if you were to accidentally or purposely, click on a link that will download malware into your device. But it can be done on Android. And on MacOS and Windows. Just because the software you downloaded from outside an app store turned out to be safe and secure, it doesn't mean that your computer is safe and secure from other ways in which malware and virus can get installed. Whether you know about it or not.   

    And It's not the software from well known companies like Abode, Epic, Microsoft, Oracle, Sony, etc.. that are the problem. It' downloading software from developers that might not even have a website, that might not be safe and secure. Who monitors the third party app store for unsafe and insecure software, that might be available for downloading by someone who thought they were getting a bargain on an app they can use, for $1.99?  

    Choice? Unless you were new to the mobile market at the time, you must have known that there is only one App Store in iOS. It has always been this way. But yet you made the choice to use iOS. Why? But don't cry over spill milk. Just switch to Android. You still have that choice. Which should have been your first choice, if being able to download software from more than one app store was that important to you.

    Free market? I have to stop laughing at that one. In a "free market", Apple would have right to determine whether to allow third party stores on their platform or not, based on market dynamics like supply and demand and what's best for Apple. The fact that the government wants to force Apple into allowing third party app stores is the complete opposite of having a "free market".   


    edited June 12 tht
  • Reply 77 of 83
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,020member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    escan said:
    As I wrote under another headline, I will start trusting European commission when they do something about Spotify, which is clearly a monopoly that uses its market power to pay artists less than half of what its competitors pay. 
    It total I think I'd read that Spotify pays out as much or more than Apple Music. How's that? As I remember it (IIRC) they have many more users so that while on a per-subscriber basis they are lagging behind some others they end up actually paying out more overall. 
    Here's a breakdown.

    https://www.imore.com/apple-music-pays-more-stream-any-other-major-service

    Simply put. (in 2019)

    Spotify accounts for 44.5% of the total streaming revenue and consumes 22% of the total streams.

    Apple accounts for 25% of total streaming revenue but only consumes 6.5% of the total streams.

    Spotify has over 355M users with 155M paid subscribers and 150M users on their free tier (with ads) and Apple has 70M paid subscribers. 

    If I recollect, one of the reason that Spotify lags way behind Apple in pay out per stream is because about 50% of Spotify users are streaming music for free (with ads) and Spotify only pay out a percentage of what they receive in advertising revenue on those streams. Spotify has 2x as many free users as Apple has paid subscribers. The music labels are subsidizing Spotify free tier of 150M users. 

    But the biggest lagger by far, is Google. YouTube accounts for just 6% of the total streaming revenue but consumes a massive 51% of the total streams. 


    Things have changed significantly since 2019, including the amount of revenue Youtube/Youtube Music contributes. Look for more recent stats, some of them published this year.  

    EDIT: I don't think you know where to look based on your earlier post, so I looked for you. Confirm with Ditto if you'd like:

    For 10K streams this is the payout for a selection of music services

    Spotify: $43.20
    Tidal; $125.00
    Apple Music: $73.50
    Deezer: $67.60
    YouTube Music: Also $67.60
    Amazon Music; $40.20

    - In essence, there is little difference between the payout from Apple, Deezer, and YouTube.
    - Per subscriber, Tidal is far ahead of any of them, not even close. 
    - Spotify and Amazon are relatively close to one another.
    - Based on the number of subscribers it would certainly appear that in total Spotify is paying out more than any of the others even if the per stream is lower.

    Fun Fact: YouTube Music is currently the fastest growing music streaming service among these players.
    https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/lyor-cohen-youtube-music-is-the-fastest-growing-subscription-service-out-there/
    You are confusing YouTubeMusic with Google Play Music. Google Play Music pays out $67.60 per 10K stream But YouTube only pays out $6.90 per 10K stream, using the same metrics. 

    There are over 1.9B monthly users streaming music on YouTube Music but there are only about 30M paid subscribers (Both Music and Premium). With close to 2B consumers streaming music with Google, Google should easily be the streaming service that contributes the most (dollar wise) toward the artist royalties. But they are not. 
    https://musically.com/2020/11/17/youtube-now-has-more-than-2bn-monthly-music-users/

    If google grows their subscription base, that good for the artist. But if Google grows their free base (with ads), that not nearly as good. It might be better than nothing, but not by much. As the $6.90 per 10K stream with YouTube Music vs the $67.60 per 10K stream with Google Play Music, would indicate. 

    But i will venture to say that Google probably makes more profit from their free base streaming, than from subscribers. Only because Google is best at what they do ... getting paid to place targeted ads. 
    At the time of your 2019 article you were initially picking numbers from the paid Google Play Music subscriber base was just 15 million. A few months later in Feb/20 they had grown to 20 million. By October last year the service, now YouTube Music, had increased to 30 million subscribers. That's a 10 million increase over roughly 9 months.
     Since October last year YouTube Music has gained yet another 10 million subscribers, putting them over 40 million paying users as of this past month. That would put them roughly halfway towards Apple's estimated 80 million Music subscribers. They also have paid out $4 Billion to musicians/songwriters/etc over the past 4 months. 

    So the revenue sharing numbers are far better than you had assumed they were before looking at more recent statistics and at the same time not as rosy as I was presenting them as... yet.  We both are arguing at the extremes.

    The facts are that YouTube artist payouts are growing fast, somewhere in the middle of our two presentations and getting better more quickly than either of us would have thought. Total music payouts at YouTube are far far better than just two years ago and improving exponentially, a statement I think even you will agree with. 

    edited June 12
  • Reply 78 of 83
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,020member
    davidw said:
    Zeebler said:
    rob53 said:
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    That's the right thing, users should be able to choose.
    I don't think it would harm Apple really hard, but it would bring freedom to the platform.
    When Apple allows third party app stores, it could be done with maintaining the iOS security model (only app review is done by another company).
    Wrong on so many counts. No other iOS App Store would be as secure as Apple’s, plain and simple. 99% of Apple product users want consistency which would not be there with third-party app stores. Think about them instead of yourself. People who visit this forum generally aren’t normal users and it’s our responsibility to look out for them. 
    I rolled my eyes so hard on your post they nearly fell out. 
    Please explain how my Adobe software, Extensis, and myriad of other software on my Macs aren't safe or secure? I didn't buy them from the App Store. No problems 30 years running. Please, I look forward to your explanation? 
    Are you saying that iOS is extremely vulnerable and not capable of any security?
    Are you saying Apple doesn't know how to write a proper OS? 

    It's called choice and free-market. They aren't asking Apple to close down their App Store. They are proposing alternative app stores - like how things have always been without monopolies. 

    I don't think you have an argument and you know it. 


    You know not what you are talking about.

    Safe and secure software might not be so much a matter of the software you downloaded but where you downloaded the software from. If you download software from the Adobe website or installed from a retail disc, then it's safe and secure. But one can download Adobe software that is full of malware if one were to download it from websites that are known for offering free pirated software, using a Mac (or PC). 

     That can not be done on iOS. Not even if you were to accidentally or purposely, click on a link that will download malware into your device. But it can be done on Android. 


    Not as easily as you present it.

    It requires actively opting out (turning off) certain security settings, and clicking thru warnings of the ramifications of doing so. The typical user cannot easily sideload apps that did not originate from the official Google Play Store.

    But yes a more atypical one, presumably having more experience in the ecosystem and awareness of potential malware, certainly can if that's what they choose to do. Even then Google has their backs with Play Protect which is active by default. It not only scans an official Play Store app before downloading, but it also scans your installed sideloaded apps from outside the Play Store, too. Apple could certainly something similar and probably more easily. 


    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 79 of 83
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,286member
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    Zeebler said:
    rob53 said:
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    That's the right thing, users should be able to choose.
    I don't think it would harm Apple really hard, but it would bring freedom to the platform.
    When Apple allows third party app stores, it could be done with maintaining the iOS security model (only app review is done by another company).
    Wrong on so many counts. No other iOS App Store would be as secure as Apple’s, plain and simple. 99% of Apple product users want consistency which would not be there with third-party app stores. Think about them instead of yourself. People who visit this forum generally aren’t normal users and it’s our responsibility to look out for them. 
    I rolled my eyes so hard on your post they nearly fell out. 
    Please explain how my Adobe software, Extensis, and myriad of other software on my Macs aren't safe or secure? I didn't buy them from the App Store. No problems 30 years running. Please, I look forward to your explanation? 
    Are you saying that iOS is extremely vulnerable and not capable of any security?
    Are you saying Apple doesn't know how to write a proper OS? 

    It's called choice and free-market. They aren't asking Apple to close down their App Store. They are proposing alternative app stores - like how things have always been without monopolies. 

    I don't think you have an argument and you know it. 


    You know not what you are talking about.

    Safe and secure software might not be so much a matter of the software you downloaded but where you downloaded the software from. If you download software from the Adobe website or installed from a retail disc, then it's safe and secure. But one can download Adobe software that is full of malware if one were to download it from websites that are known for offering free pirated software, using a Mac (or PC). 

     That can not be done on iOS. Not even if you were to accidentally or purposely, click on a link that will download malware into your device. But it can be done on Android. 


    Not as easily as you present it.

    It requires actively opting out (turning off) certain security settings, and clicking thru warnings of the ramifications of doing so. The typical user cannot easily sideload apps that did not originate from the official Google Play Store.

    But yes a more atypical one, presumably having more experience in the ecosystem and awareness of potential malware, certainly can if that's what they choose to do. Even then Google has their backs with Play Protect which is active by default. It not only scans an official Play Store app before downloading, but it also scans your installed sideloaded apps from outside the Play Store, too. Apple could certainly something similar and probably more easily. 


    Maybe it's a lot easier that you want to believe.

    https://www.komando.com/security-privacy/shocking-texts-from-chinese-hackers/746609/

    Evidently, the Android user don't even have to go to settings and  turn on "allow from unknown sources" for this malware to download into their device. And since it's not an app, Google "Play Protect" don't come into play. 
    edited June 12
  • Reply 80 of 83
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,286member
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    escan said:
    As I wrote under another headline, I will start trusting European commission when they do something about Spotify, which is clearly a monopoly that uses its market power to pay artists less than half of what its competitors pay. 
    It total I think I'd read that Spotify pays out as much or more than Apple Music. How's that? As I remember it (IIRC) they have many more users so that while on a per-subscriber basis they are lagging behind some others they end up actually paying out more overall. 
    Here's a breakdown.

    https://www.imore.com/apple-music-pays-more-stream-any-other-major-service

    Simply put. (in 2019)

    Spotify accounts for 44.5% of the total streaming revenue and consumes 22% of the total streams.

    Apple accounts for 25% of total streaming revenue but only consumes 6.5% of the total streams.

    Spotify has over 355M users with 155M paid subscribers and 150M users on their free tier (with ads) and Apple has 70M paid subscribers. 

    If I recollect, one of the reason that Spotify lags way behind Apple in pay out per stream is because about 50% of Spotify users are streaming music for free (with ads) and Spotify only pay out a percentage of what they receive in advertising revenue on those streams. Spotify has 2x as many free users as Apple has paid subscribers. The music labels are subsidizing Spotify free tier of 150M users. 

    But the biggest lagger by far, is Google. YouTube accounts for just 6% of the total streaming revenue but consumes a massive 51% of the total streams. 


    Things have changed significantly since 2019, including the amount of revenue Youtube/Youtube Music contributes. Look for more recent stats, some of them published this year.  

    EDIT: I don't think you know where to look based on your earlier post, so I looked for you. Confirm with Ditto if you'd like:

    For 10K streams this is the payout for a selection of music services

    Spotify: $43.20
    Tidal; $125.00
    Apple Music: $73.50
    Deezer: $67.60
    YouTube Music: Also $67.60
    Amazon Music; $40.20

    - In essence, there is little difference between the payout from Apple, Deezer, and YouTube.
    - Per subscriber, Tidal is far ahead of any of them, not even close. 
    - Spotify and Amazon are relatively close to one another.
    - Based on the number of subscribers it would certainly appear that in total Spotify is paying out more than any of the others even if the per stream is lower.

    Fun Fact: YouTube Music is currently the fastest growing music streaming service among these players.
    https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/lyor-cohen-youtube-music-is-the-fastest-growing-subscription-service-out-there/
    You are confusing YouTubeMusic with Google Play Music. Google Play Music pays out $67.60 per 10K stream But YouTube only pays out $6.90 per 10K stream, using the same metrics. 

    There are over 1.9B monthly users streaming music on YouTube Music but there are only about 30M paid subscribers (Both Music and Premium). With close to 2B consumers streaming music with Google, Google should easily be the streaming service that contributes the most (dollar wise) toward the artist royalties. But they are not. 
    https://musically.com/2020/11/17/youtube-now-has-more-than-2bn-monthly-music-users/

    If google grows their subscription base, that good for the artist. But if Google grows their free base (with ads), that not nearly as good. It might be better than nothing, but not by much. As the $6.90 per 10K stream with YouTube Music vs the $67.60 per 10K stream with Google Play Music, would indicate. 

    But i will venture to say that Google probably makes more profit from their free base streaming, than from subscribers. Only because Google is best at what they do ... getting paid to place targeted ads. 
    At the time of your 2019 article you were initially picking numbers from the paid Google Play Music subscriber base was just 15 million. A few months later in Feb/20 they had grown to 20 million. By October last year the service, now YouTube Music, had increased to 30 million subscribers. That's a 10 million increase over roughly 9 months.
     Since October last year YouTube Music has gained yet another 10 million subscribers, putting them over 40 million paying users as of this past month. That would put them roughly halfway towards Apple's estimated 80 million Music subscribers. They also have paid out $4 Billion to musicians/songwriters/etc over the past 4 months. 

    So the revenue sharing numbers are far better than you had assumed they were before looking at more recent statistics and at the same time not as rosy as I was presenting them as... yet.  We both are arguing at the extremes.

    The facts are that YouTube artist payouts are growing fast, somewhere in the middle of our two presentations and getting better more quickly than either of us would have thought. Total music payouts at YouTube are far far better than just two years ago and improving exponentially, a statement I think even you will agree with. 

    Google Play Music finished merging with YouTube Music at the beginning of this year. So there are not any real numbers out yet. But remember, YouTube Music got an additional 25M subscribers from the Google Play Music subscribers, that were converted to YouTube Music subscribers over the past 8 months. The $4B that YouTube Music contributed to artist this year came mostly from the Google Play Music subscribers that are now YouTube Music subscribers. The artist are no longer getting any payout from Google Play Music, which was probably over $3B before the merge.  

    In terms of additional music streamers, 25M subscribers is a drop in the bucket compared to the 1.5B YouTube Music listeners that are streaming music for free, every month. Once again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that YouTube Music consumes for more streams, than all the other music streaming service combined. Spotify paying out over $5B to the artist for  22% of the total streams and Google paying out $4B to artists for over 50% of the total stream, doesn't make Google look good, no matter how much effort you put into it.

    https://5mag.net/news/google-play-pays-artists-more-than-youtube/

    In my OP, i never mentioned anything about Google Play Music. I mentioned that Google's YouTube Music was the biggest lagger in payout to artists. (This because the vast majority of the payout is based on ad revenue and not from paid subscriptions.) You're the one that brought up Google Play Music. Which was actually paying a good amount to artist, considering their small subscription numbers and low percentage of the total streams.      
    edited June 12
Sign In or Register to comment.