If there is a God in heaven, she will be picked as Grandma's vice president. Nothing could be more repugnant than these shrill Blues Sisters out on the campaign trail together. Neither of them has ever created anything except hysteria. Yet they are out criticizing the the people who create jobs and opportunity. What a wretched creature she is!!
Warren is one of the top bankruptcy experts in the world, many say the top expert. She's highly cited in her publications on this subject, working as a professor at Harvard. She grew up as a Republican, but it was seeing how ordinary people get pushed into bankruptcy by lack of heath care, and tricked out of their savings by financial advisors and "services", that made her enter politics. She has fought the big banks that screwed up the economy harder than anyone else. Remember that she was supposed to be in charge of the Consumer Protection Agency which she started, but the bank lobby and Republicans blocked her. She started from humble beginnings and has accomplished more than most ever will. It would be nice to have someone who has spent her life working hard to understand economics involved in running things when the world economy is so shaky!
I am the number one Apple fan, but they are not above criticism. I actually think they would do better by reducing or eliminating their cut of subscription and media-buying charges. It almost forces sellers to move the buying part off their iDevices, which certainly hurts the user experience. I think Apple would make more money overall if they made less in ways that hurt the user experience!
Apple does have its problems. But Warren's sycophantic behavior towards Hillary with Hillary's close relationship to Goldman-Sachs is what destroys Warren's credibility altogether. Never mind that Hillary housed top secret information on a personal server. And Warren has done nothing towards repealing meaningful use which is going to wreck the American health care system. Warren has lost all of her credibility.
Trump's character is flawed. But Hillary is absolutely no better. She's an elitist with the ethical character of a Zika carrying mosquito. Trump is a racist with the ethical character of a malaria carrying mosquito. And all Warren is saying is that when the choice is made, it's better to be bit by the Zika mosquito. And Warren should be supported for this?!?
Apple has no obligation to include Spotify's app on iTunes for different terms than they give anyone else. If Spotify doesn't like it, they can always put their app on Google Play. It's not Apple's fault that Android users don't want to pay for services.
Apple is absolutely not a monopolist. The iPhone has what? 20% marketshare? If that's Warren's definition of a monopolist, her education means nothing. And I would demand my money back from Harvard if I took one of her classes.
If there is a God in heaven, she will be picked as Grandma's vice president. Nothing could be more repugnant than these shrill Blues Sisters out on the campaign trail together. Neither of them has ever created anything except hysteria. Yet they are out criticizing the the people who create jobs and opportunity. What a wretched creature she is!!
Warren is one of the top bankruptcy experts in the world, many say the top expert. She's highly cited in her publications on this subject, working as a professor at Harvard. She grew up as a Republican, but it was seeing how ordinary people get pushed into bankruptcy by lack of heath care, and tricked out of their savings by financial advisors and "services", that made her enter politics. She has fought the big banks that screwed up the economy harder than anyone else. Remember that she was supposed to be in charge of the Consumer Protection Agency which she started, but the bank lobby and Republicans blocked her. She started from humble beginnings and has accomplished more than most ever will. It would be nice to have someone who has spent her life working hard to understand economics involved in running things when the world economy is so shaky!
I am the number one Apple fan, but they are not above criticism. I actually think they would do better by reducing or eliminating their cut of subscription and media-buying charges. It almost forces sellers to move the buying part off their iDevices, which certainly hurts the user experience. I think Apple would make more money overall if they made less in ways that hurt the user experience!
You would think that Spotify would be well enough known from their years in streaming and size of their user base that they would be able to coax Apple users to subscribe through their own site, and bypass the more expensive route through the App.
I'm just not seeing the problem with Apple charging 30% for in-app subscriptions to a competing music service, especially when Spotify has an existing user base substantially larger than Apple's. You wouldn't think that it would be that difficult to advertise outside of Apple's ecosystem to your potential customers that they can subscribe directly through Spotify for the same price as Apple Music.
I like and for the most part support Elizabeth Warren and I'm pretty sure that given the opportunity, Tim Cook can explain to her why subscriptions can't be free to direct competitors, nor for that matter, why Apple was penalized via the DOJ for responding with a different, and well understood, business model to Amazon's likely monopoly behavior in the ebook business model.
As for Tim Cook's support of some Republicans , it's pretty obvious that the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party, aka Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, et al. is not interested in trade negotiations (TPP) nor the overseas markets of multinationals competing in a global economy. In this, both Trump and the Progressives appear to be isolationists. Hillary Clinton has stated that she will not support the TPP, I suspect only as is, but I would argue that it will ultimately be approved with some specific language changes as it is a necessary economic tool to block China's expansion in the South China Sea.
Hillary will be the President signing the TPP, and Elizabeth Warren may very well be her Vice President; unless of course Trump implodes and is replaced by some other Republican at the Convention; Mitt's big chance!
I'm no fan of Elizabeth Warren but why does Apple need to take $3 of someone's monthly subscription fee to Spotify? All they're doing is processing a credit card transaction. The fact that they're dropping it to 15% after a year just proves its not necessary.
I'm all-in with Apple and proudly so, but the guy from Spotify has a very valid point. How can they make a straight profit from Spotify's monthly subscription, and far exceed their own services' profit? In and of itself that fact leads to shutting out the competition because pricing can't be competitive.
Then again, Apple created the App Store and should have full control over it and it's pricing if they want to, but when you become a platform allowing 3rd parties to participate and sell, that should have limitations in terms of competition. As it stands today, they're not breaking any laws and deserve to reap whatever income they can, but morally they can't be opposed to Prince's statement in my opinion.
Most importantly, Apple is granting them access to their marketplace, as well as to over 1 BILLION devices for which Apple provides all the infrastructure. Further, ios users have access to the free, ad supported, version of Spotify at no cost to Spotify. Cry us a river. Spotify can go build their own infrastructure and BILLION device network. Whose stopping them?
Apple's App Stores, allow people to seriously "break the barrier" by developing an App, and support it with a website, and you can be highly successful. I thank Apple for having their App stores, for their platforms and to support independent developers, cause without them I really wouldn't have a chance other than, trying to pitch ideas to/for V.C. Do you know how many people have succeeded because of the stores Apple has provided? Without their excellence in constructing these global dominant platforms, which have an open door called Xcode, the world would be bleak. Google is similar with the Android App store...not to mention Allowing musicians to be heard... And being able to get in on the ground floor with your own chip fab plant, sounds pretty hard to me! geesh! Cause NO ONE CAN DO IT!
its like republicans who complain about taxes on their businesses. their "successful" business are only a success because of the infrastructure it rests upon. they couldn't have a successful operation if we were a banana republic. therefore, they pay taxes to help continue to build for the next budding business. The one-time i disagree with Senator Warren.
I keep seeing people parrot this idea that indivual or business success is because of the infastructure it's built on. This is total bullshit, the same indivuals and business are paying mini-bar prices for that infastructure. We're all getting reamed by excessive taxation at every step. None of that infastructure, would exist without our earnings and successes, it would also be in a lot better shape if it wasn't so poorly managed and maintained by the stinking Democrats and Republicans. Government is indebted to private individuals, not the other way around.
If she gets on the ticket that will almost guarantee the election of Donald Trump. Warren is totally ensconced in the lunatic fringe left. She is their leader and savior.
It doesn't matter. She will likely occupy a prominent position in the Clinton cabinet whether she is the Vice President or not. Her endorsement of Hillary and her anti American positions have disqualified the Democrats in my book. Not sure that I can vote Trump either. But I know that I will not vote for the Dems.
She's already in the top tier of the Democrat party. You really got to wonder about the people who see something in her, and then you got to keep those people far away from anything important in your life. It takes a very scary character flaw to find merit in this woman, when there are give or take 350 million better people to admire in this country.
You can use any streaming services, if you just order the service from streaming providers site, just like eg. Spotify recommends. Then it's the service providers pricing.. Why would you be ordering services like these from AppStore?
I'm all-in with Apple and proudly so, but the guy from Spotify has a very valid point.
He might have a valid point, but he conveniently forgotten if he wanted to attract more people (especially those who own iDevice) to use Spotify - he had to use Apple AppStore platform (including its policy). Otherwise there is no lock to chain him up, he is free to exit from AppStore and don't have to pay Apple. It's a fair trade.
Also, it's hardly a 'monopoly' when iDevice only counts 20% of marketshare. On the other hand, Android which counts close to 80% of marketshare...
But Apple, in contrast to Google, does not allow app developers to link the app to an external store. Taking the example of Spotify, Apple does not allow that the Spotify iOS app directs people to the website op Spotify to buy the subscription. Google does allow Spotify to make a link from the Android app to the Spotify webstore. I don't think this is a big issue for Spotify, which is big enough and has the marketing resources to overcome this limitation, but for smaller players this can be difference between profit and loss. The "monopoly" is not about the users or iDevices having 20% marketshare world wide, it is about the app developers. Apple has a monopoly of the distribution of apps in the iOS ecosystem. As a developer you have no choice but to accept the very harsh conditions of Apple, if you want to reach the market of the iOS users. When the app store was launched, Apple actively promoted the newly developed apps and the conditions were perceived as fair. But now, with over 1M apps in the app store and with near 0 visibility, the 30% Apple is charging from the developer is no longer aligned with the return the developer is getting. This is impeding innovation
Can someone ELI5? If you sign up for Spotify, Netflix, etc through an Apple device, you indirectly pay Apple a tax on your subscription, though you can use the services on other devices without paying their manufacturers? Is that right? If so, in what universe does it make sense?
I don't think so. Only if you access Spotify Premium using an App. And accessing Spotify Premium with an App on any Android device would cost the same as with the Google Play Store, Spotify would have to pay the same in Google "tax". And it's not the user that pays the "tax", Spotify pays it and if they want, they can pass the "tax" to their subscribers by charging more for the subscription, if they subscribed using an App store. If Spotify gain a subscription through the use of an App in an App store, then they should pay Apple, Google or Microsoft for the use of their App store for helping them get that subscription. Just like how AT&T and Verizon will pay a third party a percentage of the subscription contract cost if they sign up a new customer for them. Spotify knew the cost when they put their App in the store. If they can't make money after the charges, they could opt out of the App store at anytime.
I would think the Free Spotify App (if there is one) would be free for all users to use, as neither Apple or Google charges anything for Apps that are free. 30% of nothing is nothing.
Either way, both Apple and Android mobile device users can avoid any of the "tax", if the "tax" is passed on to them, by accessing Spotify Premium using a web browser. Just like subscribers using laptops or desktops.
If there is a God in heaven, she will be picked as Grandma's vice president. Nothing could be more repugnant than these shrill Blues Sisters out on the campaign trail together. Neither of them has ever created anything except hysteria. Yet they are out criticizing the the people who create jobs and opportunity. What a wretched creature she is!!
Warren is one of the top bankruptcy experts in the world, many say the top expert. She's highly cited in her publications on this subject, working as a professor at Harvard. She grew up as a Republican, but it was seeing how ordinary people get pushed into bankruptcy by lack of heath care, and tricked out of their savings by financial advisors and "services", that made her enter politics. She has fought the big banks that screwed up the economy harder than anyone else. Remember that she was supposed to be in charge of the Consumer Protection Agency which she started, but the bank lobby and Republicans blocked her. She started from humble beginnings and has accomplished more than most ever will. It would be nice to have someone who has spent her life working hard to understand economics involved in running things when the world economy is so shaky!
I am the number one Apple fan, but they are not above criticism. I actually think they would do better by reducing or eliminating their cut of subscription and media-buying charges. It almost forces sellers to move the buying part off their iDevices, which certainly hurts the user experience. I think Apple would make more money overall if they made less in ways that hurt the user experience!
Top expert? Highly cited? You copied that directly from her Wikipedia page.
She was a career teacher before becoming a politician, she's never practiced bankruptcy law, zero experience kinda works against being a top bankruptcy expert. She's never worked in that industry, she writes books for 19-22 year olds, some of whom then graduate and might start a career in bankruptcy law, and any of those people would be more of an expert on day one of their first bankruptcy client.
No individual or business has ever said "Oh shit, I'm outta cash, you know what screw hiring a real lawyer, never mind the well established procedures and two hundred years of clear legal precedent, better call Warren!"
She might be an expert teacher, but she spent part of that time as a school administrator. BTW, Harvard has well published teachers that write about Mozart, who are not expert composers.
You know, I'm beginning to suspect you just swallowed a politician's hyped profile, without even a question or realizing that politicians hype meager accomplishment into the grandest of achievements. Worse, you parrot such a transparently goosed Wikipedia page? All I can say is that you must be very easily impressed, wait till you see my performance in women's gymnastics at the Olympics!
She got into politics because of her big heart? She's a multi-millionaire Senator schmoozing with fat cats, telling the public that they can't afford doctors, nurses, hospitals, prescriptions and health insurance, but they can afford to pay doctors, nurses, hospitals, prescriptions and a big government bureaucracy to oversee it all. This is what qualifies for Democrat sainthood?
Warren: Go home and clean up the mess that is the DNC before trying to make headlines on the back of the one company that's virtually guaranteed to make headlines each time it shows up in the news. Maybe you should reflect on why you endorse Clinton who's owned by Banks and fossil fuel industry while pretending to be a progressive liberal against big money in politics...
A look in the mirror would always be a good first step...
I'm all-in with Apple and proudly so, but the guy from Spotify has a very valid point. How can they make a straight profit from Spotify's monthly subscription, and far exceed their own services' profit? In and of itself that fact leads to shutting out the competition because pricing can't be competitive.
Then again, Apple created the App Store and should have full control over it and it's pricing if they want to, but when you become a platform allowing 3rd parties to participate and sell, that should have limitations in terms of competition. As it stands today, they're not breaking any laws and deserve to reap whatever income they can, but morally they can't be opposed to Prince's statement in my opinion.
Walmart markets to bring people to their stores. They are a platform to allow selling of goods. To be in Walmart makers of goods sell at a huge discount to Walmart to play there. They can make much more if they sell directly but if they want to use Walmart they make much less. They can also go to other stores but will not have access to the groves of people the draw with their marketing and brand. The opportunity is no different than a Mac or a PC. If you will be marketed and promoted via the supplier of the platform, it will cost you and you are considered a partner. You are not allowed access to people they bring to the platform to solicit them outside of it. In fact if they go to the wholesale model like the government is forcing on the book store, Apple could force the competitors price to Apple down while making it cheaper than selling directly. That would effectively kill them.
He might have a valid point, but he conveniently forgotten if he wanted to attract more people (especially those who own iDevice) to use Spotify - he had to use Apple AppStore platform (including its policy). Otherwise there is no lock to chain him up, he is free to exit from AppStore and don't have to pay Apple. It's a fair trade.
Also, it's hardly a 'monopoly' when iDevice only counts 20% of marketshare. On the other hand, Android which counts close to 80% of marketshare...
But Apple, in contrast to Google, does not allow app developers to link the app to an external store. Taking the example of Spotify, Apple does not allow that the Spotify iOS app directs people to the website op Spotify to buy the subscription. Google does allow Spotify to make a link from the Android app to the Spotify webstore. I don't think this is a big issue for Spotify, which is big enough and has the marketing resources to overcome this limitation, but for smaller players this can be difference between profit and loss. The "monopoly" is not about the users or iDevices having 20% marketshare world wide, it is about the app developers. Apple has a monopoly of the distribution of apps in the iOS ecosystem. As a developer you have no choice but to accept the very harsh conditions of Apple, if you want to reach the market of the iOS users. When the app store was launched, Apple actively promoted the newly developed apps and the conditions were perceived as fair. But now, with over 1M apps in the app store and with near 0 visibility, the 30% Apple is charging from the developer is no longer aligned with the return the developer is getting. This is impeding innovation
First of all, using Google as an example is a bit disingenuous don't you think? Everyone knows how Google makes their money. They scrape user data from everything, including 3rd party apps running on their platform. Believe me, everything Spotify knows about you and your listening habits, so does Google.
Second, Spotify gives away their app for free - meaning they don't pay Apple anything (except the developer license fee - which is what subsidizes Apple's development tools). If Apple were to allow Spotify to provide a link to their "Sign-up" web page then Apple would never make any money except in the case where some people were too lazy to go to the site. Companies that complain about having to pay Apple a fee are the companies that typically want to try undercut everyone else in the name of marketshare. This is why Amazon's apps are readers and players only, you have to go to Amazon's website to buy or rent digital content.
Apple does not have a "monopoly" on the distribution of the apps - they control the distribution of apps. There's a huge difference and people need to stop using the word "monopoly" so loosely. They control who gets to create apps for their platform and what those apps can do. They also control the development environment those are written with. They also control the development of the operating system those apps run under. They also control the manufacturing of the hardware those apps run on. iOS is not an open development platform - it never has been. Those who want to develop iOS apps do so by asking Apple for permission and paying a developer fee. By doing so, they agree to Apple's terms, which by all accounts, are not "harsh" - considering the user base they're gaining access to.
If the return the developer is getting is not enough, then they need to up their price. I'm not sure why people think 30% is a ridiculous amount, in some instances Amazon was taking upwards of 70% from publishers!
I like Elizabeth warren, but aren't there laws in the US against monopolies?
There are. In the US the law is something to the effect of: if a big company or companies decide that their business is or will be infringed upon by the operation and/or merger of a rival or rivals AND enough funds are routed to specific politician's and judge's offshore accounts, the rival will be found guilty of illegal operation and/or a monopoly.
Apple created a platform that is wildly popular. If you want to play in their sandbox then you will have to follow their rules. Last I checked developers are making money off the Apple ecosystem and if they don't like it they can always go to Google's or Window's ecosystem. Or get crazy and develop for all 3 as many do...
I'm no fan of Elizabeth Warren but why does Apple need to take $3 of someone's monthly subscription fee to Spotify? All they're doing is processing a credit card transaction. The fact that they're dropping it to 15% after a year just proves its not necessary.
It's not like Apple actually engineered iOS or anything. iOS just appeared out of nowhere and didn't cost Apple one red cent. Heck, maybe it was even Spotify who conjured up iOS with its powers of magical thinking. No need for reality here I guess
Fauxcahontus can rant all she wants, the reality is she's an unsuccessful hack with no concept of the reality of business. Which explains why she was in academia and moved to government.
You get a like for "Fauxcahontus." The rest speaks for itself..sad state we are in.
The App Store is not a public service, it costs something to run and similarly allows discounts as seen by anyone who purchases an App Store gift card in a supermarket (they're usually a 20% discount on the stated card value.)
Now Spotify is the worst example a person can give for claiming the store is unfair:
Apple do not set Spotify's price, that price is Spotify's doing / and if they offered something unique or of their own making they'd be able to charge even more. When they treat music like a commodity they can only compete on price.
Apple's cut is identical to all other services run in other categories, even still Apple have made concessions here for subscriptions over a year in length - the Spotify app is free and the majority of Spotify's users do not pay anything - completely dodging Apple's cut altogether.
Just like any store, if a consumer doesn't like the price of Spotify they're free to get it somewhere else such as the Spotify website. This is not a luxury that paid apps have, and Spotify is merely greedy for trying to pay nothing to the App Store despite making money from it.
The App Store is not free to run, it's designed to deliver apps, app updates, advertising and the like - it's not the App Store's fault if Spotify's business model doesn't enrich itself from that. Unlike apps - streaming services still earn money without an app price or IAP.
Spotify's inability to differentiate their service (e.g. no desirable exclusive content) is the reason why consumers are trying out other services, the public is generally well educated on the matter of price. There are looming entrants to this market, and Spotify will simply suffer further - it's not a one horse town anymore, Spotify are squandering their lead.
Apple music is free for 3 months, Spotify is free with ads - as there no "free ride" option with Apple music, it's hard to claim that Apple is taking Spotify customers - similarly most of Spotify's customers use the free tier. Spotify's split between paid and unpaid has not changed since the introduction of Apple Music.
Spotify gain more casual users from being on the App Store rather than not at all - if they were so worried they'd not even offer IAP on the app, i.e. how the Kindle app works, how Uber works etc.
Would all the people who feel harmed by having to sign up with Spotify directly instead of using an IAP please stand up - most Spotify users come from direct sign ups.
All paid Spotify users should be questioning why Spotify needles them by forcing them to pay business operation expenses. That 30% fee is a business expense, one they can and I'm sure they do write off at tax time. BUT, not only do they write it off (so it doesn't cost them much or anything at all) but they force you, their customer, to pay more anyway. They're screwing you and any other dope who decides to believe this victim sob story.
Comments
Trump's character is flawed. But Hillary is absolutely no better. She's an elitist with the ethical character of a Zika carrying mosquito. Trump is a racist with the ethical character of a malaria carrying mosquito. And all Warren is saying is that when the choice is made, it's better to be bit by the Zika mosquito. And Warren should be supported for this?!?
Apple has no obligation to include Spotify's app on iTunes for different terms than they give anyone else. If Spotify doesn't like it, they can always put their app on Google Play. It's not Apple's fault that Android users don't want to pay for services.
Apple is absolutely not a monopolist. The iPhone has what? 20% marketshare? If that's Warren's definition of a monopolist, her education means nothing. And I would demand my money back from Harvard if I took one of her classes.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/30/business/media/music-streaming-guide.html?_r=0
I'm just not seeing the problem with Apple charging 30% for in-app subscriptions to a competing music service, especially when Spotify has an existing user base substantially larger than Apple's. You wouldn't think that it would be that difficult to advertise outside of Apple's ecosystem to your potential customers that they can subscribe directly through Spotify for the same price as Apple Music.
I like and for the most part support Elizabeth Warren and I'm pretty sure that given the opportunity, Tim Cook can explain to her why subscriptions can't be free to direct competitors, nor for that matter, why Apple was penalized via the DOJ for responding with a different, and well understood, business model to Amazon's likely monopoly behavior in the ebook business model.
As for Tim Cook's support of some Republicans , it's pretty obvious that the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party, aka Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, et al. is not interested in trade negotiations (TPP) nor the overseas markets of multinationals competing in a global economy. In this, both Trump and the Progressives appear to be isolationists. Hillary Clinton has stated that she will not support the TPP, I suspect only as is, but I would argue that it will ultimately be approved with some specific language changes as it is a necessary economic tool to block China's expansion in the South China Sea.
Hillary will be the President signing the TPP, and Elizabeth Warren may very well be her Vice President; unless of course Trump implodes and is replaced by some other Republican at the Convention; Mitt's big chance!
I don't think this is a big issue for Spotify, which is big enough and has the marketing resources to overcome this limitation, but for smaller players this can be difference between profit and loss.
The "monopoly" is not about the users or iDevices having 20% marketshare world wide, it is about the app developers. Apple has a monopoly of the distribution of apps in the iOS ecosystem. As a developer you have no choice but to accept the very harsh conditions of Apple, if you want to reach the market of the iOS users.
When the app store was launched, Apple actively promoted the newly developed apps and the conditions were perceived as fair. But now, with over 1M apps in the app store and with near 0 visibility, the 30% Apple is charging from the developer is no longer aligned with the return the developer is getting. This is impeding innovation
I don't think so. Only if you access Spotify Premium using an App. And accessing Spotify Premium with an App on any Android device would cost the same as with the Google Play Store, Spotify would have to pay the same in Google "tax". And it's not the user that pays the "tax", Spotify pays it and if they want, they can pass the "tax" to their subscribers by charging more for the subscription, if they subscribed using an App store. If Spotify gain a subscription through the use of an App in an App store, then they should pay Apple, Google or Microsoft for the use of their App store for helping them get that subscription. Just like how AT&T and Verizon will pay a third party a percentage of the subscription contract cost if they sign up a new customer for them. Spotify knew the cost when they put their App in the store. If they can't make money after the charges, they could opt out of the App store at anytime.
I would think the Free Spotify App (if there is one) would be free for all users to use, as neither Apple or Google charges anything for Apps that are free. 30% of nothing is nothing.
Either way, both Apple and Android mobile device users can avoid any of the "tax", if the "tax" is passed on to them, by accessing Spotify Premium using a web browser. Just like subscribers using laptops or desktops.
She was a career teacher before becoming a politician, she's never practiced bankruptcy law, zero experience kinda works against being a top bankruptcy expert. She's never worked in that industry, she writes books for 19-22 year olds, some of whom then graduate and might start a career in bankruptcy law, and any of those people would be more of an expert on day one of their first bankruptcy client.
No individual or business has ever said "Oh shit, I'm outta cash, you know what screw hiring a real lawyer, never mind the well established procedures and two hundred years of clear legal precedent, better call Warren!"
She might be an expert teacher, but she spent part of that time as a school administrator. BTW, Harvard has well published teachers that write about Mozart, who are not expert composers.
You know, I'm beginning to suspect you just swallowed a politician's hyped profile, without even a question or realizing that politicians hype meager accomplishment into the grandest of achievements. Worse, you parrot such a transparently goosed Wikipedia page?
All I can say is that you must be very easily impressed, wait till you see my performance in women's gymnastics at the Olympics!
She got into politics because of her big heart? She's a multi-millionaire Senator schmoozing with fat cats, telling the public that they can't afford doctors, nurses, hospitals, prescriptions and health insurance, but they can afford to pay doctors, nurses, hospitals, prescriptions and a big government bureaucracy to oversee it all. This is what qualifies for Democrat sainthood?
Warren: Go home and clean up the mess that is the DNC before trying to make headlines on the back of the one company that's virtually guaranteed to make headlines each time it shows up in the news.
Maybe you should reflect on why you endorse Clinton who's owned by Banks and fossil fuel industry while pretending to be a progressive liberal against big money in politics...
A look in the mirror would always be a good first step...
The opportunity is no different than a Mac or a PC. If you will be marketed and promoted via the supplier of the platform, it will cost you and you are considered a partner. You are not allowed access to people they bring to the platform to solicit them outside of it. In fact if they go to the wholesale model like the government is forcing on the book store, Apple could force the competitors price to Apple down while making it cheaper than selling directly. That would effectively kill them.
First of all, using Google as an example is a bit disingenuous don't you think? Everyone knows how Google makes their money. They scrape user data from everything, including 3rd party apps running on their platform. Believe me, everything Spotify knows about you and your listening habits, so does Google.
Second, Spotify gives away their app for free - meaning they don't pay Apple anything (except the developer license fee - which is what subsidizes Apple's development tools). If Apple were to allow Spotify to provide a link to their "Sign-up" web page then Apple would never make any money except in the case where some people were too lazy to go to the site. Companies that complain about having to pay Apple a fee are the companies that typically want to try undercut everyone else in the name of marketshare. This is why Amazon's apps are readers and players only, you have to go to Amazon's website to buy or rent digital content.
Apple does not have a "monopoly" on the distribution of the apps - they control the distribution of apps. There's a huge difference and people need to stop using the word "monopoly" so loosely. They control who gets to create apps for their platform and what those apps can do. They also control the development environment those are written with. They also control the development of the operating system those apps run under. They also control the manufacturing of the hardware those apps run on. iOS is not an open development platform - it never has been. Those who want to develop iOS apps do so by asking Apple for permission and paying a developer fee. By doing so, they agree to Apple's terms, which by all accounts, are not "harsh" - considering the user base they're gaining access to.
If the return the developer is getting is not enough, then they need to up their price. I'm not sure why people think 30% is a ridiculous amount, in some instances Amazon was taking upwards of 70% from publishers!