normm said: This is essentially the net neutrality argument: if you provide the platform, you shouldn't favor your content.
How does an international communications medium compare with a company product platform? Net neutrality is in regards to the 'Net, not any old thing you want to apply it to.
normm said: This is essentially the net neutrality argument: if you provide the platform, you shouldn't favor your content.
How does an international communications medium compare with a company product platform? Net neutrality is in regards to the 'Net, not any old thing you want to apply it to.
It's a good model to aspire to though. Apple favouring fairness above self interest isn't an unreasonable thing to want.
normm said: This is essentially the net neutrality argument: if you provide the platform, you shouldn't favor your content.
How does an international communications medium compare with a company product platform? Net neutrality is in regards to the 'Net, not any old thing you want to apply it to.
It's a good model to aspire to though. Apple favouring fairness above self interest isn't an unreasonable thing to want.
No it's not because it's completely different. The Costco analogy is the most applicable since Apple Music is nothing more than a store brand (like Kirkland) with the inherent advantage (lower cost) and disadvantage (lesser branding) of store brands.
I say let the lawyers decide it. But I stand with apple over here. Apple doesn’t own a monopoly on any market. If you don’t like their rules don’t play in it. Funny enough ,Spotify’s iOS app is much better than the Droid version last time I checked.
Last time I checked there is one App Store on iOS. Their ecosystem is closed. Since 2007 Apple has become a dominant player. They practically invented the mobile phone as we know it today. They are more than a “vendor”, they are the true definition of a monopoly with the market share they have and their current practices should have been addressed a long time ago.
You should try to be more emphatic towards developers. Because “if you don’t like their rules don’t play in it” is a very simplistic, one-dimensional view on this matter. What is really the developers’ option here? That’s only Google Play, and they serve a different audience and also ask 30%. Those two are the true options here. If you think that’s healthy then sorry, I can’t take you seriously.
25 billion valuation, 5 billion in revenues and they still don’t make a profit. Yet somehow it’s Apple’s fault. Okay, then.
Spotify is not claiming they don’t make a profit as a company because of Apple. You just made that up. However they do have problems with Apple unfair business practices, and I wholeheartedly agree with them.
Fact is, the mobile market today consists of two dominant, monopolistic ecosystems, one serving Android users and one serving iOS users (assuming we ignore China). Both are beyond vendor status and have a vast market share. Developers are forced to publish through those two options, both taking 30%. Ecosystems of this size should be commercially open.
Fifteen years ago Microsoft was fined for pushing their browser product via their own operating system. Compared to this that was child’s play. Apple needs to change this and I hope the EU will start to break this idiotic system down.
Apple either needs to accept other commercial stores on iOS and/or lower their margins considerably so they are more cost based. Yes this comes with severe security concerns that need to be addressed technically, but at least it creates a fair market.
Reading your comment some people might become convinced that you are smart and that’s why what you are rigging is correct.
I laughed at your words there are “two monopolistic...”. You are also claiming that Apple is a true definition of monopoly.
To correct that statement, I would like to point out that the true definition of monopoly emphasizes only ONE player!
So what you did: you sided with Spotify and than tried to find explanations for your biased view. While doing so you based your explanations on the incorrect definitions. But you wrapped in a well structured way to sound believable.
Your comment makes no sense. Ofcourse I mentioned TWO, because they serve entire different platforms and both have a monopoly within their own platform.
I have run a successful game studio for 12 years operating internationally, and sold it end of 2017. Since 2009 we focused on mobile. So although I don’t claim to own the truth like anyone else, I sure as hell know a lot about the business and most likely much more than you.
Lol. Sure. And pre-2009 selling games in a store cost a publisher less than 30%.
normm said: This is essentially the net neutrality argument: if you provide the platform, you shouldn't favor your content.
How does an international communications medium compare with a company product platform? Net neutrality is in regards to the 'Net, not any old thing you want to apply it to.
It's a good model to aspire to though. Apple favouring fairness above self interest isn't an unreasonable thing to want.
The problem is that business (in a capitalistic sense) is competitive. Being fair (in the sense that you're using it) would stifle the type of advance that competitive markets bring. That's almost entirely different than how such an argument is applied to net neutrality (at least by the non-telco side of the debate that is trying to be fair).
Comments
Net neutrality is in regards to the 'Net, not any old thing you want to apply it to.