carnegie

macxpress said:

And how many of the 31% are free tier Spotify users? As is the case with a lot of areas, Apple isn't the top of the market share, but they are where it counts, which is revenue/profits. 

This report appears to be counting only premium subscribers Spotify.

31% of 524 million is 162 million. Spotify reported 165 million premium subscribers and 210 million ad-supported MAUs for Q2.

GeorgeBMac said:

carnegie said:

GeorgeBMac said:

crowley said:

darkvader said:

How does anybody claim with a straight face that something like this that will obviously help consumers could possibly 'hurt consumers'?

Oh, right.  Bribery.

What bribery do you think has happened?

Since Citizens United (and even before) every U.S. politician has to accept bribes (urrr, I meant "campaign contributions") if they want to win and hold their seat.   It's one of many things undermining our democracy.

The Citizens United decision didn’t relate to campaign contributions.

Theoretically.  But, in reality, Citizens United enabled vast amounts of cash to be paid to politicians to insure their loyalty.  It's one of multiple ways our democracy is being destroyed from within by effectively giving one group a bigger vote than another.

It restored to people the right to speak and to disseminate their speech, even when they do so through a corporate form. You don't lose your right to speak, even if you do so as employees of corporations or as owners of corporations or in association with others through corporations. We've generally not lost basic constitutional rights just because we exercise them in corporate contexts. The implications of us losing them in such contexts would be enormous, and I suspect most people would oppose such loss of rights if they really thought through those implications. (I don't want to get too far afield here so I won't explore them now; I'm not sure how far off subject Apple Insider would want us to go. I'm only commenting in response to the effects of Citizens United being brought up.)

But Citizens United didn't allow for any cash being paid to politicians. Corporations are still, e.g., strictly prohibited from contributing to political campaigns or committees. It only allowed for independent speech and, of course, for money to be spent to facilitate such independent speech. Without the right to spend money to facilitate our speech, our ability to speak could be severely limited. That's true with regard to most rights - the right itself necessarily encompasses the right to spend money to facilitate it.

That said, the reason people (or corporations) spending money to facilitate their own speech advocating for certain issues or politicians matters is because it can influence voters. So it's not that they have a bigger vote, it's that they might have more ability to influence other voters. They don't have a bigger vote, that's why they're left having to try to convince other voters to agree with what they want. It's still all about the actual voters; persuading them is the purpose of such speech.

GeorgeBMac said:

crowley said:

darkvader said:

How does anybody claim with a straight face that something like this that will obviously help consumers could possibly 'hurt consumers'?

Oh, right.  Bribery.

What bribery do you think has happened?

Since Citizens United (and even before) every U.S. politician has to accept bribes (urrr, I meant "campaign contributions") if they want to win and hold their seat.   It's one of many things undermining our democracy.

The Citizens United decision didn’t relate to campaign contributions.

It's interesting that the Ninth Circuit denied the Coalition's motion for leave to file an amicus brief in the Epic v Apple case. That's pretty unusual. I wouldn't say such requests are pro forma, but they're close to that ball park.

The denial suggests that the Ninth Circuit doesn't see the Coalition as a truly independent party in these matters, that it sees the Coalition as just another face that Epic is presenting to support its legal positions.

crowley said:

maximara said:

crowley said:

flydog said:

darkvader said:

22july2013 said:

if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.

Except Apple is lying.  It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day.  All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app.  And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.

You missed a small detail. Apple needs a to implement a mechanism to collect the 30% commission. 

No they don't.  They want to, but they don't need to.

Apple needs some method and legal mechanic to collect the amount owed them and that isn't something you throw together in day.

That's not a stipulation of the legal judgement, that's Apple's business priorities and wants. Not a basis for delaying a legal deadline. 

It goes to whether Apple would suffer irreparable harm if it had to comply with the injunction or would suffer such harm if it had to comply with the injunction by the original deadline. In that sense, it certainly is a proper consideration when it comes to deciding whether the injunction should be stayed or not. Irreparable harm to the movant is one of the four factors a court is supposed to consider when deciding on issuance of a stay. The Ninth Circuit panel that issued the stay thought Apple sufficiently demonstrated irreparable harm.