minisu1980

cropr said:

dkhaley said:

From my perspective, it should be a hard case for Spotify to win.

1. Spotify has other distribution methods (i.e. a customer can sign up on their website and then download the app)
2. Spotify chooses to use Apple's App Store as one of its distribution methods
3. Apple gives Spotify the same terms as everybody else

Of course, the EC can be a little crazy with their antitrust decisions.

Your point 3 is just wrong.  Apple Music has clearly different terms then Spotify.  In fact it is the main reason why Spotify is going to the EU commission

I estimate that Spotify will not necessarily win, but that Apple will definitely loose.  Meaning, the EU commission will look very carefully at the App Store guidelines and will take measures that Apple won't like, but that won't necessarily benefit Spotify in the short term.  

 

From an app developer point of view - I am an app developer - , the App Store guidelines are business wise a nightmare.  All the risks are at your side.  There are numerous cases where Apple changed the App Store guidelines or changed its interpretation of the guidelines to make the life of an app developer very difficult, especially if the app developer is competing against an Apple app.  And if the app developer wants to complain, Apple is judge and involved party. Because the app developer is forced to follow the App Store guidelines if he want to reach an iOS customer, the whole set up smells like anti-competitive behaviour.  The EU commission does not like that at all.

You are aware that without apples App Store you would likely not have the opportunity to be a mobile app developer in the first place right? You optionally choose to sell in the App Store so you play be the rules, if they change well sometimes life is tough and you are free to peddle your killer app elsewhere. I here the Google play store has less stringent rules, perhaps just develop and sell their since they have the larger amount of market share.

gatorguy said:

minisu1980 said:

https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/03/13/android-q-beefs-up-privacy-with-new-limits-on-location-access-device-ids-and-more/
They're working at it. An instance where "copying Apple" is a great thing. 

Note that even Business Insider who posted the story (anonymous sources of course) says that in the near-term expect nothing to change with hi-end Chrome OS product plans hardware wise. But since the Pixel Slate is Google's most expensive hardware product (and a widely panned one too) they would likely be their slowest selling and most likely to be chopped. The Pixelbook on the other hand is still praised.

There's a wide field between "Apple:We're Number 1!!" and those at the very bottom of the heap. Everyone "not Apple" doesn't grade as an F, nor should the author confuse discontinuing the Pixel Slate or any other expensive Google manufactured Chrome hardware as discontinuing and no longer improving and supporting their Chrome OS used daily by millions of people. 

Posted from my 2017 Pixelbook. My 2013 Chromebook Pixel is still good (at work) tho the battery life is now down to a couple hours between charges. 

EDIT: On a somewhat related note (technically not OT as DED brought up smartphones too) my OG Pixel that shipped with Android 7, then getting 8 (Oreo) and then 9 (Pie) is in the process of being updated for Android 10 (Q*) in a bit of a surprise.  I may wait one more year to buy another smartphone. TBH they haven't changed all that much in the last two or three, not enough to spend $600+ on another, and like some Apple users as long as the device is still being supported....

Ever the Google apologist. Google gets an F because they failed to be successful on really any level in their self branded endeavors. They aren’t profitable...

Google says the Pixel line is profitable. Absolutely not Apple-like profitable, and what is, but deserving an "F" because they aren't as successful at it as Apple? Nah.

As for why I have a Pixelbook it's the best match for me personally for a home computer. There's not been a task yet that I can't do on mine, the battery life is great, performance and boot times are top-notch, the keyboard is amazingly nice to use,  security and resistance to malware iis better even than your Mac, updates are often and regular, no lack of applications. What's not to like?

Don't wanna spend $750 or so for one there's other options from other vendors: Samsung, Motorola, Asus, Dell....
You of course would never know how capable one is as you've not ever used one, right? Silly for you to reflexively poo-poo something that you don't really know anything about. Yeah it's not sold by Apple. So?

tylersdad said:

I can see having to pay Apple to use the infrastructure for the app store. Each download from the app store and the maintenance of the app store costs Apple money. But Spotify delivers its service over their own infrastructure. Why should Apple get any of that? It costs them nothing, but yet they want 30% of the service cost? 

Seems unreasonable to me. They want something for nothing. 

It costs Spotify nothing if a user signs up for their service via their website or other means then downloads the app from the App Store and signs into their account. Apple only takes a cut when a potential user downloads the app and then subscribes to it via the App Store. In this instance value is added in several ways:

1) Payment processing through a trusted source with clear policies that allow one to cancel service easily should the desire arise. I trust Apple, don’t necessarily trust Spotify, there is tremendous value in having a customer base that trusts you with their credit card data to process payments, just ask Amazon.

2) Apps hosted on Apple’s App Store comply with a certain set of guidelines that ensure privacy and security. Spotify and other constantly update their apps, and so it must be review each time to ensure they are still complying with the guidelines. Is it perfect, no. Does it provide value such that I would not entertain obtaining a version elsewhere, definitely.

There is no basis for monopoly/Anti competition claims here. A Spotify user can subscribe many different ways. IOS has no where close to a monopoly portion of market share in either phone (IOS vs Android) or streaming music (Apple Music vs Spotify). 

https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/03/13/android-q-beefs-up-privacy-with-new-limits-on-location-access-device-ids-and-more/
They're working at it. An instance where "copying Apple" is a great thing. 

Note that even Business Insider who posted the story (anonymous sources of course) says that in the near-term expect nothing to change with hi-end Chrome OS product plans hardware wise. But since the Pixel Slate is Google's most expensive hardware product (and a widely panned one too) they would likely be their slowest selling and most likely to be chopped. The Pixelbook on the other hand is still praised.

There's a wide field between "Apple:We're Number 1!!" and those at the very bottom of the heap. Everyone "not Apple" doesn't grade as an F, nor should the author confuse discontinuing the Pixel Slate or any other expensive Google manufactured Chrome hardware as discontinuing and no longer improving and supporting their Chrome OS used daily by millions of people. 

Posted from my 2017 Pixelbook. My 2013 Chromebook Pixel is still good (at work) tho the battery life is now down to a couple hours between charges. 

EDIT: On a somewhat related note (technically not OT as DED brought up smartphones too) my OG Pixel that shipped with Android 7, then getting 8 (Oreo) and then 9 (Pie) is in the process of being updated for Android 10 (Q*) in a bit of a surprise.  I may wait one more year to buy another smartphone. TBH they haven't changed all that much in the last two or three, not enough to spend $600+ on another, and like some Apple users as long as the device is still being supported....

Ever the Google apologist. Google gets an F because they failed to be successful on really any level in their self branded endeavors. They aren’t profitable, so let’s move the goal post. They never planned to be profitable(?); it was about showing an example of what could be done for other vendors to follow. Ok, so they managed to show other vendors if you make an expensive table/netbook running Android/Chromebook there is basically no market of buyers for it. I guess they succeeded in dissuading others from losing money by example? How magnanimous of them. Oh well that maybe true now, but think long term it’s only temporary! The failure can be explained by just little hiccups, iterations really, in their endless march to delivering a superior product. They have been failing for about a decade now, you would seem to be suggesting “Google learns slowly, it’s true. But they learn”. Look Google is not the Sansa Stark of Silicon Valley. They are not suddenly flip the script and wow us all with a fantastic Android/Chromebook that is capable of selling at quantities the allow for profitability.

I get it you threw you lot in with Google at some point. Perhaps you bought a Google product and are too embarrassed or have such hubris that you are unable to accept you were robbed, comparatively speaking. Maybe your profession is tied to their sub par ecosystem or reliant on it’s existence in some fashion. That could explain the continued support. It might just be your someone who has benefited from Google, via the stock market, by Wall Street giving them a free pass on their relentless string of failures, so many that to expect one to enumerate them all from memory seems unrealistic. Whatever the reason you can’t just move goal post endless and expect that to mask the underlying failure. That would be like buying a cow to produce milk, then letting it die, and saying “Look how successful I was, now I have all this meat”. 

dewme said:

It would be nice if Qualcomm and Apple would focus on resolving their business relationships through negotiation at the CEO level. Constantly resorting to using the legal system as a club to attack those you can not or will not talk to is a sign of weakness and ineffectual leadership. What the hell are these so-called leaders being paid for if they cannot solve fundamental business problems on their own? When did so-called leaders of industry become nothing more than utterly pathetic hood ornaments? 

This is not a fundamental business problem. Qualcomm wants to be allowed to continue in its illegal and anti competitive pricing scheme. When they got investigated over this, Apple provided factual information that they are breaking the law. They decided to punish Apple for not lying, covering up or supporting their scheme. Qualcomm figured, bet the farm really, that Apple would kowtow like so many other companies had before. When Apple didn’t and it became clear that Qualcomm’s usual bullying tactics of threats and fear of legal fees/adverse outcome (Apple can outlast them and more importantly it can afford to lose) were not going to work they collectively shit themselves (oh to be a fly on the wall in that boardroom). They have no way out; there are really only two outcomes.

1) Most likely. The case is taken to its conclusion and they lose. In this case its game over for them. They have already lost Apple’s future business. Government penalties, civil suits from their other clients who have been similarly fleeced and, critically, being forced to offer terms that are compliant with the law going forward. While they may not necessarily go out of business, Qualcomm will be a mere shadow of it’s former self. Stock price will plummet and it’s shareholders will come seeking blood. They could have left well enough a lone, but sadly hubris and blind greed will have done in the company.

2) They get Apple to drop it’s suit and parlay that into a successful defense against the government suit. It stands to reason they could pull this off especially if Apple were to stand down as it would give validation to their licensing scheme. This outcome would represent the closest return to the status quo which is going to save the executives their jobs as the bulk of Qualcomm’s income will be preserved (the fleecing continues). They might even increase in value as they would be unlikely to be challenged again. Qualcomm really wants this outcome, but realistically the only way this happens is a sweeping ban that is so catastrophic to Apple’s bottom line it would be forced to comply.

How do you deal with a company that takes the stance “I will do what I want because I can, even if it is illegal”. Answer is you can’t, behavior like this only exists because the people who engage in it are not held accountable. The parallels to current political situation in the US is uncanny.