For example, every large chain grocery store has it's own "branded" food alongside regular 3rd party products, which significantly disadvantages 3rd party products.
There's so much wrong with that statement and it doesn't apply here for so many reasons. Where to start?...
First of all, Spotify is paying Apple for inclusion in their store (developer fees), whereas grocery stores pay for the items on their shelves, whether they sell or not. Do I need to go on? Let me know; I can if necessary.
Well, surprise, grocery stores do work over their suppliers, like demanding sign up fee's, and extended credit terms, so they don't pay until WAY after the product is sold. And if it doesn't sell, you can bet they don't pay the supplier for it, it goes back if the supplier comes and picks it up, or it gets thrown away. Welcome to retail.
Apple has to be in some kind of dominant position or even appearing to be trending towards it for Antitrust. They aren't, except within the market of their own products. AND, Spotify can have all their cake. Spotify can have their app in the iOS app store and not use Apple's payment system. Apple doesn't have to also make it as easy as possible for Spotify to do so.
For example, every large chain grocery store has it's own "branded" food alongside regular 3rd party products, which significantly disadvantages 3rd party products.
You shouldn't. In this case "trusted" means that the processor/ram/rom/code can be trusted to not be altered by YOU. Only the corporations that paid the cpu manufacturer for access to it can 'trust' it...
thanks for these two ffrls. they both work with the regular version of FF. the performance one I can definitely use, as i will have a bunch of tabs open and then something will just kill ff, and I can't tell what tab/s is/are doing it. the memory one will also be useful, but it's not easy for me to notice that ff is suddenly increasing it's memory usage until it's too late (once the OS notifies you somethings up, ff is unusable).
Normally FF sits there for me as well, around 4 Gb. But every now and then, boom, something in Firefox starts gobbling memory, until the OS winds up pausing FF because the system runs out of swap space (about 50 Gb). I force-quit FF, wait maybe a minute or so, and the OS goes back to 1 Gb of swap space (with 16 Gb of RAM).
There was supposedly an alert/notification/whatever in the app saying go sign up on web site to get a discount, which is a clear violation. But it's also a violation to have a button/link in the app that goes to a web page offering a subscription, if you don't also use apple's in-app system to offer a subscription. And I think spotify still has this setup, and knows they have it, and knows it violates the iOS developer terms. This is another attempt by spotify to try to get/force Apple to change their dev terms.
it is likely that the rejected app includes a link that opens up to a 'subscribe here' web page. That goes against the iOS developer agreement. spotify knows this violates the terms, and wants to try to get/force Apple to change them, rather than working within the current rules.
I occasionally run Flash to see some video's, mainly because Firefox doesn't have the option to not tell websites flash in available, but those pages aren't left open very long (watch the video then close the tab). I was considering switching to the nightly build to enable the separate process support (that's the other thing, some pages, particularly amazon and ebay, like to peg the CPU as part of their effort to track what is happening...)
Rust is designed to prevent a certain class of common bugs. No programming language prevents all bugs. If the programmer types in the wrong method to call, or uses the wrong variable, there is nothing the programming language/libraries can do about it.
Currently, Firefox periodically decides to eat all memory on my MacBook Pro, until the OS notices and freezes the app (gets to about 40-50 Gb of swap space). But for days/weeks at a time, it will stay running at about 5 Gb of memory. Maybe this switch to using Rust will prevent whatever problem that is causing all the memory to get gobbled up...
well, it seems to me that if spotify instead threw in a link (just as an example) to an ios-specific page that didn't have a sign-up-now button, it probably would not be rejected.
Now, this is based on actual fact and I can agree with it. However, it's also how Google Play (Music, Video, and Books) and Amazon's counterpart to that work on iOS and people don't seem to have a problem with it.
Again, to me this further indicates that Spotify is trying to knowing break iOS app store rules about including a link to a subscription page. If they instead go to a non-sign up now page, it probably gets through the approval process. And spotify knows this. And that is why it is likely that Spotify's letter is intentionally deceptive, because they know the reason why, but intentionally misrepresenting why the app is being rejected.
But as well, currently it is not possible to know, for sure, as the rejected app isn't available for examination. And we only have Spotify's version of events.
“Spotify wants to use the app to acquire new customers and sell subscriptions.”
To me, this would indicate there is a link in the app that goes to a web page to sign up for a new subscription, which is against app store rules.
This wouldn't be the first time a corporation misrepresented a situation to paint themselves in a good light, and it won't be the last. Hell, it's not like this letter is under oath or anything.
For example, another Apple competitor, NetFlix, had an iOS app that worked for years without using Apple's in-app purchasing model, just using their own web site to sign up and pay for subscriptions, before adding in-app subscriptions to their iOS app.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't quite the statute, but it'd be the same one that got Microsoft in shit for bundling IE.
No, it wouldn't. Microsoft got in trouble because it 1) had a monopoly in the desktop os market and 2) required manufacturers to keep IE as the default browser. This resulted in IE also effectively having a monopoly on the browser market. Google is also having this problem in Europe because they 1) have a dominant market position in the mobile OS market and 2) requiring manufacturers to bundle/use a variety of google apps and services. The important thing to take away from this is that Apple is missing part 1. It doesn't have a dominant position in any market, other than the Apple OS market.
RTFA again. They added the ad (which they'd been allowed previously) and were denied. They removed the violating feature (the ad) and the in-app purchase functionality. They were denied a second time for removing the latter.
I'll forgive you for arguing based on false assumptions if you'll take the time to correct your understanding.
And you are assuming Spotify is being completely truthful and accurate. Neither of us have had an opportunity to use the rejected app. IMHO, it is likely the rejected app still has a link to a subscription sign-up page, which is prohibited by the ios dev terms..
And hey, Spotify Music still shows up in iTunes for me...with all their in-app purchases, so I guess they haven't removed their app... And it's still listed #1 in the "top grossing" list for Music apps, so it can't be that terrible for spotify.
No, Apple didn't "boot" Spotify from the app store. Spotify removed their approved app from the store. There is a world of difference between those two things.
Apple's attempt to force the use of one service (their in-app payment system) as a requirement for continued use of another (their app store) is, de-facto, illegal, and with Spotify no longer in the app store, they don't have that spot to worry about losing anymore; and they've got deep enough pockets to see it through to trial.
What specific law prevents this contractual arrangement?
And, again, Spotify: a) was not booted from the store b) can use their own, no-cut-to-Apple, payment system with their iOS app, without having an iOS payment method.
Spotify chose to remove their existing app from the app store instead of removing the feature from their updated app that violated the terms of the app store developers agreement (which is likely the in-app redirection to a web site for payments).
Then Spotify has determined that Apple has a monopoly on potential customers of a streaming music service? That sure as fuck isn't a monopoly.
The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is....people wanting to buy things from Apple.
Hell, Spotify doesn't have to pay Apple's cut. Right now they aren't, as they have (it's my understanding, I don't have the app and don't use their service) disabled the in-app purchases for the subscription. People can go to spotify's web site, even on their iPhone, and sign up and pay spotify directly, Apple doesn't get a cut at all, then they enter their username/password or whatever in spotify's app and they can happy stream whatever. It's just not as easy a process for a potential customer to do vs if Spotify continued to use iOS payments.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll wait for v3.0, which will include the feature where it notices trucks turning in front of you.
At least in the US, some police departments specifically reject hiring people with high IQs.
dns was one of the first things we put in the cloud.
I like the cow guy better. The moo'ing makes me feel more optimistic about how the day will go.
You DESERVE to get caught if you use the word "embezzle" in an email you send through the company's email system.
You forgot to do the Yoda hand-wave thing. Or is it the NSA-finger?
See you in a year so you can pay for a license renewal...er...renew your wedding vows...
Definitely should have read the wedding license agreement before signing it...
For example, every large chain grocery store has it's own "branded" food alongside regular 3rd party products, which significantly disadvantages 3rd party products.
There's so much wrong with that statement and it doesn't apply here for so many reasons. Where to start? ...
First of all, Spotify is paying Apple for inclusion in their store (developer fees), whereas grocery stores pay for the items on their shelves, whether they sell or not. Do I need to go on? Let me know; I can if necessary.
Well, surprise, grocery stores do work over their suppliers, like demanding sign up fee's, and extended credit terms, so they don't pay until WAY after the product is sold. And if it doesn't sell, you can bet they don't pay the supplier for it, it goes back if the supplier comes and picks it up, or it gets thrown away. Welcome to retail.
Apple has to be in some kind of dominant position or even appearing to be trending towards it for Antitrust. They aren't, except within the market of their own products. AND, Spotify can have all their cake. Spotify can have their app in the iOS app store and not use Apple's payment system. Apple doesn't have to also make it as easy as possible for Spotify to do so.
For example, every large chain grocery store has it's own "branded" food alongside regular 3rd party products, which significantly disadvantages 3rd party products.
You shouldn't. In this case "trusted" means that the processor/ram/rom/code can be trusted to not be altered by YOU. Only the corporations that paid the cpu manufacturer for access to it can 'trust' it...
Here's an article on Apple's response to spotify:
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/07/01/apple-responds-to-spotifys-anti-competitive-accusation-talks-app-rejection/
thanks for these two ffrls. they both work with the regular version of FF. the performance one I can definitely use, as i will have a bunch of tabs open and then something will just kill ff, and I can't tell what tab/s is/are doing it. the memory one will also be useful, but it's not easy for me to notice that ff is suddenly increasing it's memory usage until it's too late (once the OS notifies you somethings up, ff is unusable).
Normally FF sits there for me as well, around 4 Gb. But every now and then, boom, something in Firefox starts gobbling memory, until the OS winds up pausing FF because the system runs out of swap space (about 50 Gb). I force-quit FF, wait maybe a minute or so, and the OS goes back to 1 Gb of swap space (with 16 Gb of RAM).
There was supposedly an alert/notification/whatever in the app saying go sign up on web site to get a discount, which is a clear violation. But it's also a violation to have a button/link in the app that goes to a web page offering a subscription, if you don't also use apple's in-app system to offer a subscription. And I think spotify still has this setup, and knows they have it, and knows it violates the iOS developer terms. This is another attempt by spotify to try to get/force Apple to change their dev terms.
it is likely that the rejected app includes a link that opens up to a 'subscribe here' web page. That goes against the iOS developer agreement. spotify knows this violates the terms, and wants to try to get/force Apple to change them, rather than working within the current rules.
I occasionally run Flash to see some video's, mainly because Firefox doesn't have the option to not tell websites flash in available, but those pages aren't left open very long (watch the video then close the tab). I was considering switching to the nightly build to enable the separate process support (that's the other thing, some pages, particularly amazon and ebay, like to peg the CPU as part of their effort to track what is happening...)
Rust is designed to prevent a certain class of common bugs. No programming language prevents all bugs. If the programmer types in the wrong method to call, or uses the wrong variable, there is nothing the programming language/libraries can do about it.
Currently, Firefox periodically decides to eat all memory on my MacBook Pro, until the OS notices and freezes the app (gets to about 40-50 Gb of swap space). But for days/weeks at a time, it will stay running at about 5 Gb of memory. Maybe this switch to using Rust will prevent whatever problem that is causing all the memory to get gobbled up...
well, it seems to me that if spotify instead threw in a link (just as an example) to an ios-specific page that didn't have a sign-up-now button, it probably would not be rejected.
Now, this is based on actual fact and I can agree with it. However, it's also how Google Play (Music, Video, and Books) and Amazon's counterpart to that work on iOS and people don't seem to have a problem with it.
Again, to me this further indicates that Spotify is trying to knowing break iOS app store rules about including a link to a subscription page. If they instead go to a non-sign up now page, it probably gets through the approval process. And spotify knows this. And that is why it is likely that Spotify's letter is intentionally deceptive, because they know the reason why, but intentionally misrepresenting why the app is being rejected.
But as well, currently it is not possible to know, for sure, as the rejected app isn't available for examination. And we only have Spotify's version of events.
To me, this would indicate there is a link in the app that goes to a web page to sign up for a new subscription, which is against app store rules.
This wouldn't be the first time a corporation misrepresented a situation to paint themselves in a good light, and it won't be the last. Hell, it's not like this letter is under oath or anything.
For example, another Apple competitor, NetFlix, had an iOS app that worked for years without using Apple's in-app purchasing model, just using their own web site to sign up and pay for subscriptions, before adding in-app subscriptions to their iOS app.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/24/9395037/netflix-ios-app-subscribe-in-app-purchases
No, it wouldn't. Microsoft got in trouble because it 1) had a monopoly in the desktop os market and 2) required manufacturers to keep IE as the default browser. This resulted in IE also effectively having a monopoly on the browser market. Google is also having this problem in Europe because they 1) have a dominant market position in the mobile OS market and 2) requiring manufacturers to bundle/use a variety of google apps and services. The important thing to take away from this is that Apple is missing part 1. It doesn't have a dominant position in any market, other than the Apple OS market.
And you are assuming Spotify is being completely truthful and accurate. Neither of us have had an opportunity to use the rejected app. IMHO, it is likely the rejected app still has a link to a subscription sign-up page, which is prohibited by the ios dev terms..
And hey, Spotify Music still shows up in iTunes for me...with all their in-app purchases, so I guess they haven't removed their app... And it's still listed #1 in the "top grossing" list for Music apps, so it can't be that terrible for spotify.
there's always someone into molesting children...
So hire a fucking housekeeper! Hell, there was even a service that would do it nude (back in the dot-com era, no idea if it still is alive).
No, Apple didn't "boot" Spotify from the app store. Spotify removed their approved app from the store. There is a world of difference between those two things.
What specific law prevents this contractual arrangement?
And, again, Spotify:
a) was not booted from the store
b) can use their own, no-cut-to-Apple, payment system with their iOS app, without having an iOS payment method.
Spotify chose to remove their existing app from the app store instead of removing the feature from their updated app that violated the terms of the app store developers agreement (which is likely the in-app redirection to a web site for payments).
Then Spotify has determined that Apple has a monopoly on potential customers of a streaming music service? That sure as fuck isn't a monopoly.
The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is....people wanting to buy things from Apple.
Hell, Spotify doesn't have to pay Apple's cut. Right now they aren't, as they have (it's my understanding, I don't have the app and don't use their service) disabled the in-app purchases for the subscription. People can go to spotify's web site, even on their iPhone, and sign up and pay spotify directly, Apple doesn't get a cut at all, then they enter their username/password or whatever in spotify's app and they can happy stream whatever. It's just not as easy a process for a potential customer to do vs if Spotify continued to use iOS payments.