daring-rss

Spotify:

For years, even in our own app, Apple had these rules where we
couldn’t tell you about offers, how much something costs, or even
where or how to buy it. We know, pretty nuts. The DMA means that
we’ll finally be able to share details about deals, promotions,
and better-value payment options in the EU. And an easier
experience for you means good things for artists, authors, and
creators looking to build their audiences of listeners,
concert-goers, and audiobook-loving fans. What’s more? All of this
can now come without the burden of a mandatory ~30% tax imposed by
Apple, which is prohibited under the DMA.

Spotify’s assumptions about how sideloading is going to work on iOS are clearly at odds with the description of Apple’s plans from The Wall Street Journal today. The Journal did not state what percentage commission or fees Apple plans to collect, but it sounds like Spotify thinks they’re going to offer an iOS app through which they won’t pay Apple anything at all for in-app transactions. Their blog post has a series of before-and-after screenshots, and the “after” screenshots show a purchasing flow that doesn’t involve any of the warnings or scaresheets Apple has required for the “reader” app entitlement, Dutch dating apps, or the new External Purchase Links entitlement.

Spotify even plans to run their own app store, with multiple apps. (It seems unclear if the Spotify app store for iOS would host games and apps from other developers, or only a suite of apps from Spotify itself.)

Spotify more or less assumes they’ll be free from all Apple restrictions and commissions, and feel free to lambast Apple’s policies as “pretty nuts” and “ridiculous”:

It should be this easy for every single Spotify customer
everywhere. But if you live outside certain markets, you will
continue to encounter frustrating roadblocks because of Apple’s
ridiculous rules.

We don’t know Apple’s plans yet, but will soon. But it sure sounds like Apple and Spotify have completely different and utterly incompatible interpretations of what the DMA requires. Seems like one side or the other is in for a big surprise.

 ★ 

Spotify:

For years, even in our own app, Apple had these rules where we
couldn’t tell you about offers, how much something costs, or even
where or how to buy it. We know, pretty nuts. The DMA means that
we’ll finally be able to share details about deals, promotions,
and better-value payment options in the EU. And an easier
experience for you means good things for artists, authors, and
creators looking to build their audiences of listeners,
concert-goers, and audiobook-loving fans. What’s more? All of this
can now come without the burden of a mandatory ~30% tax imposed by
Apple, which is prohibited under the DMA.

Spotify’s assumptions about how sideloading is going to work on iOS are clearly at odds with the description of Apple’s plans from The Wall Street Journal today. The Journal did not state what percentage commission or fees Apple plans to collect, but it sounds like Spotify thinks they’re going to offer an iOS app through which they won’t pay Apple anything at all for in-app transactions. Their blog post has a series of before-and-after screenshots, and the “after” screenshots show a purchasing flow that doesn’t involve any of the warnings or scaresheets Apple has required for the “reader” app entitlement, Dutch dating apps, or the new External Purchase Links entitlement.

Spotify even plans to run their own app store, with multiple apps. (It seems unclear if the Spotify app store for iOS would host games and apps from other developers, or only a suite of apps from Spotify itself.)

Spotify more or less assumes they’ll be free from all Apple restrictions and commissions, and feel free to lambast Apple’s policies as “pretty nuts” and “ridiculous”:

It should be this easy for every single Spotify customer
everywhere. But if you live outside certain markets, you will
continue to encounter frustrating roadblocks because of Apple’s
ridiculous rules.

We don’t know Apple’s plans yet, but will soon. But it sure sounds like Apple and Spotify have completely different and utterly incompatible interpretations of what the DMA requires. Seems like one side or the other is in for a big surprise.

Read More 

Aaron Tilley, Salvador Rodriguez, Sam Schechner, and Kim Mackrael, reporting for The Wall Street Journal (News+ link):

Meta Platforms, Spotify and other companies are preparing new
download options for customers in anticipation of the new rules.
Meta is considering a system that would allow people to download
apps directly from Facebook ads. Spotify plans to offer users the
ability to download some of its iPhone apps directly from its
website, according to the company. Microsoft has weighed a launch
of its own third-party app store for games in the past. […]

Apple’s approach to the EU law will help ensure the company
maintains close oversight of apps downloaded outside the App
Store, a process known as sideloading. The company will give
itself the ability to review each app downloaded outside of its
App Store. Apple also plans to collect fees from developers that
offer downloads outside of the App Store, said people familiar
with the company’s plans. The company hasn’t yet announced its
plans and they could change.

The restrictions and fees could renew tensions with app
developers, some of whom had expected the new law to allow them to
deliver their apps to users free of Apple’s restrictions or what
they see as a high commission. The new European law “is a
regulation with teeth, with the possibility to apply fines and
with a possibility for the commission to have powers of
investigation,” said Olivia Regnier, a senior director of European
policy at Spotify.

The Journal story is light on details, but it sounds like Apple is planning for a system largely like last week’s External Purchase Link entitlement, where developer will still on the hook to pay Apple 27/12 percent commissions. How will this review process work for apps that aren’t distributed through the App Store?

I’ve considered it very odd that the DMA is not clear at all about this. And here we are on the cusp of it going into effect, and we still seemingly have no idea whether the European Commission and Apple see eye to eye on what the DMA demands for compliance.

Clearly, critics of Apple’s App Store policies believe that the DMA requires opening iOS to something akin to how the Mac works: where the App Store is one method of software distribution, but users are free to simply download apps directly from developers’ websites, so long as those apps are signed. According to the Journal, Apple is planning to announce something not like that at all.

I have a feeling that fireworks are going to fly when Apple announces their compliance plans, but I don’t know. Maybe Apple has shared their plans in detail with the E.C. and the E.C. is fine with it. But if that’s the case, I don’t see how the DMA “has teeth” when it comes to sideloading.

 ★ 

Aaron Tilley, Salvador Rodriguez, Sam Schechner, and Kim Mackrael, reporting for The Wall Street Journal (News+ link):

Meta Platforms, Spotify and other companies are preparing new
download options for customers in anticipation of the new rules.
Meta is considering a system that would allow people to download
apps directly from Facebook ads. Spotify plans to offer users the
ability to download some of its iPhone apps directly from its
website, according to the company. Microsoft has weighed a launch
of its own third-party app store for games in the past. […]

Apple’s approach to the EU law will help ensure the company
maintains close oversight of apps downloaded outside the App
Store, a process known as sideloading. The company will give
itself the ability to review each app downloaded outside of its
App Store. Apple also plans to collect fees from developers that
offer downloads outside of the App Store, said people familiar
with the company’s plans. The company hasn’t yet announced its
plans and they could change.

The restrictions and fees could renew tensions with app
developers, some of whom had expected the new law to allow them to
deliver their apps to users free of Apple’s restrictions or what
they see as a high commission. The new European law “is a
regulation with teeth, with the possibility to apply fines and
with a possibility for the commission to have powers of
investigation,” said Olivia Regnier, a senior director of European
policy at Spotify.

The Journal story is light on details, but it sounds like Apple is planning for a system largely like last week’s External Purchase Link entitlement, where developer will still on the hook to pay Apple 27/12 percent commissions. How will this review process work for apps that aren’t distributed through the App Store?

I’ve considered it very odd that the DMA is not clear at all about this. And here we are on the cusp of it going into effect, and we still seemingly have no idea whether the European Commission and Apple see eye to eye on what the DMA demands for compliance.

Clearly, critics of Apple’s App Store policies believe that the DMA requires opening iOS to something akin to how the Mac works: where the App Store is one method of software distribution, but users are free to simply download apps directly from developers’ websites, so long as those apps are signed. According to the Journal, Apple is planning to announce something not like that at all.

I have a feeling that fireworks are going to fly when Apple announces their compliance plans, but I don’t know. Maybe Apple has shared their plans in detail with the E.C. and the E.C. is fine with it. But if that’s the case, I don’t see how the DMA “has teeth” when it comes to sideloading.

Read More 

Meredith Whittaker and Joshua Lund, writing for the Signal blog back in November:

Instead of monetizing surveillance, we’re supported by donations,
including a generous initial loan from Brian Acton. Our goal is to
move as close as possible to becoming fully supported by small
donors, relying on a large number of modest contributions from
people who care about Signal. We believe this is the safest form
of funding in terms of sustainability: ensuring that we remain
accountable to the people who use Signal, avoiding any single
point of funding failure, and rejecting the widespread practice of
monetizing surveillance.

But our nonprofit structure doesn’t mean it costs less for Signal
to produce a globally distributed communications app. Signal is a
nonprofit, but we’re playing in a lane dominated by
multi-billion-dollar corporations that have defined the norms and
established the tech ecosystem, and whose business models directly
contravene our privacy mission. So in order to provide a genuinely
useful alternative, Signal spends tens of millions of dollars
every year. We estimate that by 2025, Signal will require
approximately $50 million dollars a year to operate — and this is
very lean compared to other popular messaging apps that don’t
respect your privacy.

Signal funds itself through voluntary donations. Most of its competitors are funded through advertising. But iMessage is funded through device sales. If it costs $50 million per year to operate Signal, I’d guess it costs Apple more than that to run iMessage.

I know the Beeper thing is last month’s news, but the fact that iMessage costs a lot of money to operate is generally overlooked by those who think Apple should be forced to “open it up”, whatever that might mean.

 ★ 

Meredith Whittaker and Joshua Lund, writing for the Signal blog back in November:

Instead of monetizing surveillance, we’re supported by donations,
including a generous initial loan from Brian Acton. Our goal is to
move as close as possible to becoming fully supported by small
donors, relying on a large number of modest contributions from
people who care about Signal. We believe this is the safest form
of funding in terms of sustainability: ensuring that we remain
accountable to the people who use Signal, avoiding any single
point of funding failure, and rejecting the widespread practice of
monetizing surveillance.

But our nonprofit structure doesn’t mean it costs less for Signal
to produce a globally distributed communications app. Signal is a
nonprofit, but we’re playing in a lane dominated by
multi-billion-dollar corporations that have defined the norms and
established the tech ecosystem, and whose business models directly
contravene our privacy mission. So in order to provide a genuinely
useful alternative, Signal spends tens of millions of dollars
every year. We estimate that by 2025, Signal will require
approximately $50 million dollars a year to operate — and this is
very lean compared to other popular messaging apps that don’t
respect your privacy.

Signal funds itself through voluntary donations. Most of its competitors are funded through advertising. But iMessage is funded through device sales. If it costs $50 million per year to operate Signal, I’d guess it costs Apple more than that to run iMessage.

I know the Beeper thing is last month’s news, but the fact that iMessage costs a lot of money to operate is generally overlooked by those who think Apple should be forced to “open it up”, whatever that might mean.

Read More 

Myke Hurley hosting, with panelists Jason Snell, John Siracusa, Shelly Brisbin, Stephen Hackett, Dan Moren, and your truly. Great topic list:

First Mac owned
Favorite/best Mac
Favorite/best Mac software ever
Favorite/best Mac accessory or hardware
Hall of Shame: worst accessory, Mac, or moment

 ★ 

Myke Hurley hosting, with panelists Jason Snell, John Siracusa, Shelly Brisbin, Stephen Hackett, Dan Moren, and your truly. Great topic list:

First Mac owned
Favorite/best Mac
Favorite/best Mac software ever
Favorite/best Mac accessory or hardware
Hall of Shame: worst accessory, Mac, or moment

Read More 

Tom Gerken, writing for BBC News:

On Wednesday, Apple announced it would permit app developers to
sell products in places other than its own store – but only if
they still paid commission. Spotify said that was “outrageous” and
accused Apple of “stopping at nothing” to protect its profits. It
is urging the British government to prevent similar fees being
levied in the UK. […]

Spotify has reacted with fury, saying the policy “flies in the
face” of the US court’s attempt to enable greater competition.
“Once again, Apple has demonstrated that they will stop at nothing
to protect the profits they exact on the backs of developers and
consumers under their app store monopoly,” it said in a statement.

I can see why Spotify doesn’t like this, but I’m not sure why Spotify doesn’t qualify under the “reader” app category that can link to external web pages without paying Apple any commission at all. Also, I think Spotify is barking up the wrong tree while complaining about Apple’s compliance with this U.S. court order under the guise of Apple abusing a monopoly — Judge Gonzales specifically ruled that the App Store does not constitute a monopoly.

Here’s a simple thought I had today regarding whether Apple’s new External Purchase Links entitlement policy is a good faith compliance with Judge Gonzales’ order: Will any developers actually choose to use it? Remember, to use this entitlement, developers must:

Still offer in-app purchases through Apple’s system, alongside external payment links.
Pay Apple a 27/12 percent commission on sales through external links.
Report monthly sales to Apple and submit to audits on demand.
Track users who follow those links so they can determine which sign-ups they owe Apple commission payments for.
Follow Apple’s strict design guidelines for presenting those links.

Or, they could just stick to using IAP exclusively. I’m curious whether any developers at all will consider the new External Payment Links worth implementing. If not, how could it be a reasonable policy? It may well be legal, but bad faith and spite aren’t illegal.

 ★ 

Tom Gerken, writing for BBC News:

On Wednesday, Apple announced it would permit app developers to
sell products in places other than its own store – but only if
they still paid commission. Spotify said that was “outrageous” and
accused Apple of “stopping at nothing” to protect its profits. It
is urging the British government to prevent similar fees being
levied in the UK. […]

Spotify has reacted with fury, saying the policy “flies in the
face” of the US court’s attempt to enable greater competition.
“Once again, Apple has demonstrated that they will stop at nothing
to protect the profits they exact on the backs of developers and
consumers under their app store monopoly,” it said in a statement.

I can see why Spotify doesn’t like this, but I’m not sure why Spotify doesn’t qualify under the “reader” app category that can link to external web pages without paying Apple any commission at all. Also, I think Spotify is barking up the wrong tree while complaining about Apple’s compliance with this U.S. court order under the guise of Apple abusing a monopoly — Judge Gonzales specifically ruled that the App Store does not constitute a monopoly.

Here’s a simple thought I had today regarding whether Apple’s new External Purchase Links entitlement policy is a good faith compliance with Judge Gonzales’ order: Will any developers actually choose to use it? Remember, to use this entitlement, developers must:

Still offer in-app purchases through Apple’s system, alongside external payment links.
Pay Apple a 27/12 percent commission on sales through external links.
Report monthly sales to Apple and submit to audits on demand.
Track users who follow those links so they can determine which sign-ups they owe Apple commission payments for.
Follow Apple’s strict design guidelines for presenting those links.

Or, they could just stick to using IAP exclusively. I’m curious whether any developers at all will consider the new External Payment Links worth implementing. If not, how could it be a reasonable policy? It may well be legal, but bad faith and spite aren’t illegal.

Read More 

My thanks to Hey for sponsoring this week at DF to promote their new Hey Calendar.

Back in 2020 Hey launched their email service, with a completely fresh take on a category that hadn’t seen anything new in forever. I’ve been subscribed since it launched, and still find it like nothing else. Their “screener” feature alone is worth it: get an email from someone you never want to see email from again? Just screen them out with a single thumbs-down button click. Those emails aren’t trashed, and they aren’t flagged as spam — they’re screened out of your inbox (or in Hey’s terms, imbox), but they remain in a “Screened Out” mailbox just in case. Every email app should have something like this.

And now we’ve done the same with calendaring.

The all-new Hey Calendar brings flexibility, personality, and a radical new point of view to the boring old grid of dates.

So Hey is now both email and a calendar, all-in-one. As you may have heard, they’ve got an all-new mobile app for Hey Calendar. too. Check out how much better things can be at HEY.com.

 ★ 

My thanks to Hey for sponsoring this week at DF to promote their new Hey Calendar.

Back in 2020 Hey launched their email service, with a completely fresh take on a category that hadn’t seen anything new in forever. I’ve been subscribed since it launched, and still find it like nothing else. Their “screener” feature alone is worth it: get an email from someone you never want to see email from again? Just screen them out with a single thumbs-down button click. Those emails aren’t trashed, and they aren’t flagged as spam — they’re screened out of your inbox (or in Hey’s terms, imbox), but they remain in a “Screened Out” mailbox just in case. Every email app should have something like this.

And now we’ve done the same with calendaring.

The all-new Hey Calendar brings flexibility, personality, and a radical new point of view to the boring old grid of dates.

So Hey is now both email and a calendar, all-in-one. As you may have heard, they’ve got an all-new mobile app for Hey Calendar. too. Check out how much better things can be at HEY.com.

Read More 

Chance Miller, 9to5Mac:

As you can see, the Vision Pro is certainly heavier than other
headsets on the market, with the exception of the Meta Quest Pro.
But it’s also important to remember that, other than the Valve
Index, these other headsets have their batteries built-in, while
Vision Pro relies on an external battery pack.

With that in mind, Vision Pro is actually lighter than the other
major headset without an integrated battery.

Vision Pro: 600–650 grams (depending on light seal and headband)
Meta Quest Pro: 722 grams
Meta Quest 3: 515 grams
PlayStation VR2: 560 grams

 ★ 

Chance Miller, 9to5Mac:

As you can see, the Vision Pro is certainly heavier than other
headsets on the market, with the exception of the Meta Quest Pro.
But it’s also important to remember that, other than the Valve
Index, these other headsets have their batteries built-in, while
Vision Pro relies on an external battery pack.

With that in mind, Vision Pro is actually lighter than the other
major headset without an integrated battery.

Vision Pro: 600–650 grams (depending on light seal and headband)
Meta Quest Pro: 722 grams
Meta Quest 3: 515 grams
PlayStation VR2: 560 grams

Read More 

Behind-the-scenes teaser video from Apple showing bits of how Vision Pro is manufactured and assembled. I could watch an hour of this.

Also of note: the YouTube version is presented in widescreen 16:9 aspect ratio, but Tim Cook posted a version of the same video to Twitter/X in the tall 9:16 ratio. Works perfectly both ways. (Via Stu Maschwitz.)

 ★ 

Behind-the-scenes teaser video from Apple showing bits of how Vision Pro is manufactured and assembled. I could watch an hour of this.

Also of note: the YouTube version is presented in widescreen 16:9 aspect ratio, but Tim Cook posted a version of the same video to Twitter/X in the tall 9:16 ratio. Works perfectly both ways. (Via Stu Maschwitz.)

Read More 

File this away for the next time you remodel a bathroom. Gorgeous.

 ★ 

File this away for the next time you remodel a bathroom. Gorgeous.

Read More 

Daniel Raffel on Threads:

This IKEA table lamp in the shape of a mannequin head is probably going to be the hottest Vision Pro accessory.

Vision Pro really does raise a “Where do you keep it?” question, and the $40 Iskärna might be a fun answer.

 ★ 

Daniel Raffel on Threads:

This IKEA table lamp in the shape of a mannequin head is probably going to be the hottest Vision Pro accessory.

Vision Pro really does raise a “Where do you keep it?” question, and the $40 Iskärna might be a fun answer.

Read More