Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spotify Wins iPhone App Store Approval

timothy posted about 5 years ago | from the there's-a-cream-for-that dept.

Media (Apple) 114

angry tapir writes "Apple has approved a streaming music application from Spotify for use on the iPhone, even though the program will compete with Apple's own iTunes service. Spotify is an advertising-supported music service that lets end-users stream music to their computers free of charge. The service is available in the U.K. and by invitation in countries including Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and Spain. Users can opt to pay for a version of the service without ads." The BBC also has a story on the app's acceptance.

cancel ×

114 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In other news... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29228243)

Hell freezes over!

And... (3, Insightful)

El Lobo (994537) | about 5 years ago | (#29228287)

The fact that this is news is simply sad.

Image the news: MS approved Firefox on Windows...

Re:And... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29228311)

Couldn't agree more. And unfortunately this will be perceived as "good" news.

Don't get me wrong, the (hardware) products Apple creates are nice and pretty and all, but the vendor lock-in on the iPhone sucks monkey-balls.

And for you all "well don't buy it then"-folks. You're missing the point. A successful vendor-locked product such as the iPhone will set the norm and you can just expect even more locked products in the future (not just from Apple).

Re:And... (2, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29228341)

And you two are missing the point aswell. The whole story isn't about how surprised everyone are that Apple accepted it, but that spotify is now actually released for iPhone too. Stop trying to this thread into another "apple is bad, apple dont approve apps" discussion. I would a lot more like to read and discuss about the actual thing, aka spotify, here because its a great system and program.

I hope they get versions out to Windows Mobile and Symbian out soon too, would be great to listen on the road and the 3g internet is practically unlimited and cheap here.

Re:And... (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 5 years ago | (#29228379)

That really isn't what the story is about, though. Maybe Spotify is great, but "Spotify released for another platform" isn't that exciting and probably wouldn't end up posted on Slashdot, if there weren't some reason that it being released for the iPhone was surprising or at some point in doubt.

Re:And... (1)

mikael_j (106439) | about 5 years ago | (#29228395)

While there may have been some doubt as the whether or not Spotify for the iPhone would be approved the main reason most people I've spoken to today seem to consider the release newsworthy is because, surprise surprise, the iPhone is a very popular phone and Spotify is (at least here in Sweden) a very popular piece of software.

/Mikael

Re:And... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#29229027)

Hard sales figures show there are plenty of more popular phone manufacturers though (I'd post a reference, but last time I did that I just got modded down for posting a fact that didn't toe the pro-Apple line that the clique of mods have these days). So if that's the case, if your hypothesis is true, we should be seeing regular news stories on Slashdot and the BBC for popular applications released on all these other mobile phones too. Are we?

Re:And... (1)

mikael_j (106439) | about 5 years ago | (#29229447)

To be honest I don't think it's all that accurate to compare say, Nokia's total cellphone sales to Apple's since Apple only has one phone model while a lot of other manufacturers (like Nokia) have a wide array of models from low-end models with very few features up to high-end smartphones with every feature imaginable. A more fair comparison would be to compare the iPhone to other smartphones in the same market segment, and every such comparison I've seen seems to indicate that the iPhone is very popular.

For some more "obvious" evidence of this, how long are the lines outside stores when Nokia or another "regular" phone manufacturer releases a new phone model?

/Mikael

Re:And... (1)

kinnell (607819) | about 5 years ago | (#29228663)

That really isn't what the story is about, though. Maybe Spotify is great, but "Spotify released for another platform" isn't that exciting and probably wouldn't end up posted on Slashdot, if there weren't some reason that it being released for the iPhone was surprising or at some point in doubt.

How is it surprising? LastFM has been available on the iPhone for ages.

Re:And... (3, Interesting)

tres (151637) | about 5 years ago | (#29228853)

Personally, I think the story here is that Apple has done a 180 with this app & hope that this is a sign of things to come.

The app approval process is just broken. Way back when, Steve Jobs said that there would be limitations to the applications that would be available on the store and I can understand the reasoning as it started out; however, as of late, it's just arbitrary and capricious. It's becoming simply untenable as a development platform because the combination of seemingly arbitrary and conflicting decisions for rejection combined with the ultra slow-motion with which decisions are made -- not to mention that there is zero visibility into the approval process.

I can't run a business like that; I need to have some expectation that I'll see ROI in a reasonable time period and that Apple will act in an equitable manner regarding application submissions. My hope is that Apple is catching on to the fact that they will lose me and plenty of other developers if they don't turn the corner on the disaster that the app review process has become.

But maybe that's just wishful thinking as I head toward week 4 of waiting for my app to be approved... While developer.apple.com flaunts this in my face:

Based on the current volume of app submissions, 95% of applications are being approved within 14 days.

All while Facebook's new app gets approval in about five days...

Thanks.

Re:And... (2, Informative)

imamac (1083405) | about 5 years ago | (#29229041)

All while Facebook's new app gets approval in about five days...

While in reality it was about 11-12 days.

Re:And... (2, Insightful)

tres (151637) | about 5 years ago | (#29231595)

Good job. You've counted the beans correctly, but didn't address the point.

I guess I didn't spell it out well enough. It doesn't matter whether it took two days, twelve days or twenty days. The point is that there should be a first-in-first-out system of app evaluations. An application that uses a network connection takes a little longer to get approved. I'm okay with that; however, when I see an application that uses the same kind of resources gets submitted after mine and is approved before mine, I know there's a problem.

Re:And... (1)

teh kurisu (701097) | about 5 years ago | (#29229563)

This is not just another platform... </M&S>

Seriously though, people have been saying for years that the music industry needs to look at alternative business models in response to rampant piracy, and Spotify is one of the first that looks like being a success, in Europe at least. The iPhone/iPod Touch is I believe the official Spotify client's debut on a mobile platform, which is crucial for the service's success. Surely that's notable in itself, no matter what platform it's on.

(For those that don't get my initial joke [youtube.com] ).

Re:And... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#29228991)

And you two are missing the point aswell. The whole story isn't about how surprised everyone are that Apple accepted it, but that spotify is now actually released for iPhone too.

No, "application released for one make of phone" is not newsworthy. How many BBC and Slashdot news stories are there for applications released for Symbian, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Android, or most notably J2ME (which has a platform of about a billion or so phones)? It's only newsworthy due to the requirement of corporate approval for the Iphone platform, which is AFAIK unique among both mobile and desktop computing platforms. But fortunately for Apple (and unfortunately for us who don't want a future where all of mobile computing is controlled by a single company), even negative publicity is good publicity, because it perpetuates the myth that the Iphone is the only mobile phone that does these things (which ironically seems to be more common here than among non-geeks - even my mum knows that she can browse the web on her bog standard phone, and even though she's yet to work out how to use the phone's address book to store numbers, she happily accesses the Internet).

On second thoughts, you are right - since "On Your Iphone" makes any story newsworthy. After all, there was that Slashdot story "You can now read a webpage on your iphone" a few months back, and "spinning graphic application on the iphone" got free advertising by the BBC [bbc.co.uk] . Hmm, I pay the BBC licence fee - I wonder if they'll give me free advertising for an application I'm writing for Windows?

Will we get BBC coverage when Spotify is released for Symbian, Windows Mobile or Android too?

Re:And... (2, Funny)

necro81 (917438) | about 5 years ago | (#29229227)

You're all missing the point!

The point is...

--------------> .

Right there.

Re:And... (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 5 years ago | (#29229747)

You really think "A piece of music playing software has been released for another platform" makes a worthy slashdot story?

The only reason this story is on Slashdot is because there was perceived to be a high chance Apple would block it.

Re:And... (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 years ago | (#29230651)

The whole story isn't about how surprised everyone are that Apple accepted it, but that spotify is now actually released for iPhone too.

I disagree. I see this as fodder for their war against Google. Now they can point to this app and say 'See, we allow competitive apps ALL THE TIME. Google has no case.'

In a world where Google wasn't trying to get their apps all over the iPhone, I don't see this getting approved at all.

Claiming there's no possibility they are related is just, well, odd.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29228549)

That's as true and factual as it gets. People who grew up with PCs see restrictions as something bad and worth fighting. We grew up with completely open systems that were under our control.

Console and mobile device generations grew up with heavily restricted systems where not restricting something - even something as small as this - is actually a great feature. It's a sad marketing feat.

Re:And... (1, Insightful)

SillyWilly (692755) | about 5 years ago | (#29228331)

I think you're missing the point. Apple have approved a streaming service which in some ways directly competes with Apple's own music selling business. This demonstrated a level of maturity which Apple failed to display during the whole Google Voice debacle.

Re:And... (2, Insightful)

El Lobo (994537) | about 5 years ago | (#29228365)

So, MS should approve Open Office on Windows machines as a gest of good will... oh wait, Open Office runs on Windows without MS control, the horror!!!!

The point is: yes, Apple are now angels, look pa, they have approved one competing service. But the real news is: there are STILL A LOT of competing applications that are locked out. But no, look daddy, they are not THAT bad!

Re:And... (2, Insightful)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about 5 years ago | (#29228495)

Firefox was a good enough example since it directly competes with Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Re:And... (1)

DinDaddy (1168147) | about 5 years ago | (#29231157)

Firefox does not directly cost MS revenue like OO would.

Re:And... (1)

Clairvoyant (137586) | about 5 years ago | (#29228783)

Comparing it to Microsoft's Windows is ridiculous at best. Windows is a monopoly while, even though there a sh*tload of iPhones around, the iPhone isn't. Also, Microsoft has the same track record, though maybe not as obvious as the App store. Microsoft has done countless attempts to deal with these competitors and have locked them out on multiple occasions through not opening up all information and pushing their own services to the user (msie or msn anyone?). How is that any different?

If you don't like the services that are available on the iPhone, then don't buy an iPhone and get one of the many other neat smart phones out there. In the case of Windows that's nearly impossible (though becoming more and more easy every day)

Re:And... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#29229073)

Comparing it to Microsoft's Windows is ridiculous at best. Windows is a monopoly while, even though there a sh*tload of iPhones around, the iPhone isn't.

There are a "sh*tload" of Windows installations around too. I don't think that sentence says what you mean it to say?

Anyhow - are you seriously saying that you are only bothered about your applications requiring approval if it's MS? That if Apple did this for their desktop machines too, they'd still be just as good a platform?

Remember, no one is discussing legality or antitrust issues here (which is the only point where MS being a monopoly is relevant), the question is, is a platform where apps have to be approved by the company a good thing? Whether it's Windows, or niche desktop and mobile platforms like Iphone OS?

Also, consider if Apple did become a monopoly in the area of mobile computing - are you saying it's fine to only then worry, when the damage is done? That the problem will be solved with an antitrust case (because we know how successful that was with Microsoft!)?

Also, Microsoft has the same track record, though maybe not as obvious as the App store. Microsoft has done countless attempts to deal with these competitors and have locked them out on multiple occasions through not opening up all information and pushing their own services to the user (msie or msn anyone?). How is that any different?

Yes quite, how is it any different? MS are routinely bashed around here for those things, and rightly so, so why is it that Apple can do no wrong? How is what they do any different?

If you don't like the services that are available on the iPhone, then don't buy an iPhone and get one of the many other neat smart phones out there

Exactly - and how are people going to know about the problems with the Iphone? That's right, by telling people about the problems. But all the time that the BBC and even Slashdot only tell people about the Iphone, and not the other phones, we risk a future where eventually, the Iphone will be the only choice. Why is Slashdot helping to promote such a closed and locked down future for mobile computing? Imagine if Slashdot only posted stories about Windows, with no coverage of OS X or Linux - is that the open-loving Slashdot we used to know?

Re:And... (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | about 5 years ago | (#29230173)

Anyhow - are you seriously saying that you are only bothered about your applications requiring approval if it's MS? That if Apple did this for their desktop machines too, they'd still be just as good a platform?

No, he said the difference was MS is a monopoly in the market and Apple isn't. That clearly makes the difference important to him being a monopolist, not being MS.

If Apple did this for desktop machines it would be very annoying, but only because Apple's OS X is one of the few workable ways to get around the monopolized desktop OS market and the courts have declined to solve that problem.

Remember, no one is discussing legality or antitrust issues here (which is the only point where MS being a monopoly is relevant)...

That's true, if you think the only thing wrong with being an abusive, anti-competitive, monopolist is that it's illegal. If, however, you think it is a bad thing because of how much damage it does to markets, innovation, and consumers, one might see it differently. If Apple doesn't approve apps or do things I like with regard to the iPhone (like requiring apps to be approved), I can walk away and buy a Blackberry or a Pre or one of a dozen other phones that will work compatibly for me. If however, I'm one of MS's customers for desktop OS's, that means I build desktop computer systems for a living an I have no viable economic alternatives to buying licenses from them. That means, regardless of what MS does, as a businessman working in my own best interests, I'm stuck buying their crap and foisting it on my customers anyway (at least for the vast majority of my market segments).

Do you see the difference? Without monopoly abuse, company making these decisions hurts themselves as much as consumers and the market solves it. With a monopoly, it hurts everyone in the market and related markets and brings progress to a slow crawl.

Also, consider if Apple did become a monopoly in the area of mobile computing - are you saying it's fine to only then worry, when the damage is done?

Yes. Until then, there actions are just part of the competitive free market and are helping to drive innovation from either Apple or Apple's competitors.

That the problem will be solved with an antitrust case (because we know how successful that was with Microsoft!)?

If people bothered to educate themselves enough to understand antitrust and bothered to vote out idiots who gave criminals a free pass then it would work fine. Unfortunately people are idiots and get what they deserve, both corrupt politicians and a crippled desktop OS market.

But all the time that the BBC and even Slashdot only tell people about the Iphone...

Umm, what planet do you live on? Both Slashdot and the BBC run articles about other phones, including Blackberry and Pre.

...the Iphone will be the only choice.

With 1% or less of the worldwide cell phone market, I think we can afford to wait a while before worrying about this coming iPhone apocalypse. How about when it hits 50%, you get back to me.

Re:And... (1)

itsdapead (734413) | about 5 years ago | (#29228803)

It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!

At least you have a choice... There are racks and racks of alternative MP3 players and phones in stores, and at least 4 serious, mainstream contenders for smartphone platforms. For most of the 1990s the choice for desktop PCs was DOS/Windows vs. some minority ghetto platform or other (some of which were brilliant: Amiga, RISC-OS etc. but which were becoming a labor of love to support).

If you want to, get an Android phone (I have one, they're cool) and install so many apps on it that it grinds to a halt, and you have to install a task killer that lets you kill com.google.magicsmoke if you feel inclined. I'd recommend these to anybody slightly technie who might want to install a FTP server on their phone. However, I also have an iPod touch and, sorry, the iPhone UI is still in a different league, sorry.

oh wait, Open Office runs on Windows without MS control, the horror!!!!

In other news, Open Office also runs on a Mac without Apple approval. The full SDK is included free. Install fink or macports and you can install a massive range of FLOSS projects. Apple even provide a point-and-drool tool to let you install Windows on your Mac if you want.

Point is (shennanigans with AT&T notwithstanding) Apple understand the difference between a general purpose computer (Mac) and an appliance (iPhone), and are trying to ensure that, for an appliance, even if you are sufficietly sad to want to install 20 different fart simuators that it does't fuck up the phone or the music player.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29230991)

No...this is about the App Store. To use your example. This is like being able to download open office directly from Microsoft.com.

Apple selling a competing product in a store owned by apple.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29228367)

Yay..and somehow you managed to make the approval of one application (that only competes with iTunes in a few selected countries) into how good their locked down system works.

You know...if they would have had an open system, Spotify would already have been available on the iPhone.

FYI, I use both macs and Spotify (among other things). I just dislike vendor lock-in regardless of who is doing the actual locking.

Re:And... (1)

mea37 (1201159) | about 5 years ago | (#29230657)

I don't think it's a question of having matured. I admit I'm speculating some here, but I think they just see the two situations as different.

I think they're counting on the fact that Google Voice competes with a core function of the product. Should they lock out competition with services that are not the core function of the phone, and should a court be overly-narrow in defining the market in which the iPhone competes (as the market's evolution shows they did to MS, though nobody around here wants to recognize it), then they could be found to have used a monopoly market position as leverage in another market.

Re:And... (1)

teg (97890) | about 5 years ago | (#29231081)

The Google Voice application would be more intrusive... it would basically replace your voicemail and SMS applications with its own, as I understood it. It would undermine the experience that Apple wants the user to have.

Now, the user should be able to do so, but it's a different situation. Spotify won't destroy the "experience" in any way, it's an app which provides access to a huge library of music - an online, gigantic itunes library. Competing with the need for downloading music onto iTunes? Yep. Changing the experience? Nah.

Re:And... (4, Interesting)

gsslay (807818) | about 5 years ago | (#29228373)

That's not what makes this news. The fact it is competing with iTunes is simply a side issue.

What's significant is that this makes the iPhone a mobile streaming device, with access to a massive library of music. It is not an online radio station. It is having a practically unlimited choice of music available to you, anywhere. For free.

Re:And... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29228421)

No, you'll need a spotify premium account for ~$10/month.

Re:And... (1)

gsslay (807818) | about 5 years ago | (#29228771)

Yeah, so it appears. Doesn't say this on original article. However, still fair value. Remember you can use this same account on your home system.

However, 10 GBP is not ~$10. More like $16.

Re:And... (1)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29228807)

It's not GBP, its 9,99 euros = ~$14.

Re:And... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 5 years ago | (#29230203)

That's 1,500 Yen.

Re:And... (1)

pizzach (1011925) | about 5 years ago | (#29230673)

Which is 500 Rupees assuming you have already gotten the larger wallet after the 3rd dungeon.

Re:And... (1)

gsslay (807818) | about 5 years ago | (#29230813)

It is indeed GBP. In the UK.

Re:And... (1)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | about 5 years ago | (#29228503)

since when is ad-supported "free"?

Re:And... (1)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29228779)

I dont know what idea of free you have, but its free for user. Like tv stations with ads are free for user. Now get off your high horse.

Re:And... (1)

apoc.famine (621563) | about 5 years ago | (#29230671)

Since when are iPhones, data plans, and apps from the app store free?

Re:And... (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about 5 years ago | (#29228619)

What's significant is that this makes the iPhone a mobile streaming device

But how mobile it really is, if it only supports wlan?

Re:And... (1)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29228793)

It supports 2G/3G as well (Q [twitter.com] /A [twitter.com] )

Besides that it allows caching of ~2000 songs on the device that you can take with you. But atleast here in scandinavia unlimited 2G/3G plans are so cheap that might just aswell use them.

Re:And... (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about 5 years ago | (#29229859)

Thanks, I stand corrected. Also, I stand in Finland, so yes, 3G plans are cheap here - but I have nobody to invite me to Spotify :o(

Re:And... (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 5 years ago | (#29228633)

How is this different from Pandora?

(Really want to know. I'm not "into" streaming services as such.)

Re:And... (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | about 5 years ago | (#29228785)

How is this different from Pandora?

Spotify is an on-demand streaming dukebox with a HUGE catalogue of tracks. No limit to the number of listens and an uncanny, almost instant replay.

Re:And... (1)

mea37 (1201159) | about 5 years ago | (#29230577)

Yeah, and if you think that's bad, I can't run anything custom on my Samsung! How sad is that! ...because the iPhone is a general-purpose computer, right?

Is it also sad that your local cable company doesn't let you run whatever software you want on the set-top box? I guess RMS probably thinks so. Maybe you do, too. I think what they're selling is a special-purpose device that includes software of their specification.

The iPhone is somewhere in between. If you bought it thinking it was a free computing platform, the fault is yours. Apple's decision was to let 3rd-party developers extend the product subject to their terms. Maybe that's not a good deal for the developers; but then, they know the score when they choose to develop on that platform.

Re:And... (1)

pizzach (1011925) | about 5 years ago | (#29230635)

Personally, a closer analogy would be Nintendo approving Firefox for the Wii.

new laptop battery from www.everpowerindustry.com (-1, Offtopic)

apple1012 (1625193) | about 5 years ago | (#29228289)

welcome to www.everpowerindustry.com, my friends!

NOTE! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29228295)

Before someone starts comparing Spotify to Pandora or Last.fm _again_, it's something different. In Spotify you choose the songs you listen to, create playlists out of them, listen to whole albums from start to finish, or even listen to a single track in endless repeat if you so choose. It's not a personal Internet radio station, it's a huge music library that you can only listen to by streaming.

Re:NOTE! (1)

self assembled struc (62483) | about 5 years ago | (#29230297)

none the less the comparison is that it's streaming. streaming audio to the phone does not compete with the itunes store in anyway, shape nor form. you're on the subway in nyc and want to use spotify? tough luck unless you're on an elevated train line.

Re:NOTE! (1)

slim (1652) | about 5 years ago | (#29231345)

streaming audio to the phone does not compete with the itunes store in anyway, shape nor form.

Of course it competes in some way.

Perhaps consumer X's daily routine is to listen to music on his walk to work. Now he can stream insteady of buy from iTunes.

Perhaps consumer Y likes to listen to music on headphones while working, but his employer won't let him stream over the office network connection. Now he can stream over his phone instead of buying from iTunes.

Yes, there's a small percentage of the market who want music where there's no phone signal. But that doesn't mean this can't eat into iTunes' market.

Re:NOTE! (1)

slim (1652) | about 5 years ago | (#29231485)

Correcting myself. Apparently it only streams over WiFi, not over a phone connection.

But! It can cache 2000 tracks. So even your tube traveller will be able to use it as a viable alternative to iTunes.

Impressed by Spotify, but Apple? (5, Insightful)

Rog7 (182880) | about 5 years ago | (#29228335)

I think it's a great move and a well made app & service like this can only help Apple.

Unfortunately, I've got the distinct impression that Apple approved this app because it was poised to give them a lot of bad press if they didn't approve it. Maybe if their track record for app approval was a bit better, I'd be throwing kudos Apple's way, but at this point I'm pretty jaded.

I find lately that I'm quite glad Apple never gained the top spot in the personal computer market, because I dread what sort of control they would impose over my PC. Yeah the alternatives haven't been great, but seeing what they've done with a market where they do have significant share, I shudder thinking about what it would have been like.

All of the credit should go to Spotify itself. I'd really like to see it brought to North America and specifically Canada, where I can use it. It's really spectacular and more of the revolution in music listening than anything we've seen in a long while.

Re:Impressed by Spotify, but Apple? (1)

twoshortplanks (124523) | about 5 years ago | (#29228403)

I'd really like to see it brought to North America and specifically Canada, where I can use it. It's really spectacular and more of the revolution in music listening than anything we've seen in a long while.

Can't you just get premium membership [spotify.com] to use spotify anywhere in the world?

Re:Impressed by Spotify, but Apple? (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 5 years ago | (#29228567)

"This product is not available in your country yet."

No.

Re:Impressed by Spotify, but Apple? (1)

lovemayo (674154) | about 5 years ago | (#29228801)

It takes a bit of doing, as you need to sign up from an IP from a country where Spotify is available. You can either try to find a free proxy, or sign up for the piratebay guys anon VPN service (swedish IP) or some other service. After signup, you can get the premium.

Re:Impressed by Spotify, but Apple? (-1, Troll)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 5 years ago | (#29228833)

Unfortunately, I've got the distinct impression that Apple approved this app because it was poised to give them a lot of bad press if they didn't approve it. Maybe if their track record for app approval was a bit better, I'd be throwing kudos Apple's way, but at this point I'm pretty jaded.

Of course you're jaded because it's now en vogue to hate on Apple, the iPhone, and the app store. I mean, after all, they've sold/given away over a billion apps and have approved over 65,000 apps, but hey, their track record for app approval should be a bit better, right?

Let me say that last fact again - approved over 65,000 apps. Yes, there have been some apps that weren't approved along the way but I think it's insincere to imply they have a bad track record when, clearly, the vast majority of apps submitted for approval do get approved.

But, yeah, let's continue hating on Apple because that's the cool thing geeks do now. Let's continue implying that Apple regularly doesn't approve apps when there's no evidence to suggest such beyond a few rare and interesting apps that fail to get approved. Let's deny the facts that are right in front of us and instead buy into the FUD (I'm sure some marketing people at Microsoft are LOVING this).

I'm sure you'll ignore my post and write me off as an Apple fanboi...

Re:Impressed by Spotify, but Apple? (5, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#29229125)

I mean, after all, they've sold/given away over a billion apps and have approved over 65,000 apps, but hey, their track record for app approval should be a bit better, right?

Yes, let's compare them to other platforms.

*checks*

Oh wait, there isn't any data for how many apps are approved for other platforms, because you don't have to in the first place.

The issue isn't how many they have approved - whether it's 100, 10,000, or 100 billion. The issue is that they can - and do - refuse to approve an application. If a desktop platform said you couldn't run Firefox, pleading "But they've approved 65,000 other applications" is beside the point.

But, yeah, let's continue hating on Apple because that's the cool thing geeks do now.

Not here on Slashdot. And I see you make the Japan-fallacy again - that anyone who doesn't praise Apple must be doing so out of irrational hatred.

Re:Impressed by Spotify, but Apple? (2, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 5 years ago | (#29229265)

I see you make the Japan-fallacy again - that anyone who doesn't praise Apple must be doing so out of irrational hatred.

Are you saying that Rog7 (the poster to whom I replied) was posting a rational critique of Apple? I sure hope not because I didn't see anything remotely rational about it.

Apple is not perfect. There are many things I wish Apple did differently and I am more than fine with someone offering a legitimate and rational criticism of the company or their products. Lately, however, I've seen a growing trend of people hating on Apple because, well, that's what the cool kids are doing. No valid justification - just buying into the FUD.

Would you prefer I point out just how insincere I find it when people hate on Microsoft because they're Microsoft? I think it's the same thing - people offering no solid reason to hate a company other than it's cool to hate the company.

There are many reasons to like Apple and/or Microsoft. There are similarly many reasons to dislike Apple and/or Microsoft. Present those reasons and then a conversation can ensue.

As an example, Rog7 didn't state that he didn't like the fact that Apple has control over what apps are and are not approved on the app store - that he wished the platform was completely open so that stories like this didn't exist. That would be a stance I could understand - you dislike Apple because they aren't as open as you would like. Fine. He implied they approved the app for PR reasons (to avoid bad press) and suggested their track record for app approval was sub-par (not that he disliked _ANY_ app failing to be approved - that their track record "could be a bit better").

So, sorry, but I think those reasons for hating on Apple are irrational. There's no foundation in fact to support them. Sorry if you think that's a Japan-fallacy but it ain't.

Re:Impressed by Spotify, but Apple? (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | about 5 years ago | (#29229533)

Why do you care whether or not some random person on the internet 'hates' Apple?

Whatever weird offshoot of brand loyalty causes this kind of thing, it only reinforces the idea that people like you buy Apple products not because they are better, but for the external approval Apple's cool factor can get you. It isn't like this relationship offers hope of reciprocation. If Rog7 posts some irrational critique of you, Apple isn't going to dispatch an employee to come to your defense. And it isn't like Apple is going to close up shop in capitulation. So why does it matter?

I have a pile of Apple hardware. I bought it because it did what I needed it to do better than any alternatives. It matters not at all what some random person thinks about it, because I'm better qualified than he is to figure out what I need. If I got all teary eyed when I read an anti-Apple comment I'd never get anything done, what with the two-a-day iPhone stories just on Slashdot alone.

Re:Impressed by Spotify, but Apple? (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 5 years ago | (#29229713)

Why does it matter? Slashdot is more than a news site for nerds (though it could sometimes be argued that it's sometimes less than that... :) - it's also a forum for people to discuss these matters with other people who share similar interests. The discussions are a big reason why people come here. Thus, when one sees the discourse veering off course, one should care. When the normally balanced and intelligent discussions takes a shift to FUD (regardless of topic - Apple, Microsoft, patents, space, whatever), then the value of the discussions drops. So, yes, I care. I enjoy Slashdot because I learn a lot from the people here and value the discussions so I'd like to see FUD remain out of the discussions. In this case, it was about Apple. Yesterday it was a discussion falsely accusing TiVo of being a patent troll. [slashdot.org]

So, yeah - I care.

Re:Impressed by Spotify, but Apple? (1)

Rog7 (182880) | about 5 years ago | (#29230063)

Let me be really clear whisper_jeff:

I don't believe that with a computing device that I own, that I should have to be gated through a solitary portal to install software.

However, if they do insist on gating my usage in such a way, I expect them to approve applications quickly and based on criteria for the good of the application and the user, not the control of their own market, censorship or the other reasons I find distasteful that they have (in some cases) openly cited.

How Apple runs the app store to me, is highly subjective and non-competitive. Did I say however, that I hate them? I disagree with them.

I'm quite rational in my preferences. I'm quite able to think for myself thank you too without someone taking passive-aggressive shots at my sanity. *rolls eyes*

But hey, thanks for the ad hominem attack. You could have thoughtfully replied how you disagreed, instead of just spouting numbers of how successful you feel they've been and declaring me irrational.

You, sir, are a shill.

Re:Impressed by Spotify, but Apple? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 years ago | (#29228951)

I think it's a great move and a well made app & service like this can only help Apple.

Unfortunately, I've got the distinct impression that Apple approved this app because it was poised to give them a lot of bad press if they didn't approve it. Maybe if their track record for app approval was a bit better, I'd be throwing kudos Apple's way, but at this point I'm pretty jaded.

Actually, Apple refusing and Spotify signing on with other mp3 players and saying "Sorry, you had your chance" is one of the few things that really could unseat the iPod. Like, "I got an iPod and iTunes store" vs "I got a Creative Zen with Spotify!"

Re:Impressed by Spotify, but Apple? (1)

d-r0ck (1365765) | about 5 years ago | (#29229425)

FYI It's coming to USA/Canada at the end of 09/early 2010. Canada and USA will both go live at the same time.

Not quite the game changer it appears (3, Informative)

onion2k (203094) | about 5 years ago | (#29228347)

There are two caveats that limit the appeal of this...

1. You have to be a Premium Account holder ... that's £10/month.

2. (Apparently) it'll only work with a wifi connection, not 3G.

The wifi-only bit is the killer. Everywhere I use wifi I have a computer (office, home, girlfriend's home). That means it's not very useful, and as it's not very useful I don't see the point in buying the £10/month subscription in order to use it. If I wanted the Premium service I'd already have paid for it to use with the computers.

Re:Not quite the game changer it appears (2, Informative)

Hasney (980180) | about 5 years ago | (#29228519)

There are ways around that with a jailbroken iPhone. It will make the phone think it is on WiFi. TrickerThreeG (available in Cydia) will, with a little manual config, make any app you want think it is on WiFi when you have a 3G connection.

Re:Not quite the game changer it appears (5, Informative)

Cesa (972909) | about 5 years ago | (#29228607)

2. (Apparently) it'll only work with a wifi connection, not 3G.

That is incorrect, Daniel Ek confirmed on twitter that it will work over 2G/3G. Question [twitter.com] Response [twitter.com]

Re:Not quite the game changer it appears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29229301)

girlfriend's home

Whats the reception like, while you sit the bushes and peer in the windows?

Re:Not quite the game changer it appears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29229501)

It does work on 3G and on Edge.
"Expect a little bit of lag between songs on 3-G, and to hear dropouts if youâ(TM)re on the Edge network (first-generation iPhone owners should be prepared to sync playlists for offline listening)."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/spotify-iphone-app/

Re:Not quite the game changer it appears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29230663)

I think it caches your playlist when you are in Wifi or 3g areas IIRC.

Apple, the new microsoft.... (-1, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | about 5 years ago | (#29228375)

and people say MS are the devil for bundling. atleast they've never prevented other peoples apps from being installed under windows.

Re:Apple, the new microsoft.... (-1)

El Lobo (994537) | about 5 years ago | (#29228445)

Sorry to rain on your parade but Apple has ALWAYS been more closed that MS ever was.

Did you forgot their happy lawyers suing everyone using Mac themes on PCs back in the 90s?

Or they, shutting down the Mac clones, or the constant censure on Apple support forums, or they suing people making programs to access the iPod (competing with the one and only HOLY way: iTunes), or...do I need to go on?

The reason why people complain on MS in the first place is because they have been so HUGE that everyone in the planet has at least worked on a PC running Windows. There are people that never seen a MAc in their life.

Unfortunately, things are changing with the iPods, iPhones...Oh well...

Re:Apple, the new microsoft.... (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29228725)

Yep, Windows OS is quite open (not meaning the OSS way now) compared to Apple's stuff and even Windows Mobile is a lot more open than iPhone, you can install any software on it like on Windows. Hell, you can even get Linux and Android running on it without hacks or jailbreaking [zdnet.com] .

Leigh stated that it isn't a ROM hack or anything, but a Linux image running within Windows Mobile. Hmm, a dual boot device could be very enticing for the mobile gadget geek.

Re:Apple, the new microsoft.... (2, Interesting)

MosesJones (55544) | about 5 years ago | (#29228479)

No they've just been found guilty for preventing other people's applications working EFFECTIVELY under Windows by not publishing the full APIs and thus giving themselves an unfair competitive advantage.

Different approach with the same intent.

Re:Apple, the new microsoft.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29228739)

Only different between Apple and MS in this case is that MS is convicted and Apple is still on the run....

Re:Apple, the new microsoft.... (1)

timmarhy (659436) | about 5 years ago | (#29228777)

do you really think apple would survive that trial?

Its out for the Android G1 phone too. (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | about 5 years ago | (#29228485)

I like spotify, the option to listen to any song you want is really cool. But, the radio stations are weak, it doesnt play genre as well as pandora.

I'm stuck using imeem (good for popular music only), but I'd rather have pandora.

Also be nice to have some more talk/comedy too. God I with my G1 had flash, problem solved...

So, can I complain? (4, Interesting)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 5 years ago | (#29228515)

Seems like whenever an story about Hulu/etc somes on all the non-USians come to complain about that.

So can I complain about it not being offered here in the states and how that's so unfair so I'll just download the stuff instead of pay for it?

Re:So, can I complain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29228741)

Yes. Feel free. And I'm sure they'll pay as much attention to your complains as US geographically restricted services pay to ours: i.e. none whatsoever.

Turns out the 'world wide' web isn't. We are united in their indifference.

Re:So, can I complain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29228761)

Sure, go ahead.

Re:So, can I complain? (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 5 years ago | (#29228845)

Yes. You can complain. I, as a Canadian that can't get this Spotify service nor Hulu can complain louder though. ;)

Seriously though, it's beyond annoying that there are now so many "services" on the world wide web that are not, in fact, world wide. I understand it's because the service only negotiated distribution rights within the US, or whatever, but I will never be a fan of region locks.

Yes, I know that one can use some services like TOR to get around region restrictions on the 'net (and add anonymity to my only activity) - I just haven't bothered to set up for one yet... Anyone have a recommendation of a service to use that is easy and seamless?

Re:So, can I complain? (1)

muffen (321442) | about 5 years ago | (#29228895)

Seems like whenever an story about Hulu/etc somes on all the non-USians come to complain about that. So can I complain about it not being offered here in the states and how that's so unfair so I'll just download the stuff instead of pay for it?

Difference is in Europe you can download without the risk of having to pay fines that are so far out of proportion that it's beyond sad. Of course the risk of getting caught is always there but I doubt you will find any country in Europe where your fine will be $750 per song! [techdirt.com]

Plus, you should have spotify in the US before the year is over.

So, to sum it up, I say go for the illegal downloads ^^

Re:So, can I complain? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#29229175)

I think you just did.

N900 (4, Insightful)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | about 5 years ago | (#29228533)

With the Nokia N900, the Palm Pre and an army of android phones waiting around the corner, maybe dear apple understands they're not so special any more! They can't afford being so hoity-toity with three (android, maemo, webos) fully functional multitasking OS's breathing down their necks

It should be noted that the iPhone version... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29228555)

..._requires_ a Premium account - a normal, free account is not allowed to log in. This is all for understandable reasons relating to how Spotify, when used with a free account, enforces ads that can not be shut off or ignored.

Re:It should be noted that the iPhone version... (2, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29228755)

..._requires_ a Premium account - a normal, free account is not allowed to log in. This is all for understandable reasons relating to how Spotify, when used with a free account, enforces ads that can not be shut off or ignored.

Which I find really interesting from Apple's perspective, because

The application will be free, but will require the user to have a premium Spotify subscription, which costs £10.

means Apple wont be getting its share from the sales on the app store, because those premium subscriptions are bought directly from Spotify's site.

Re:It should be noted that the iPhone version... (2, Insightful)

TuaAmin13 (1359435) | about 5 years ago | (#29228915)

I'm thinking this slipped by the cens---I mean, reviewers. For every single overly strict reviewer they have, one or two is probably more lax. That guy, whose job is probably now in jeopardy, approved the app not realizing Apple won't make money, even if it did compete with existing iPhone functionality.

Either that or they're panicking because of the recent FCC inquiries so they don't want to mess anything up.

But we all know Apple doesn't panic.

Re:It should be noted that the iPhone version... (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about 5 years ago | (#29231177)

Apple doesn't need that extra subscription money - they're already getting 30% of a 2.5 Billion dollar market. Apple is doing just fine running their little app store.

Half the apps on there are now ad supported - these are apps released for free (meaning no money for Apple) which make money from ad impressions where all the ad dollars go directly to the app developer.

I'd say the app store is evolving over time as they add new features and look at the various revenue streams...

iTunes was never intended to be a money maker anyways, rather it was the bait to get people to go with an iPod (now iPhone too) rather than a competing music playing device - so now that iPhone/Touch applications are driving device sales, Apple is better off not worrying about their iTunes investment - it's no longer the big device sales driver... it's just a great default music player for those who don't want to pay more or sign up for an extra service.

Re:It should be noted that the iPhone version... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29229805)

Hm. But then again there already are lots of iPhone apps out there that are aimed at commercial services external to Apple, and of course Apple have nothing to do with those companies' services or their fees. They only take their share of the app itself, in usual order.

Spotify is no different in this sense. It is fully natural that it should be Premium only, because it wouldn't be feasible to run the free version as it will eat shitloads of your bandwidth when a) pumping you full of bollox advertisement all the time and b) streaming YOUR cached data to other clients. The end-user costs would go ballistic in a minute.

Re:It should be noted that the iPhone version... (1)

slim (1652) | about 5 years ago | (#29231549)

means Apple wont be getting its share from the sales on the app store, because those premium subscriptions are bought directly from Spotify's site.

I *bet* there's a bit of quid pro quo going on there.

first Postt? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29228627)

Confirming the Halt. Even emacs

Apple... (0, Flamebait)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | about 5 years ago | (#29228667)

...is obviously just scared of the FCC. Good thing Obama appointed Genachowski as the head.

Spotify Blog (1)

muffen (321442) | about 5 years ago | (#29228677)

There is information on their blog [spotify.com] about this, which includes the following statement in one of the posts (by a spotify employee): "Rest assured we're working on the Android version. Keep an eye out on the blog for updates!"

Another bit that was lost in the original article is that you need a premium account to use the iphone app (current cost is 99SEK .. approx $13).
I did like this part in the blog post:

Spotify on the iPhone will include many of the features our users enjoy on the desktop, with the added advantage of letting you listen to your playlists even when you haven't a network connection, for instance when on a plane or the underground.

Re:Spotify Blog (2, Informative)

muffen (321442) | about 5 years ago | (#29228701)

In a Swedish article on IDG.SE [www.idg.se] they were waiting for the iPhone app before the US launch. Currently they expect spotify in the US before year-end.

You can a preview of the app here [youtube.com]

Re:Spotify Blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29228905)

Spotify is nice but they have a serious scaling problem in two fronts:
A) they need to get different music licenses for all the different areas
B) they need to implement their own client for every platform they want to support

That is such a waste.

spoNge (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29229885)

Bandwidth bills haha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29230661)

Oh My GOD!

You just wait and see till the bandwidth usage reports come streaming in, and our dear iPhone user get three/four digits phone bills due to the fact Spotify is a Peer 2 Peer program that HOGS your bandwidth with up to 50 connections.

Oh, I'm sure this'll work out great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29231159)

So (pathetically) this is news, that they so graciously grant permission to someone to compete against their own store? Well, don't compete too well, Spotify. What Apple can give, Apple can take away.

I'm glad I'm not invested in Spotify. Maybe there's money to be made on that platform, but you've got to have steelier balls than what I've got. I'd be constantly dreading the sound of the other shoe dropping. Being at someone's mercy like that .. ugh. Maybe steely balls isn't the right metaphor; gotta work something about deferential subservient submissive slavery into it. I get an image of my little dog crouching down when I give her a stern look, "Yes, master, I hope I haven't done anything wrong. Nothing about the app displeases you, does it master? I'll change it however you say!"

P.S. Streaming music over cell networks?! Holy fuck that qualifies as one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of. I think I know why Apple approved this: to make iTunes Music Store seem like a slightly less stupid piece of shit. And maybe that's why Spotify knew they'd get away with it; the idea of such a thing competing with anything, even buying 8-track tapes by snail mail, is so absurdly small that it's not worth worrying about.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>