I find that https://lobste.rs has similar technical stories I enjoy.
Their account/comment system (a tree of trust based who invited whom to the site) does a good job of limiting drive-by negativity and other unpleasantries.
I don't have an account there yet due to being shy and not knowing many techy persons IRL I might get an invite from. (If anyone wants to invite me I'd appreciate it)
Many of the css options that make complex layouts more palatable have only been commonly supported more recently. (flex-box:2015 , grid:2017, newer units:2010)
I don't remember the specific editions, but it was a long time ago - long before flex-box and grid were around. Still, back then, people could work magic with CSS using floats and positioning and such, and I couldn't make any sense of it. Maybe it's time to pick up a more up-to-date book on CSS and try again with the modern timesavers.
The Hilarious World Of Depression (THWOD)
99% Invisible
Accidental Tech Podcast
Reconcilable Differences
Do By Friday
Cortex
Writer's Almanac
Radiolab
Note To Self
MBMBAM
The Incomparable (as topics interest me)
What Spotify would like is to be able to not pay Apple for use of its store.
It would be as if a product inside a Walmart demanded to be allowed to put up a display INSIDE Walmart of their product with a large sign saying instead of buying our mop for $13 here, come out to the parking lot and I'll sell it to you for $10.
Not exactly. The problem is that you're not paying for the Spotify app itself, you're paying for a subscription service that Spotify provides, not Apple. Apple (corporation) doesn't store or stream the content that Spotify is providing, Spotify does. And Spotify streams it over the network connections the user (typically) pays for.
It may make sense for Apple as payment processor to take a cut, but not the 30% that they are for subscriptions. Subscriptions aren't actually adding features to the app, as demonstrated by the fact that you can subscribe outside the app (through Spotify's website), and still get the same content.
This is different than, say, my purchase of OmniFocus or another app. I'm not subscribing to anything, it's a one-time purchase enabling the app, perhaps more purchases later to enable more app features through in-app purchases.
The same problem, for me, exists with other subscriptions like, for instance, newspapers/magazines. Apple takes a big cut if I subscribe through the app, but going to their website I can subscribe and they retain more of the purchase price, and I can still access the content through the app.
TL;DR: Apple is acting as a payment processor and thinking they can get away with a 30% cut. Unlike apps which are hosted and vetted by Apple before making it into the app store, subscriptions to content are neither hosted nor vetted (beyond content type/suitability like porn being blocked - still?). The cost they impose on Spotify or any other subscription service is absurd.
The unfortunate part is that because of iOS's restrictions, it's also a bit like, "if you coincidentally buy your frozen pizzas from Wal-Mart, we're not allowed to sell you our product anywhere but Wal-Mart". Spotify doesn't want to pay for use of the store because they have no need for the store.
That analogy is a bit tortured, but you get what I mean. Spotify, Netflix, Amazon, and other extremely popular services don't need that "we'll get you in front of customers" service that Apple touts as a reason why the 30% cut makes sense. And if you're a relatively unknown developer, you do get value from the App Store that you pay for with that 30% cut. However, I'd rather have Netflix than an iPhone. I'd have Netflix with or without an iPhone. Apple provides negligible value to Netflix or Spotify, in that while there are millions of customers of those companies using Apple devices, if Apple went away tomorrow, those customers would just buy a different phone and continue to subscribe to Netflix or Spotify.
I don't think there's anything necessarily anti-competitive to the level of thinking its legally actionable, but I certainly do find it a bit distasteful. The Kindle app is just better on my Android devices than it is on my iPad. It's a better user experience because there's no one putting arbitrary inconveniences in my way. And I dislike giving money to useless middle-men. I'm happy to pay Apple for the iPad -- they made a thing that I enjoy. I'm happy to pay Amazon for the incredible store and ebook infrastructure they've set up. I might like more of the money to go to the author, but at least Amazon is providing me some value in the transaction. Apple provides me nothing of value in that ebook transaction. They're just a leech.
The App Store is not a Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart doesn't let people use its store to give stuff away for free, for example, while Apple has no problem with free apps that never require payment for anything. Wal-Mart also isn't the sole source for products which work with another kind of product, they're just a store, little different from other big stores. The App Store is the sole source for software that runs on iPhones, and it exists mainly to drive iPhone sales, the revenue from the App Store itself is insignificant.
Apple requires all developers to pay $99/yr to publish any applications, even free ones. They are strictly pay to play. Also, App Store revenue is certainly not "insignificant", we're talking $Billions of dollars for Apple here... https://techcrunch.com/2014/01/07/apple-10b-in-app-store-sal...
Good point on the $99/year. Still, good luck convincing Wal-Mart to let you user their stores as a distribution point for your free stuff for a low annual payment.
Apple is big enough that billions can easily be insignificant. According to that article, they've paid out $15 billion total to developers. That means that Apple's cut has been about $6.5 billion. That's over a period of eight years, so somewhat less than $1 billion in revenue per year. Currently Apple is making $10-20 billion per quarter in profit, with yearly revenues beyond $200 billion.
Their account/comment system (a tree of trust based who invited whom to the site) does a good job of limiting drive-by negativity and other unpleasantries.
I don't have an account there yet due to being shy and not knowing many techy persons IRL I might get an invite from. (If anyone wants to invite me I'd appreciate it)