or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Jensonb

I never said anything about Alphabet being a way of hiding anything. What are you talking about?
Nobody said they weren't making money. Their advertising business is hugely profitable. That doesn't mean they don't have (many) other products which are at best money pits or at worst miserable failures. You're using a straw man to accuse Google's critics of the fallacy of selective attention. The reality is pretending that Google's Alphabet's overall financial health excuses their various failures is ridiculous. Apple is also massively profitable (and boasts a Scrooge...
Google's (Now Alphabet's) failure to learn this lesson goes beyond the impossible, as not only do they relentlessly continue to make crap nobody uses...They euthanise products people use and cherish in order to shill for the crap nobody uses. They destroyed or neutered Google Voice (Formerly Grand Central), Google Reader and Picasa on their way to shilling Plus - a product they didn't even need as they already owned at least three social services of greater value to users...
What? You came in with the sarcasm. If you want to be a smart ass you have to expect people to respond in kind. As to your point, the article is substantially related to the headline. Wi-fi assist is mentioned only in the penultimate paragraph.
The headline, genius.
No it doesn't.   Source: I upgraded to Beta 3 earlier.
I think you actually missed the point a bit. You ignored the part about "goalposts moving". The joke was that people were trying to dismiss or diminish Taylor's decision to allow 1989 onto Apple Music by inventing ever more preposterous reasons why it's no big deal:And so on and so on. That has been the flow of the thread. Every time someone has tried to dismiss this, someone else has pointed out that their basis for dismissing it is faulty. Then immediately a new faulty...
Don't be ridiculous. This is about an Apple promotional move. There was no justification, financial or otherwise, for them not paying for it. It was their idea to promote their service. It's not about giving the other side what they want because you can afford to, it's about having the financial clout to not piss your partners off for no reason.
I understood Apple's argument that the free trial was there to get people in the door so maybe the benefits would be felt later. My disagreement with them is that while they are free to make that loss-leader decision for themselves, it should be up to the rights holders if they want to partake in loss-leading too. Clearly, many did not. As such, it is only sensible that Apple foot the bill. They can afford it and they're playing the long game anyway. Taylor Swift is the...
Has it escaped their attention that if the major labels were colluding with Apple to weaken or coerce Spotify, they'd essentially be attempting to weaken or coerce...Themselves? They're Spotify shareholders
New Posts  All Forums: