ajminnj

beeble42 said:

Apple should charge $1000 per developer per year for XCode and $10000 per title per year to license the SDK. That is fairly reasonable considering what you get for the money and much cheaper than similar ecosystems before Apple built the App store. Codewarrior cost me $1500 back in the day and it was no where near as good as XCode. Adjust for inflation and you've got yourself a bargain.

And charge fees of $0.10 per download (including all updates) to help run the store, don't allow free apps and charge take 30% of the initial purchase price.

Developers aren't getting charged 30% for simply having their app on the app store. They're getting that for the entire ecosystem Apple built for them, tools, support systems, online store as a service and so on.

The reason Apple doesn't want to do that is because it kills innovation. It kills the small guys by putting a high bar in place to cover Apple's costs. Look at the before and after landscape. How many stories were there of high schoolers making a million dollars from their bedroom back when they had to pay vast sums for development tools, negotiate with publishers (who were taking more than 30%) and fight for shelf space at retailers (who were taking more than 30%)? In round numbers, 0.

Epic can die in a fire for all I care. All the developers who work there have profited immensely from what Apple has done for the software industry and now they want to either force Apple to give everything away or recoup their costs in the only other way and kill opportunity for those who come behind them? Disgraceful.

Hedware said:

How’s this for an nonsensical statement “ There's certainly a case to be made for Apple to add a new 27-inch iMac to its lineup, but it wouldn't have met the need of many users that the Mac Studio caters to.”

Ok there’s some (no evidence for many) that want something like the Mac Studio and its component style. But the history of strong sales of the integrated 27” iMac makes a strong case for a demand for a M1 27” iMac and probably a higher demand than for Mac Studio. The business market was a strong buyer of 27” iMacs for its appearance and easy upkeep and no cables. Apple writers seem to be ignorant of business when they make statements such as the foregoing one. 

MplsP said:

dewme said:

MplsP said:

GM making its own infotainment system... what could go wrong? Maybe they need to go back and look at Ford Sync or Toyota prior to CarPlay for an example. 

According to the linked article they are also ditching Android Auto so GM is running the risk of pissing off most of their consumer base. I'm sure there are a few octogenarians who won't mind that their Buick doesn't have CarPlay but the rest of their consumer base likely not be happy.

I own a Tesla Model Y. In general Tesla's infotainment interface is fairly good but I still miss CarPlay and it remains one of my main complaints with the car. More importantly for GM, when I tell others the response is usually a combination of surprise and disappointment. The sources quoted here have it exactly right - GM shouldn't mess with what's working. If (when) they mess this up I'm sure not a small number of buyers will look to the competition. 

Your last comment is very insightful. It tells me that some, but not necessarily all, GM EV buyers will still purchase GM’s vehicles if the vehicles themselves and their homegrown infotainment systems are good enough to “forgive” the lack of CarPlay.

GM is already running a huge risk that their new vehicles may not generate customer demand. Removing an important accessory that would only help support their cause seems incrementally counterproductive. Granted, the inclusion of Apple CarPlay would not overcome the otherwise inadequacies of the vehicle itself, but why would they not try to stack the deck in their own favor by including a popular accessory that some buyers obviously relate to and see as a value add.

GM is once again putting a lot of their eggs in one basket and hoping that everything plays out in their favor. Whether it’s a bold move backed by overwhelming confidence in what they have in their design studio, or a classically dumb move, is yet to be determined. GM’s success in this new line of products will live or die based on the customer appeal of the vehicles themselves. The lack of CarPlay support definitely sounds at this point like a self-inflicted wound because nobody really knows what their alternative solution is capable of. Once we see GM’s solution we’ll better understand the severity of their self-inflicted wound. 

Yes - the people on Apple Insiders are obviously more Apple-devoted and not necessarily representative of the population as a whole, so the overwhelmingly negative response here is expected. You’re right that for many people it won’t be a total deal killer; if the positive aspects of the car are enough they may overlook it. Many people may not even notice it until they get the car home - they’ll just assume it has CarPlay like their last car did and a smart salesperson would just keep quiet about it. Similarly, a smart salesperson for the competition will bring it up and If a buyer’s trying to decide between a few cars it could easily skew the decision, though and a drop in sales is enough to matter. 

When I tell people my Tesla doesn’t have CarPlay many of them say “I didn’t know there were any new cars without it!” That ignorance may help GM but it could also hurt them long term.

’Bold’ vs ‘Classically dumb’ move will be determined by history. Either way you’re right - it’s an unnecessary self inflicted wound.