(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
A lot of what we see Amazon, and others doing, is the old concept of selling the razors cheaply, and making the money on the blades. When we look at the chips needed for this, we can see that they just cost a couple of bucks each. I don’t see what the problem is with making a usb stick for that as others are doing. The stick would be cheap to make, and could sell cheaply. Even if Apple lost $5-$10 on each, they would make that back very quickly, possibly in the first month of use.
renting and selling content is very profitable. Carrying that usb stick with you would allow all of this to happen on the go more easily than now, and would almost surely lead to more content rentals and sales.
not everyone needs, or wants, a relatively expensive home bound device like Apple TV. I have it, and will get the new one, assuming there is one, even though I don’t have a 4K model yet. But I would also buy a portable, inexpensive device, and I know my daughter would want one too.
remember that Apple also had a $49 iPod as well as the more expensive offerings. And the Mini Mac was first intended as a “cheap” way of entering the Mac world. So it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
You might have missed the point I made.
I stated that without an Apple subscription service, with or without original content, there wasn't any stickiness for the consumer. A low cost AppleTV device is in essence just another cheap device like all of the other make. Why even buy/rent/stream content from Apple at all if your preferred subscriptions are elsewhere?
You have to be getting some kind of benefit from Apple's ecosystem, Foggyhill made a good point about how poorly the AppleTV integrates into that ecosystem. Making a cheaper device isn't going to fix that. on its own anyway.
Your analogy of razors and blades fail when the blades are commoditized, and certainly, when both are.
A fire stick like AppleTV for $50 that allowed iPhones and iPads to airplay to TVs would be useful but doesn't really add to the aTV ecosystem.
They really needed some more good games for the 4th gen.
No, it wouldn't.
I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe a high end 4k HDR version and a low end 1080p version, i.e., a price reduced current version, but making one as a dongle isn't going to be cheaper if it is equivalent to the current generation in capabilities.
I don't know what you were responding to with "No, it wouldn't." Are you saying a simple, bus-powered AirPlay receiver would not be useful? If so, I strongly disagree. Even just the single role of corporate presentation tool would be enough to justify its existence. It would also have value as a way to quickly, conveniently, and portably convert any HDMI screen into a Mac or iOS display for people who occasionally want to view content on a screen other than the one attached to their device, like when viewing with others, or in a hotel room, or in the break room at work, etc.
It wouldn't need to have capability equivalent to the current generation. All it would have to do is take an AirPlay signal and put it on the display.
If they could do that for under $100 I'd buy a couple right away. Not to replace my existing AppleTVs, but one to leave at work and one to carry in my laptop bag.
First, he's obviously not a troll, unless the definition has been expanded to mean "anyone who doesn't worship at the Apple altar." It's lazy to just slap the "troll" label on everyone with whom you disagree or just don't like.
No, he's a troll. They are called trolls for a good reason. If one person spots it, you can question them. If multiple people pick up on it, then maybe it's time for you to consider why those people feel the same way (and why they include certain others in their descriptions, like GoogleGuy).
You have egregious trolling down to an art sir, tossing ad-hom insults at members who aren't even part of the discussion thread. Carry on as you tend to do tho while others among us consider the source.
Your reputation precedes you no matter much you protest.
Well I've no doubt you and others will relish the chance to point out something I post that's incorrect, as well you should if it happens. But calling out a forum member who is not even taking part in a discussion with an ad-hom lobbed in his direction is clearly trolling whether you are willing to admit it or not ( and I'll confidently predict you are not willing)
For what little it's worth, as someone who knows very little about Android and has so far not had much reason to expend effort learning more about it, I appreciate the brief reality checks and alternate perspectives you provide. I'm secure in my techulinity and don't feel threatened by a little curiosity about alternative techstyles.
I've never understood why people get so bent out of shape whenever a "contrast and compare" pops up, but I wanted you to know that not everyone views you in a negative light.
Then again, I've managed to work my way onto the shit-list this week, so maybe you'd be better off without my endorsement!
Lorin,
You also took a hit for putting a word in for me. The gesture is appreciated.
Don't worry about who's 'shit list' you're on and above all don't let others prevent you from expressing your opinion just as you see it.
It doesn't matter if someone is 'ignoring' you, much less if they feel the need to tell you about it before they do it! I don't see much point in that. Surely it's better just to hit the button and be done with it. No fuss or fretting. But, each to their own, If they ignore you, it's their call. Perfect option to have for most people.
Who loses? Definitely not you, so keep your opinions coming, just as you see them and if you want to provide anecdotal information, it is welcome in my view.
There's been a lot of talk about the under screen fingerprint sensor but I don't consider that to be all that special. It's just another way of doing something we already do, just in a different place.
Ridiculous. A reader under the screen allows you to have slim bezels AND keep the fingerprint sensor on the front, instead of the useless hack that everyone else is doing placing it on the back (because they had no alternative). That is, if Apple even goes this route (they likely have a superior solution in FaceID).
The same goes for speed. Mid tier phones have been fast enough for quite a while. The same applies to graphics. RAM and storage? Apple will finally leaving this problem behind.
Rubbish. For example, ARCore from Google requires the latest and fastest phones to work (because AR done in software requires power). This is why Apple also requires a minimum A9 equipped device to use ARKit. Mid-tier phones WILL NOT be able to do AR because they will lack the processor power to achieve it. The funny thing about this is that a 2 year old A9 equipped iPhone (even the least expensive SE) still outperforms 95% of Android devices on the market. Which is why Apple will dominate AR because of the sheer number of devices that will be able to use ARKit.
If all you do is run basic Apps, then mid-tier phones are fast. It's when you want to do something more that iOS shines (not only because of the superior processing power but because of Apps that can actually take advantage of it).
RAM is a problem? iOS isn't the clusterfuck known as Android where you need more RAM than a desktop PC running Windows before it will perform well.
Some kind of new optical biometric option? It's still just a biometric option, just a different one. Nice to have but little more.
More rubbish. Perhaps you forgot how useless Face Unlock was when Android introduced it? Easily fooled by a picture of you, forcing Google to add their Liveness Check feature which required you to blink to verify you weren't a picture. And having to hold your phone up to your face (even for a short time) to unlock? Nobody wants to do that, which is why nobody uses Face Unlock. Then Samsung decided to add this useless feature to the S8, and apparently forgot about the issues Google had and their system was also fooled with a picture. So was their iris scanner. Two-time losers for that screw up.
If Apple implements FaceID according to the features/capabilities shown by the companies they acquired, then it will be a complete game changer. Can't be fooled by a picture, can't be fooled by a 3D sculpture with your face applied to it, can tell identical twins apart, works in the dark, works from a partial view of your face, works at odd angles, and can't be fooled by sunglasses, beards or shaving. It's practically the perfect biometric unlocking feature. If you can see the screen of your phone then it can see you and unlock. It has all the features that make Touch ID so great (fast and accurate) without any drawbacks (like wearing gloves or having dirty/wet fingers).
Better battery is nothing new, nor is OLED, nor is wireless charging.
OLED is not new, but an OLED phone that supports color management is. Since Android doesn't have color management then having a great OLED screen with a wide color gamut is pointless since you can't render content correctly. The iPhone will be the first device in the world to have an OLED screen AND support color management. Couple that with individually calibrated screens and you get the most accurate color reproduction possible. It won't have the "pop" that the cartoonish OLED screens of other devices do, but I'll take accuracy over flash any day.
millions upon millions of phones have the sensor on the back and people have zero issues with them. For those people (myself included) moving the sensor from the front chin to under the screen is just that, a move. It is absolutely nothing special. There is zero change in function. Some phones already have full screen fronts and there is nothing to comment on except how it looks because the sensor is on the back well out of the way and users are comfortable with it. It's been that way for years. If it were different, rear sensors wouldn't have got past one generation. Do you doubt that Apple also has prototypes with rear sensors? If it were such a bad placement, those prototypes wouldn't exist.
Speed
ARCore and ARKit are not shipping products. Both require developers to develop the possibilities and we have NO IDEA how consumers will react. Right now there is nothing to do but wait. In the meantime, people with mid range phones will continue to use them happily, impervious to what is available through AR.
You think the new iPhones won't ship with more RAM? You don't think that older, supported phones won't feel the pinch of their RAM allotments? I would wait before before answering those questions. The fact that you don't take issue with my point on storage, I take as tacit admission that it was a problem.
Face Unlock? It is not meant to be a secure feature. On Samsung phones You cannot even activate it without a warning on security. The system will not even allow you to use it for payments. It is a convenience feature. Nothing more.
On the other hand iPhones allow you to not set any unlock code or use 0000, 1234, etc. In that situation, which option is more secure! The user has to decide, depending on how he/she takes security. Options are good and some Samsung users can try Iris scanning if they wish. iPhone users cannot.
FaceID will not be the gamechanger you think it will. It will simply be another biometric option and very little more. Am I for it? Yes, because options are good. For unlocking, any secure option is good, great even, but gamechanging, NO.
Colour management. Have you ever seen a regular user question colour on their screens? No, I didn't think you had. You might find a subset of pro users who appreciate it but the vast majority of users don't even know they have a 'problem'.
Any comments on battery design and charging? because I will take my fast charging over colour management any day.
Your comments regarding what represents true innovation versus "just another way of doing the same thing" mark you as a most common denominator user. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but it disqualifies you to preach among those here who have the technical chops to grok the difference.
This is actually incorrect and has nothing to do with 'chops'.
The OP jumped in feet first with the 'stupid' comment. Never a good way to start a post. He then followed up with his 'two second' comment which was completely ironic because he hadn't thought through my possible counter, and as I said in my response, the decision to put the sensor on the rear on many phones had and has nothing to do with lacking room on the front. They were deliberate design decisions that went through the full range of usability studies and had the relevant user studies to determine if users would like them on the rear. To even think no such studies are carried out is absurd in the extreme and makes the 'two second' comment look exactly what it is.
The fingerprint sensor is that: A fingerprint sensor. It doesn't matter where it is (on the front, on the side, on the back or under the screen) it does the job of scanning fingerprints. The placement or preference of placement has nothing to do with being a 'most common denominator user' nor innovation and it is exactly what I said. The same way of doing the same thing. It's function hasn't changed at all. Put my reply into the context of the post I was replying to. It has nothing to do with innovation, which in this case, wouldn't be what the sensor does but how it is done.
I took his comments point by point and even asked questions to see how he was thinking, to better understand his claims. He was unwilling or unable to respond in a normal fashion and just threw in the 'troll' grenade and withdrew.
If he hadn't started with 'stupid' and followed through with the 'two second' comment he wouldn't have received a pointed counter.
So, to sum up. The OP and my reply are on placement and function. Not technology or innovation.
The reason why some manufacturers have put the touch button on the rear has far more to do with the fact that the ”chin” of the phone is too short to fit the sensor and the charge/sync socket. That’s why Samsung was trying to put it behind the screen, and why Apple was also attempting it. The front is always the preferred place.
so, ok, some people MAY prefer it on the rear, or, more likely, just get used to it, and then figure that it’s not so bad.
My current phone has plenty of space for a front scanner but it is on the back as a deliberate placing from phone concept through to implementation. That is true for many phones with rear scanners.
Just as there are poorer placements for front scanners, try to imagine one off centre, there are poor placements for rear scanners. I really can't fathom how Samsung managed to get the theirs through with no eyebrows being raised.
If your design goal is to have the sensor on the front and eliminate the chin, trying to get it under the screen is worth trying. That has now been achieved and we are just waiting for phones to appear. Next year for Qualcomm sensors it seems.
If your design goal was never the front in the first place, it obviously isn't an issue that needs tackling.
I think Huawei already has underscreen finger tracking implemented and its current on board AI (nothing to do with the new NPU) uses it to try and guess where the user is going to tap. IIRC, that's why their phones do not have a special coating to reduce finger oils as it interferes with the tracking. They come with screen protectors installed in the factory.
What you’re saying simply isn’t true. There has been plenty written about this for several years now since Apple came out with it. These other companies were struggling with the concept. These chins we’ve been seeing more recently just don’t have the space needed. Thatvwhy samsung tried to put it behind the screen, and when that failed, put in that awkward spot in the back, because there is no room in the shortened chin. Phone makers have been criticized for making big chins. Apple has too. So they went to shorted chins, with no resultant room for the button. The sides of the chins have speakers and headphone jacks. No room for the button, so they go on the back.
I think it's absolutely true :-). The 'chin' question is very, very recent. Up to then, rear or front placement was purely a question of design preference. I haven't seen anyone 'struggle' with the concept. Samsung, for some unfathomable reason seems to be struggling with the ergonomic implementation but rear sensors have been a piece of cake for almost everyone else for years now. To the point of them being extremely popular for some brands.
There is ample room for a front sensor. There is ample room around the earpiece too. They could have made the chin even bigger if they wanted. The didn't even use that completely empty, white chin space for the logo.
The sensor is on the back because they wanted it on the back not because they were struggling to put it on the front:
This is simply because they switch from front to back constantly. They are deliberate design decisions that had little to do with chin space.
The Mate 10 which is due on the 16th of October is seeing a lot of rumoured leaks. One CAD render shows the sensor on the front and this is what Android Authority had to say on this placement:
"but the move might prove controversial among fans of the series."
This is a direct reference to the fact that millions of people actually prefer a rear facing sensor.
Now, with very little chin space available on the newer, full screen designs, clearly things are different. If your preference is to have the sensor on the front, there are challenges (now resolved it seems) on a technical level but the easy solution is to move it to the rear. That, or wait for availability of underscreen sensors next year (or perhaps the 12th of September).
If your preference is, and always was, a rear placed sensor, this is a non-issue.
Comments
It wouldn't need to have capability equivalent to the current generation. All it would have to do is take an AirPlay signal and put it on the display.
If they could do that for under $100 I'd buy a couple right away. Not to replace my existing AppleTVs, but one to leave at work and one to carry in my laptop bag.
You also took a hit for putting a word in for me. The gesture is appreciated.
Don't worry about who's 'shit list' you're on and above all don't let others prevent you from expressing your opinion just as you see it.
It doesn't matter if someone is 'ignoring' you, much less if they feel the need to tell you about it before they do it! I don't see much point in that. Surely it's better just to hit the button and be done with it. No fuss or fretting. But, each to their own, If they ignore you, it's their call. Perfect option to have for most people.
Who loses? Definitely not you, so keep your opinions coming, just as you see them and if you want to provide anecdotal information, it is welcome in my view.
Take a look at this example (Huawei Honor 7
):
http://www.hihonor.com/es/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/honor7_f4_mb.jpg
There is ample room for a front sensor. There is ample room around the earpiece too. They could have made the chin even bigger if they wanted. The didn't even use that completely empty, white chin space for the logo.
The sensor is on the back because they wanted it on the back not because they were struggling to put it on the front:
The Mate 9:
https://i.expansys.net/img/b/297068/huawei-mate-9.jpg
Again, plenty of room for a front sensor, but its on the back.
This is the P10 from this year:
https://i.expansys.net/img/b/299982/huawei-p10.jpg
The sensor sensor is on the front but when you see the P10 Lite...:
https://i.blogs.es/529824/p10-lite-azul/1024_2000.jpg
... It is on the back again.
This is simply because they switch from front to back constantly. They are deliberate design decisions that had little to do with chin space.
The Mate 10 which is due on the 16th of October is seeing a lot of rumoured leaks. One CAD render shows the sensor on the front and this is what Android Authority had to say on this placement:
"but the move might prove controversial among fans of the series."
This is a direct reference to the fact that millions of people actually prefer a rear facing sensor.
Now, with very little chin space available on the newer, full screen designs, clearly things are different. If your preference is to have the sensor on the front, there are challenges (now resolved it seems) on a technical level but the easy solution is to move it to the rear. That, or wait for availability of underscreen sensors next year (or perhaps the 12th of September).
If your preference is, and always was, a rear placed sensor, this is a non-issue.