@AppleZulu true competition is when adversaries of equal strengths are competing for the same thing i.e Mercedes Benz / BMW, not only do they operate in the same exact way they also compete for the same customer,
BMW also make mororcycles, and Mercedes also make aeroplane engines.
I don't think the point you're making is particularly pertinent. Corporate breadth means that any company of significant size is going to be active in multiple sectors, and rarely are you going to find a complete mapping from one company to another. Being so anal about things would basically mean that no company is competing with any other company, which is obviously nonsense.
@Crowley Well too bad then, the issue I think is we are playing different spots, with incomparable end goals. Many here are holy concerned with proving how smarter then everybody els they are, so you're response is not surprising. In all the time I've been on this forum never once have I seen two people with differing view points reaching conclusion where the right position prevailed, I've been going back and forth with @AppleZulu for more than two days on this, every argument presented against mine has been an attempt to belittle and invalidate, it's an arguing style I'm not very proficient in, I don't tweet so I don't know how to make 120 charecter augments.
You are right though Crowley, "true competition is when adversaries of equal strengths are competing for the same thing i.e Mercedes Benz / BMW, not only do they operate in the same exact way they also compete for the same customer" this point isn't pertinent, and is nonsense, if you showed it to a random person they'd think so too, but MY POINT WAS MADE OF FOUR PARAGRAPHS TOTALING OVER 400 WORDS. If all you got from it was that sentence you quoted then there is no need for further discussion, I cannot reason with you.
And if the crux of you're and Zulu's augment is that since Apple, Amazon, Samsung and Google are big tech companies that make products that overlap in some areas by virtue of being in the same electronics category and all these companies are often spoken about together because of those products then all these companies thus directly compete with each other and thus it is fair to claim that all these companies are the same and any difference therein e.g search engine, cloud bisiness, chip fab and 200mln phone/yr makes no differents to their competitiveness on products they make that compete with Each other and competences and proweses observed from one can therefor be demanded and expected from all the rest because as you point out "BMW also make mororcycles, and Mercedes also make aeroplane engines" that difference is comparable to the difference between Apple and Amazon, then well, I'm afraid, no one can reason with either of you. So God bless and goodnight.
PS note, nowhere do I use the words stupid, ridiculous, or nonsensical as a summation of anyone's point regardless of how much I disagree it that point, because this isn't an attack of an argument but of the person making it.
I'm not trying to belittle you at all, I honestly don't even understand what your point is. No one is claiming that Google, Amazon, or Sony don't have business interests that are outside of Apple's, or vice versa. But there is significant overlap with all of them. Samsung in particular competes with Apple is just about every major market, phones, tablets, computers, and a lot of the same services. Yes, Samsung also makes other things, but what does that matter? You think Samsung doesn't consider Apple a competitor, or Apple Samsung? Of course they do, they deliberately target each others product in their marketing. Samsung competes with Apple, and not in a small way. Google likewise, through operating systems, services, media, and (to a lesser degree) phones and computers. Those are major areas, even if Google's primary concern is search and advertising. Amazon less so than the other two, I don't really know what Amazon is doing in the list.
I just don't understand what you're disagreeing with about this, and why apparently no one can reason with "either of us" (seriously, I've only made one post in this thread, and I'm beyond reason? Doesn't sit very well with your P.S.). The fact that I respond with a single sentence to a four-paragraph mini-essay doesn't mean I didn't read it, just that I appreciate brevity, and that I hadn't really taken anything from your previous writing that I felt needed/justified calling out. In truth, I struggled to take anything I could make sense of; for example " the competition is not optimal enough to be effective" what does this even mean? Optimal competition? What is that?
More to the point, what are you even getting at? I'm failing to see what the thrust of your argument is trying to achieve; that these companies don't consider each other competitors? I daresay you're right that Samsung's refrigerator division probably aren't giving Apple a second thought, but their computer division hella do. Do Samsung's board consider Apple a competitor? I don't know specifically, but from the way Samsung behaves I imagine they consider just about everyone a competitor. Maybe Apple aren't highest on the list, but they're in there. Do Google? Come on, of course they do, Apple are a strong rival, and a major source of revenue, and an often philosophically hostile adversary; Apple are one of the biggest threats to Google around.
Incidentally, "nonsense" = "no sense", as in the argument makes no sense. That's not at all an attack on the person.
Does this his say that GCBD can pre-screen Content? What does that even mean?
If you have two ithings, which I do, turning all that optional stuff off would be a real PITA. Imagine having different contacts, calendars and app configs between the devices.
To me it’s an illusory choice.
Many people in this part of the world (I’m in the Philippines) have just one device; a smartphone. So for them it’s not going to be a synchronization issue.
But the main point I’d want to make is that a lot of the talk on this issue seems to imply Apple should take a stand against China on in-country data hosting. This comes, I think, from their assessment that China is a human rights abuser that will use that data to spy on its citizens, taking actions against those it determines are dissidents. But these same folks don’t seem to be protesting against the makers of climbing rope, suggesting that shouldn’t be sold in China because of the potential the government might use that product to hang those same dissidents. An extreme example, but the point is the same. We shouldn’t condemn based on what might happen or could happen. We should take our stance against the actual deeds when human rights are violated, not against the makers of tools or products that might be misused for ill intent and actions.
I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
The article doesn't say that every HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision.
However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:
d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it
Are you completely unaware of “antenna-gate” and signal attenuation on iPhone 4? Signal attenuation was nothing new at the time but it exploded when exhibited on the iPhone 4. Heck, I even had a manual to a previous phone that had a drawing of a hand holding that model of phone and basically saying if held in that way the signal may be affected. Nobody cared. But when Apple released a phone that exhibited the same behavior as other cell phones it was suddenly front page, screaming headlines news.
That’s just one example.
Apple has around 30-40% market share in the US. I'd be surprised if it wasn't headline news. We have an inbuilt negative bias that the media exploits. Every big company makes headlines when something happens - Samsung's exploding batteries, Facebook's CA problems, Google's issues around diversity, tax avoidance, censorship, car crashes, demonitising some youtube channels, screw ups on messaging, email scanning, book scanning. And we are currently commenting on one of many articles about Amazon's Echo spying.
Agreed, it's Apple loons who think that there actually are people who seriously dedicte their time and energy to hating and conspiring against a near trillion $ company. It seems DED can no longer write an Apple article without bringing up the same companies that aren't really even in any significant way directly competing with Apple. Google is a search engine ad company, Amazon is an everything online store, Samsung is the everything electronics and appliances store, Apple is the iPhone/computer company, in what universe can you reasonably equate any of these business models ? constantly implying that since Apple is the only one succeeding at the computer business (which is their model) means the rest are implicitly evil and out to exploit and harm people is ridiculous. Apple's moral stance isn't a virtue of bieng inherently "good" but a feature of corporate branding, if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy they wouldn't advertise to us so much about their efforts, but they do because as you can see by this thread it sell more iPhones, if it didn't it be out the window i.e China.
I think the companies you claim here “aren’t really even in any significant way directly competing with Apple” would all be surprised to learn that they aren’t. Today, particularly the folks at Samsung, who just were told by a jury to fork over half a billion dollars to Apple for reasons that really do seem to relate to direct competition. Doesn’t Google produce Android OS? I could swear Samsung, Google and Amazon have all manufactured phones, speakers and other devices that compete directly with Apple.
Yeah, I am almost certain these companies (and others) are all direct competitors with Apple. I also think, when millions and billions of dollars are at stake, it’s quite likely that all kinds of businesses commonly hire all kinds of consultants, industrial spies, PR firms and troll farms to try to gather and manipulate information about their competitors.
You missed "in any significant way", yes Sammy makes Phones but that is not their primary business and yes Goog make phones and owns the most used mobile OS in the world but again that is not their primary money maker and Amazon makes a hole lotta things and any that are coincidentally also made by Apple are a rounding error in the books, but Zulu ( I can speak Zulu btw) you can't seriously claim Samsung, Google and Amazon are all phone/computer companies in the same way and to the same degree that Apple is, no one can, Apple killed off all the phone companies, Nokia, Moto, BB were all directly comparable to what Apple is today and all are dead. Samsung make washing machines for haven's sake, glad the case is over though God that dragged on for ever, I had even forgotten, Sammy is in no way shape or form Apple's peer.
Didn’t miss anything, actually. You’re trying to claim that “in any significant way” is a qualifier that allows you to make a ridiculous assertion, then backpedal that you didn’t really mean it, except that you did. A jury just awarded Apple a half a billion dollars from Samsung for patent violations for a product Samsung introduced in direct competition with Apple. Now, let’s see if Samsung tries to appeal that. I’m guessing that they’ll think a half a billion dollars qualifies as significant.
You’re trying to argue that because Samsung also makes washing machines, and Google makes a search engine, the places where they overlap with Apple are essentially insignificant corporate dalliances and hobby projects. You know that argument is nonsensical, but you want to have things both ways. That’s like a guy trying to convince his wife that his habit of regularly doinking a coworker is ‘nothing significant’ because the coworker totally has a husband and family outside their doinking sessions at the office and is in no way shape or form his wife’s peer.
Firstly: "That’s like a guy trying to convince his wife that his habit of regularly doinking a coworker is ‘nothing significant’ because the coworker totally has a husband and family outside their doinking sessions at the office and is in no way shape or form his wife’s peer." supper hilarious
Secondly I'm not sure what the argument you're making has to do with what I'm saying, so I'll try to put it in another way, Apple Music is a streaming service like Spotify is a streaming service, but in no way is Spotify Inc the same as Apple Inc, in no way is Spotify as a company a "significant" rival or competitor to Apple as a company they aren't even in the same league even though Apple music is the same as Spotify (I hope that that isn't what you are saying) if this is true for Apple + Spotify then it should also be true for Apple + Samsung, Google, Amazon etc.
PS you're comment feels spiteful and defensive, please remember we are having a friendly discussion no need to feel attacked, theres nothing to be worn or lost, if I've come to an incorrect conclusion about something I'm more than willing to be corrected but you also must be or we'll be going around in circles
Firstly, no spitefulness here, and no ad hominem, either. Just challenging an argument you presented.
Secondly, if you’re arguing that no other company is exactly like Apple, I suppose that’s true, but it’s also irrelevant. Big companies like Apple or Google or Samsung compete with each other in some categories and not in others. That is true. Saying that because a company is only competing in a given category, it’s therefore not competing “in any significant way” is just a silly, diversionary point. No, Spotify is not the same as Apple in every way, but they are absolutely a big competeitor in the music streaming market, which is something that Apple has heavily invested in. The fact that Spotify currently has more paid subscribers than Apple Music is not some insignificant concern for Apple. Music is an incredibly important piece of Apple’s business model. That content is a critical component of the Apple ecosystem that keeps customers coming back for updated hardware, which is Apple’s core business. Streaming services pulled the rug out from under iTunes, which had been a critical means to keep customers buying iPods and iPhones. So streaming services created a vector for separating consumers from that ecosystem. Now we have Apple Music, which is rapidly building a subscriber base to compete with and overtake Spotify. All of these companies that you’ve dismissed are in fact absolutely significant competitors for Apple. Claiming otherwise is just silly.
@AppleZulu true competition is when adversaries of equal strengths are competing for the same thing i.e Mercedes Benz / BMW, not only do they operate in the same exact way they also compete for the same customer, the Spotify example was an attempt to demonstrate that even though Sportify is similar to Apple in some ways the ways in which it is dissimilar is of greater significance and impact to how well Sportify can compete with Apple. I m not claiming zero competition only that the competition is not optimal enough to be effective. If competition is ineffective it does not exist. Xiomi is Apple's counterpart far more that Google or Amazon but Xiomi is no Apple challenger.
Most of Google's attention and focus goes to its search divisions because that's the business that's how they make money, most of Amazon's focus and efforts go to its prime and cloud arms coz that's the hole ball game, there is thus less resources left to the areas in which both these companies compete with Apple directly, areas that are primary to Apple's business and get nearly all of Apple's attention and focus, this isn't true completion, these companies mealy compete in being big tech companies. Because they do different things they are driven by different priorities thus they possess incomparable proficiencies and competence tuned for what they do best. This lack of focus is the primary reason no one make devices of Apple's quality at scale like them which is what a competitor would have to do to effectively and significantly challenge Apple
There is no company that does what google does better than Google, Apple couldn't beat Google at their game in a hundred year and visa versa, what is silly is the assertion that just because Google Amazon Samsung and Apple are often talked about together in Tech commentaries that they are thefor the same and compete, if you drive a Benz you can't also use BMW's idrive at the same time, but you can pull out you're iPhone right now launch Chrome "google" amazon and buy a book about BMW.
You're position is acceptable only on a general level, which is that, all these are big tech compaties and compete for impact and size but because each is so big in its respective area that they compete on a wide industry level and effectively mascle any small competitor out as evidenced by how easilly Apple music challenged Spotify, it wasn't because AM is that much better, it was because Spoty has no phone of its own, even if it did it wouldn't be iPhone size because its only a music streaming service, music is primary to its business, but to Apple music is complementary and supplementary not primary by any stretch of the imagination. Looking around the closest competitor to Apple is Sammy but only if you squint, and you're position that an accountant who's a gifted player but only plays tennis in his pare time counts as competition to Roger F. who does nothing but play tennis is extremely baffling to me.
Google is the creator and supplier of the smartphone OS that runs 85% of smartphones on earth. How can anyone suggest it’s not a significant competitor to Apple? It’s also the supplier of several key capabilities that run on top of the OS, including maps, voice assistance, mail client, a web browser, a VOIP calling service, etc.
It gets me that this whole China iCloud debate misses a huge point related to data privacy. Some here have claimed that Apple, because it claims to be such a staunch defender of data privacy for its users, should either have hosted iCloud in China on its own servers, to remain a wall between that data and the Chinese government’s requests for access to it, or should have abandoned the Chinese market altogether over China’s demand that its citizen’s data be hosted in-country.
What these folks seem to miss is that there’s a bunch of switches inside iOS Settings that indicate which data from your iPad or iPhone you want to replicate in iCloud. It’s all optional. You can get substantially all of the functionality of an iPhone or iPad without replicating any of your data in iCloud. So it’s key for Apple, or any hardware manufacturer, to draw the line on hardware backdoors or Clipper chips (remember that) and Apple has done so both here and in China in recent history. But it’s not so crucial when it’s information that the user has the option to store in a potentially less secure place, like a social network server or a cloud backup or synchronization service (as iCloud represents). Users can guard their own privacy in the latter instance by accepting a little less convenience in backing up their devices (locally via iTunes versus in the cloud) and by foregoing the convenience of data synchronization between their devices.
The argument isn't about the technicalities you've been bring up nor is it about iCloud it's an issue about Apple PR, they act and say one thing in one country to get browny points and do a complete 360 in another, which is fine but maybe they shouldn't have said anything, that all that's being said, big mouths should be in check, or you end up with pie on you're face.
Unless you’re incorrect about them doing a 360 in another country. It’s exactly in the details where the insights to make that judgement exist.
@AppleZulu true competition is when adversaries of equal strengths are competing for the same thing i.e Mercedes Benz / BMW, not only do they operate in the same exact way they also compete for the same customer,
BMW also make mororcycles, and Mercedes also make aeroplane engines.
I don't think the point you're making is particularly pertinent. Corporate breadth means that any company of significant size is going to be active in multiple sectors, and rarely are you going to find a complete mapping from one company to another. Being so anal about things would basically mean that no company is competing with any other company, which is obviously nonsense.
@Crowley Well too bad then, the issue I think is we are playing different spots, with incomparable end goals. Many here are holy concerned with proving how smarter then everybody els they are, so you're response is not surprising. In all the time I've been on this forum never once have I seen two people with differing view points reaching conclusion where the right position prevailed, I've been going back and forth with @AppleZulu for more than two days on this, every argument presented against mine has been an attempt to belittle and invalidate, it's an arguing style I'm not very proficient in, I don't tweet so I don't know how to make 120 charecter augments.
You are right though Crowley, "true competition is when adversaries of equal strengths are competing for the same thing i.e Mercedes Benz / BMW, not only do they operate in the same exact way they also compete for the same customer" this point isn't pertinent, and is nonsense, if you showed it to a random person they'd think so too, but MY POINT WAS MADE OF FOUR PARAGRAPHS TOTALING OVER 400 WORDS. If all you got from it was that sentence you quoted then there is no need for further discussion, I cannot reason with you.
And if the crux of you're and Zulu's augment is that since Apple, Amazon, Samsung and Google are big tech companies that make products that overlap in some areas by virtue of being in the same electronics category and all these companies are often spoken about together because of those products then all these companies thus directly compete with each other and thus it is fair to claim that all these companies are the same and any difference therein e.g search engine, cloud bisiness, chip fab and 200mln phone/yr makes no differents to their competitiveness on products they make that compete with Each other and competences and proweses observed from one can therefor be demanded and expected from all the rest because as you point out "BMW also make mororcycles, and Mercedes also make aeroplane engines" that difference is comparable to the difference between Apple and Amazon, then well, I'm afraid, no one can reason with either of you. So God bless and goodnight.
PS note, nowhere do I use the words stupid, ridiculous, or nonsensical as a summation of anyone's point regardless of how much I disagree it that point, because this isn't an attack of an argument but of the person making it.
You shouldn’t worry yourself so much. Making a nonsensical argument doesn’t make you a bad person. As such, pointing out that you’ve made a nonsensical argument is a critique of the argument, not of you. It’ll all be ok.
Comments
I just don't understand what you're disagreeing with about this, and why apparently no one can reason with "either of us" (seriously, I've only made one post in this thread, and I'm beyond reason? Doesn't sit very well with your P.S.). The fact that I respond with a single sentence to a four-paragraph mini-essay doesn't mean I didn't read it, just that I appreciate brevity, and that I hadn't really taken anything from your previous writing that I felt needed/justified calling out. In truth, I struggled to take anything I could make sense of; for example " the competition is not optimal enough to be effective" what does this even mean? Optimal competition? What is that?
More to the point, what are you even getting at? I'm failing to see what the thrust of your argument is trying to achieve; that these companies don't consider each other competitors? I daresay you're right that Samsung's refrigerator division probably aren't giving Apple a second thought, but their computer division hella do. Do Samsung's board consider Apple a competitor? I don't know specifically, but from the way Samsung behaves I imagine they consider just about everyone a competitor. Maybe Apple aren't highest on the list, but they're in there. Do Google? Come on, of course they do, Apple are a strong rival, and a major source of revenue, and an often philosophically hostile adversary; Apple are one of the biggest threats to Google around.
Incidentally, "nonsense" = "no sense", as in the argument makes no sense. That's not at all an attack on the person.
But the main point I’d want to make is that a lot of the talk on this issue seems to imply Apple should take a stand against China on in-country data hosting. This comes, I think, from their assessment that China is a human rights abuser that will use that data to spy on its citizens, taking actions against those it determines are dissidents. But these same folks don’t seem to be protesting against the makers of climbing rope, suggesting that shouldn’t be sold in China because of the potential the government might use that product to hang those same dissidents. An extreme example, but the point is the same. We shouldn’t condemn based on what might happen or could happen. We should take our stance against the actual deeds when human rights are violated, not against the makers of tools or products that might be misused for ill intent and actions.
Unless you’re incorrect about them doing a 360 in another country. It’s exactly in the details where the insights to make that judgement exist.