Last Active
  • Apple may release a cheaper Apple TV streaming device in 2022, says Kuo

    wood1208 said:
    Going forward in future if Apple's focus is AppleTV+ App and it's contents and subscribers than who cares if AppleTV box is expensive or cheaper ? Long as Apple's Chip department can create SOC for small cheaper dongle like Chrome Cast or Roku or Amazon fire streaming device that does good job with current AppleTV box interface than ALL GOOD.  Your current ApplTV box is neither good gaming console(like XBOX or PS5) or cheaper streaming device.
    I have a number of AppleTVs, but this is my biggest properly with it right now. It's positioned in no-man's-land relative to the rest of the market. It's a better qualify device than most streaming sticks so it can also provide some casual gaming. But it's not a better experience than playing on iPhone, which means we don't use Apple Arcade on AppleTV at all.

    I would prefer a slimmed down AppleTV "stick" that focuses solely on streaming. I love the AppleTV interface and the new remote (even though it's ridiculously expensive). Something in the $79-$99 range would be perfect.

    Then, I wish Apple would really take gaming seriously and try to get good Nintendo-quality content for a higher-end gaming device. A $349 AppleTV with premium Apple Arcade games would be amazing with my Apple One subscription.
  • Epic Games wanted a special deal for 'Fortnite' on the App Store

    ITGUYINSD said:
    qwerty52 said:
    This new fact confirms what there is behind Epic’s shouting and crying about Apple’s monopoly and about absence of freedom in AppStore.
    Money, money and ones again money!
    There really wasn’t any question about it. If Epic could have shown they have been damaged by paying Apple 30%, then they might have a point in this lawsuit. What they have shown is that Apple made them a lot of money and took care of the hosting, billing and bookkeeping for Fortnite for 30% of billions. 

    Those poor bastards. 
    Hosting?  Apple doesn't host the game servers.  They host the server where a tiny app lives that Apple forces Epic customer to download from.  That's it.  Once downloaded, Apple's job is done.  Why should Apple get 30% for "billing and bookkeeping" when Epic is perfectly capable of doing that itself if not for the fact that Apple forces them to go through Apple and pay 30%?  I wonder how many bookkeepers in the companies of the world get 30% of the companies revenue (not profit, but gross revenue)?  I'd venture a guess of practically NONE.

    To be fair, Epic should charge $1.99 for the app, and Apple gets 30% of that.  Then, all the IAP's are through Epic payment systems since Apple has nothing to do with that.  
    One could make a similar argument against any company that provides a platform/location for people to buy products from lots of different vendors. If you want to sell through Walmart, Target, Apple, or Google, you need to follow the terms that they set.
  • Google is downplaying Android to focus its future on Chrome OS

    Putting the litigation issue with Oracle to the side, there's nothing preventing Google from developing a new OS from the ground up and then implementing something like what Apple did with Rosetta to allow old apps built on Java to continue to run on this new OS until they can get developers to move over to whatever new language they are using. I would assume they've been working on something like this for years now to address many of the issues DED brings up in this article. If they could do that it seems like it wouldn't take much to continue to dominate the non-Apple mobile device market. I guess the question is would something like that still fall under the scope of the intellectual property lawsuits from Oracle?
  • Apple launches new Apple TV 4K with A12 Bionic CPU, redesigned Siri remote

    neillwd said:
    Hate the remote.
    Came here to say exactly that. It reminds me of the old remotes before they used a touch pad. I dread “click, click, clicking” around m the screen rather than just a swipe which can get me to the other side of the screen in a single gesture. 

    Thought I was the only one who liked and understood what the touch remote accomplished. 
    In the presentation they specifically mentioned that the directional pad is also touch sensitive and allows for swipes to quickly scroll across a number of items.  
  • Apple Car project troubled by management demos and uncertain schedule

    Not only do us plebes truly have no idea what Apple is hoping to accomplish with Project Titan... it increasingly sounds as if Apple itself doesn't know, either.

    The glass-half-full perspective might be that Apple will eventually figure it out. It took Apple YEARS to figure out how to enter the TV/film biz. That effort is finally starting to take off and it could be really huge now that ATV+ is starting to make an impact while Netflix is flailing. The move into live sports will cement Apple as a player; as recently as a year ago, observers were writing off ATV+ as a popcorn fart.

    I would like to think the same dynamic is going on here... there's a huge opportunity and Apple is trying to figure out its place. Also as a shareholder, I would be pissed if they threw in the towel on PT. They can't and they won't. The fact their biggest competitor is working hard on this, is reason enough for Apple to continue its efforts.
    I agree. Some of Apple's most impressive and successful products (iPod, iPhone) are a result of taking efforts of their R&D department and features of other failed products and waiting for that right moment when the technology can be applied in a unique and compelling way.

    The Newton was prime example of some amazing technology that just wasn't ready for the market. Fast forward 10 years and they're able to take those efforts with better display, sensor, and processor technology to create iPhone.

    I think that's the main reason Apple can't seem to find the direction for Project Titan. They either don't feel like the technology is quite there to support what is the actual long term vision for it, or they can't seem to align features together in a product that is actually compelling enough to making it a no-brainer to release. Patience always seems to be where Apple manages to excel above most other companies, so I'm still excited to see what they end up doing in the automotive space.
  • Apple may release a cheaper Apple TV streaming device in 2022, says Kuo

    mattinoz said:
    What is the need for a stream only stick when most smartTV have had AppleTV streaming built in for a few years now. 

    I assume Apple does need to drop the lower model as the SOC in it uses GPUs that the license is expiring on when they moved to their own GPU 

    For me, personally, I prefer the entire AppleTV interface over almost any Smart TV I've had. The AppleTV app on my Samsung is only for watching AppleTV+.
  • Apple claps back at 'secret' app ad purchase claims, says supports more than 100 apps

    So by this logic Walmart shouldn't be able to advertise for a product they sell in stores when it's also available on the manufacturer's website, because they're making money that the manufacturer could have instead.

    I seriously don't get this argument from Epic, et al.