ctt_zh

xyzzy-xxx said:

ericthehalfbee said:

Did I read that right?

- 88% of developers in the EU pay no fees (meaning they’re free Apps).
- 9% pay 15% (they’re smaller developers under $1 million in revenues).
- That leaves only 3% of all developers in the EU who pay the full 30%.

Can someone explain how this helps small developers when only 3% of all developers are paying 30% fees? Seems clear to me that the whiners at the top who make the most money are the ones complaining and these changes will do nothing to help the other 97%.

The 9% will probably now pay 10% instead of 15%.
The 3% will now pay 17% instead of 15%.
MORE IMPORTANT: Apple will not review the content of Apps that come from 3rd part app stores (so the apps need only to comply with the 3rd party app store guideline and the law) so there is no single company that decides which app is "legal" or not!

saarek said:

Apple has certainly blazed a trail here. Both Qualcomm and Microsoft still have a long way to go. 

Still, I’m impressed by Qualcomm’s effort here. It appears to be a good chip, yes, it’s an also-ran by comparison, but it’s a massive jump up from what came before in the PC space.

If I was Intel I’d be terrified. Apple showed the way and now there is actually a decent chip out there for your generic PC. The writing is on the wall here for X86 PC dominance.

13485 said:

rax_mark said:

I understand that as an Apple fan you view the tech world through that lens. However, in doing so you misalign facts and brand lies as truth.

You say everyone copies from Apple, but wasn't it Apple who copied the GUI from Xerox and what about the plethora of functions that Apple copied from Android, widgets, AOD etc. Are you oblivious to them or ignorant? or will you make up excuses to try to justify them while you blast others.

You say that other systems are full of malware, well that is exaggerated and even what percentage exists is the tradeoff for having an open system which provides freedom. 

Apple products sell so well because more than the technology, Apple has marketed itself as a premium product for rich people. That is why we have gold Apple watches and $19 handkerchiefs. There have been instances where people have sold their kidneys for an iPhone, have no food yet bought an iPhone on finance. Do you think that they did it because they thought it was a better phone? Don't kid yourself.

Maybe not insult other brands while making a fanboy esque article and even if you do at least state facts.

"Lies as truth": You seem to be heavily invested in mythology and polemics.

Apple & Xerox: There was no copying from Xerox. Jef Raskin documented his graphical user interface in the 1960s, well before Xerox PARC even existed. Doug Engelbart invented the mouse before Xerox PARC existed, and Apple paid Stanford University $100,000 to license the mouse. No one else has ever paid the license fee for the use of the mouse--including Microsoft and Xerox. Both Raskin and Engelbart became Apple employees. In 1983 Apple paid Xerox $100,000 for a lifetime license to all Xerox PARC technology. In addition, in a separate agreement, Xerox paid Apple $150,000 for a block of non-voting Apple stock.

Malware: Per Silent Breach, Android users are 50% more likely to have malware than iPhone users, and 97% of malware is directed at Android. That's not an exaggeration. That's some "tradeoff".

Apple just for Rich People: Ahh, the second oldest trope next to the Xerox myth. Sure, because everyone looks at everyone else's phone to see what brand it is, or watches the laptops being used in college lecture halls to see which has an Apple logo. There was one--just one--instance where a demented person sold a kidney to get an iPhone, out of 2.3 Billion iPhones sold. Yeah, real trend there. 

Rayz2016 said:

If Microsoft is complaining about a bad experience then AApple must be on the right track. 

If they don’t like that then MS has an alternative: spend a billion creating a mobile platform, spend a billion more marketing it and you’re guaranteed to wipe the iPhone off the face of the earth by 2015. 

williamlondon said:

Wow, it takes some amazing mental gymnastics to want to support a fucking bank in the world.

auxio said:

VictorMortimer said:

mikethemartian said:

Is bog standard Android open source?

Yes.  https://source.android.com/

The trick with Android is that, if you want your Android device to have access to Google services (search, maps, mail, etc) then you need to be GMS certified. Those APIs & apps aren't open source.

AFAIK, Samsung devices are GMS certified and so there's no way they can block use of the microphone from Google's apps. So it appears to be a symbolic ban based on favouring local. Though perhaps they have a special arrangement with Google on this.

danox said:

ctt_zh said:

JinTech said:

ctt_zh said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

jvm156 said:

That makes no sense. It’s not like she can’t use any type of card within apple wallet. It affects the consumer not in the slightest.

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

harrykatsaros said:

"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.

Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save? 

It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions. 

It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees. 

To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question. 

Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!

Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained. 

It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase. 

She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone. 

Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems. 

The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet. 

It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU. 

So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm. 

The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed. 

That is now changing (at least in the EU). 

I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank?  Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)

Of course I can't speak for Avon B7 but I also prefer Apple not to take a cut from every transaction. I'm British but spent most of my working life in Switzerland. I'd far prefer to support local Swiss banks than have Apple take a cut (as the banks provide hundreds of thousands of jobs etc.). 

So you don't support Apple? Why do you buy their products? Apple has to pay their engineers, upkeep their servers, etc. It's a company's job to operate and make money and they can't do this for free.

Very happy to buy physical products, and I have many subscriptions (Microsoft 365, YouTube, Fitbit, 1Password amongst others), but I don't believe the company who owns the tech on which I make a transaction has to always take a cut of that transaction. I believe the NFC chip should always have been open. And you may want to check the markup Apple adds to their products, it's significant... 

Didn't those banks have a choice but said no to Apple and tried to start their own service which failed. (remember)?

https://www.informationweek.com/it-leadership/apple-pay-rings-the-register-in-the-us-not-europe Europe/Australia and many other places the same song and dance payed out.

twleve said:

Silver_Fox said:

Hopefully that won’t effect us here in England
Thank god for Brexit.

Certainly hope it won't affect us, else I will need to change my Apple ID to a different country. Will that work?

22july2013 said:

Apple could create a new phone exclusively for the EU called ePhone which uses the same hardware as the iPhone but runs Android instead. Then Europe will have to complain to Google which writes the OS for it.

danox said:

gatorguy said:

avon b7 said:

Sounds like a more marketing focused play to push the privacy and latency angles. Assuming the rumour is true. 

That's certainly one way to do it but isn't without its own issues. Limited scope and how many older iPhones can make decent use of it for example. 

We'll have to wait and see how they announce it because other options from multiple vendors will remain open to iOS users anyway (perhaps some will be monetised through usage or subscription options).

There will also need to be a range of models to play off. 

NLU, NLG are obviously two key areas. Image related AI will probably require an improvement too.

Hallucination is a property of AI models and won't go away in that sense. Hallucination is even desired in many scenarios. 

The problem is that there are obviously scenarios where you would prefer not to have it. I believe that can be done quite well but normally requires the model to sit within another model etc, upping resource usage. 

It's much the same way the most recent Pixel phones do it. Most of the (Generative) AI functions happen on device, a privacy-friendly approach. Computationally intensive features and web search are processed "in the cloud" for obvious reasons.  I think Apple will be following the same path, but be better at marketing the privacy of the on-device portions of the system than Google is. 

Sure, Apple will be different because they have the superior mobile/desktop/laptop hardware/OS to make it different the 3.5-4 hours Video Boost and other AI miscues exist because Google hardware is weak and Samsung has no real control over what Google feeds them OS wise. The Tensor is easily more than five years behind Apples hardware they have no choice but to use a phone home solution.

https://www.androidpolice.com/video-boost-pixel-8-pro-review/ Phone home to the cloud servers and wait 3.5-4 hours for a AI/video boomerang.