GeneralBrock

Soli said:

monstrosity said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Why Austin?
Why Texas?

Because California and in particular San Fran have no pleasant future outcome. Dead state walking. People and businesses are fleeing.

I recently started a new company in the US. My heart has always been in California, but from a business POV it didn't get a look in. Florida or Texas. Florida won.

Um, no. California is the 5th largest economy in the world. It's not going to simply die. What is happening, is Apple, like all companies, are moving to location where there are resources that are yet untapped, which for this type of facility means that Austin is a good fit.

Your distorted feelings about California are not new and yet Apple completed an HQ right now the road from its previous HQ. So why would Apple do that if the writing was on the wall that companies were fleeing CA because, as you put it, is a "dead state walking"? Do you think Apple is that daft at operations? I don't, but if you do you probably should sell any stock ASAP.

California actually has the largest outflow of residents of any state in the US, Illinois is a close second I think. CA isn’t dying but it also isn’t growing. I’ve worked with clients in California for 15+ years and there is a very large shift taking place today. I’m seeing so many more companies in NY, Boston, Austin than ever before and less in CA. San Fransisco is a shadow of itself today and not really all that pleasant to visit at the moment. Traffic, pricing, sanitation, taxes, take your pick. There are many factors driving the change and each company has its own reasons of course but so many young companies have realized they don’t need or want to be in CA to build an effective business. And the economic climate in TX is very enticing, without some of the CA upsides sure, but also without many of the CA downsides as well. I’ve always loved CA but it’s not the same today as even 5 years ago.

MacPro said:

I guess we can see who all the Fox Faux News aficionados are.

Pithy.

 But this is part of the problem. You clearly have your opinion so this service is geared towards you and not the other commenters if what you feel is true, so they most likely won’t be subscribers. Does that mean you’ll pay for the service? I’m assuming here, but from your derogatory comment it seems you like CNN content. That’s the problem CNN will face - WELL over 50% of the population feels CNN is biased. Not the foundation of a good sales model.

I wish them luck. Just what we all need, another biased news aggregator. Whether it’s one side or the other it doesn’t matter. What would light people’s hair on fire with excitement is an app that doesn’t slant the news one way or the other. Apple News does a decent job at this but they’re not perfect, no one is, but Apple makes an attempt to make available news from a broad spectrum it seems. And the jury is out on whether Apple News is a profitable business or not, but Apple is overall.

 CNN is not a profitable company (I may be wrong in this, unsure), nor are they good at bringing in viewers and ratings. Hardly a mix for for inspired success, and clearly the opposite side of the spectrum in news either won’t be invited to play. or won’t want to participate with CNN. Take your pick. I may be wrong and CNN and the Spotify guy may be master negotiators but I’m not very confident. I don’t want to be cynic and disregard this out of hand, but I find it hard not to be.

avon b7 said:

I said in another thread that this is a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' case.

Given what has been made public on the reasoning applied to this case, I'm sure most people will be able to understand the decision even if they don't share it.

Most people will understand, yet realize that Apple chose the money. Which is completely understandable as they are a public company with fiduciary responsibilities. However, Apple lost some of its shine today and the next time Tim has something to speak out on there will be less people listening.

Without a doubt Apple’s legal department knew the App Store would eventually face an anti-trust suit. Undoubtedly they have options in mind to resolve this but the simplest is to offer payment tier options - continue with the 30% fees or payment based on revenue generated each month that the developer makes from the app. This is how shopping malls structure their rents. 

lkrupp said:

I put this squarely on AppleInsider’s editorial staff. They ran with this very clickable, scary China article before checking the facts. They didn't want to be scooped by MacRumors or 9to5Mac. Only now comes the update after the usual trolls here jumped on it.

Apple does not send your browsing habits to Google or Tencent. Instead Apple compares the URL against databases it obtained from Google and Tencent. Nothing leaves Apple. You are not tracked by Google or Tencent. Apple is merely using lists of suspicious websites it has in its possession to warn the user that the website they are visiting may be compromised. End of story.

Yet another gotcha story planted to stir the pot and all the Apple tech blogs took the bait without investigating. It was on the Internet so it must be true, right? Is that how online tech journalism works? God help us all.

Gotcha click bait story - I don’t know. I do know that if you reside in mainland China and/or HK, authorities, through Tencent, are gaining information about you that, while difficult to pin down exactly, will put you on someone’s radar somehow through at least your URL and basic info of the type of site you are trying to visit. It’s easy to be disgusted at a click bait article if you live in a free country where you have options to browse however you like. Others around the world don’t have that luxury and need to be very concerned about what the government knows about them. 

If you’re cynical about this - I’m looking at you Nilay Patel - your days must be painful. This is great news and should be encouraged.