neoncat

And therein lies the core problem with Apple Music: It is to streaming services what Top 40 was to radio in the 80s. Apple is far more concerned with whether Apple Music appears to be aligned with what is "now" than building a vital and comprehensive music service, much less fixing the oft-documented problems with the garbage that is Music.app. The end result is not something that comes across as cool and essential, but rather a bunch of boomers wearing tight-fitting jeans and inviting themselves to industry parties. 

Before the Swifties descend upon me like a ton of bricks: Tay-Tay is not, er, my cup of tea, but she's an amazing business person and I don't find her music actively terrible, or anything. It's the form of Apple's myopic partnerships, not the individual artists.

Another example would be the weird amount of attention they kept giving Billie Eilish, who admitted in a couple interviews she found it all "very strange," and that it was entirely a construct between Apple and her record company. She had nothing to do with it, despite Apple continually selling it as a partnership between her, individually, and Apple. Again—boomers in jeans making sure to be seen rather than thinking about: Is this what my users actually want?

Funny thing about the original story on Bloomberg is nowhere does it say "iPhone." Nor does the follow-up article, or any of the aggregator versions that then amplified the original article. In fact, this version here at AppleInsider is the only one that mentions "iPhone."

"It means in-house game engine by Apple is inevitable"

If you don't recognize why that doesn't even remotely solve the problem with Unity, I think it's pretty clear you either didn't read the article, or didn't understand it. The appeal of GDEs like Unity, Unreal Engine, or Godot, to developers is they're not platform specific. That's the whole point. That's why they're important. Essential, even. Apple is happy to keep pounding sand with Epic in their petulant quest to always be 'right' (how'd that work out with the eBook lawsuit, Apple?). Godot is promising, particularly in 2D, but it's 3D environment is woeful. That leaves Unity, which already has deep use particularly for iOS and iPadOS assets which are key to Vision Pro's development model.

Now do you understand the problem? Apple doing the equivalent of a DirectX would be beyond useless. Apple is stupid about a great many things, but they're not that stupid.

narwhal said:

This is a feature that other handset manufacturers and Google won't easily be able to copy. Who else would set up all the infrastructure required? Carrier Tmobile might get there, but I imagine their satellite plans will work best with iPhones that have satellite chips already.

Why would they? The infrastructure already exists. 

That Apple has incorporated simple PLB functions into a smartphone is noteworthy and laudable, but satellite SOS has been around for years. Those of us who are hikers and backcountry explorers have carried devices like the InReach, SPOT, Zoleo, etc for a while. They're small, have battery life measured in weeks, and often allow for more flexible communication (like arbitrary text messaging to any recipient, not just emergency SOS), but require their own monthly subscription, obviously. 

It will be interesting to see what Apple ends up charging for this service after the initial two years are up. Simple PLB devices (basically a big red SOS button with GPS and satellite connectivity) run around $10 a month, give or take. Once you get into a true satellite messenger like an InReach, costs can climb from $15 to $50 a month or more. If Apple expands their services' capabilities over time to include more robust messaging, it could be a very compelling alternative. Although I personally don't know that I'd want to rely on a comparatively fragile smartphone when I'm out in the boonies. But, YMMV.

And yes, it's worth noting that Apple went with Globalstar with its relatively small satellite constellation (and significant dead zones), versus a 100 percent coverage constellation like Iridium. That will hamper Apple's ability to expand it beyond North America (assuming they don't end up contracting with Iridium or Starlink down the line).

I realize this is the least critical of the top Apple fan sites and tailors its editorial to the most committed users accordingly (gotta make a dollar, no shade intended!), but given Garmin has a proven track record of making ruggedized smart watches tailored to that niche for years, and the AW Ultra is still the newcomer, wouldn't a more accurate headline be something like, "Year-old Apple Watch Ultra up now challenging refreshed Garmin options"?

There is nothing specifically wrong with the Apple Watch Ultra. It's a fine, one-size-fits-all product. But presenting the Apple option as the standard bearer through word choice is disingenuous fan service. All companies should have to work for every inch of their reputation through time, revisions, and responding to customer feedback, not have it handed to them for free. 

Oh, sick burn dude! But sorry, no, squarely Gen X. I own a boutique PR and marketing firm targeted at the independent music industry (among other content sectors), so obviously I have an agenda and a viewpoint, one based on the marketplace I work in and the artists I serve and the reactions from those artists and their record companies I see to how Apple Music does business. Your viewpoints and experiences may be different, and I respect and support that. We're here to have a discussion, right? So you can learn from me and I can learn from you, right?

Oh sorry. Apple Music is the best!

"revolutionary" ... now this is just silly. It's car audio. The last time I heard someone refer to car audio with those kind of hyperventilated, pre-orgasmic superlatives was like 20 years ago listening to some dubious high school drop out try to sell me on the "magic of Blaupunkt" (yes, he really did say "magic" ... magical and amazing, tho?)

coolfactor said:

Is it time for Apple to re-evaluate the 30% fee? Yes. But they deserve something when they are advertising, distributing and providing some levels of support.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you completely—I think Apple deserves to charge whatever it feels it needs to to cover those costs and support its profit objectives. Those numbers can be as high as it wants them to be—as long as the App Store is subject to competition. I don't care if the share of use by end users is 99% AppStore to 1% AlternativeStore. People who feel more comfortable using an Apple-run AppStore with all its inherent advantages should have every right to do so. As long as it's competing for that business with other App Stores that have an equal footing for developer and end user attention. 

Otherwise, gloves off. As long as it's a closed system, I don't particularly care if the efforts developers use to try and break the rules amount to dirty pool. Means to an end.

lkrupp said:

Once again we are treated to an ‘unverifiable rumor” and we’re off to the races. Tech blogs are ablaze with hate, indignation, recrimination, factual errors, and misinformation. Another day in the la-la land of make-believe and the continuous mantra drum beat of the Evil Apple Empire.

The point is not to besmirch your favorite magical and amazing company whom you love with all your heart, it's to get people like you with hair triggers all upset and angry so you post your boilerplate old-man-yelling-at-clouds grievance, which generates "yeah, you said it!" mob mentality likes, thus generating numerous page views. 

If you don't like the rumors, keep your mouth shut. But you can't, and you won't. We all play our part in a vast game of data bought and sold, manipulated into offering commentary that is predictable and fallow: Go Apple! Boo Not-Apple! Good dog. 

blastdoor said:

What exactly are apples values?

Money. Which, I mean, is not some huge surprise or unexpected plot twist. It's just that Apple is two very different beasts: A massive corporate machine, one of the largest ever created, who's success makes it beholden to large swaths of the economy that expect it to keep producing returns and keep growing, and a formidable yet paper-thin construct of marketing, cuddly and beloved, representing every protected class, representing American entrepreneurism, representing the environment, representing creativity, representing... A whole host of things no corporation should ever take the place of in the hearts and minds of its customers. 

The two heads are often going to push in opposite directions, serving their masters. I agree with Blastdoor. For every concession and move on the chess board we hear about with regard to Apple and China, I'm sure there are 10 more we never will.