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.

entropys said:

Why not just straight with Mastercard or visa? Logo issues?

Might even make it easier to expand Apple Card overseas.

Because Visa and Mastercard don't issue cards. They run the payment networks that move money from banks to merchants as a result of a purchase and handle granting access to that network to card issuers and merchants. The issuing bank is who maintains the relationship with you, the cardholder, and does things like determine the credit risk, collect payments, etc. This is different than AmEx which is both an issuing bank and controls their own payment network, but that's why there's only one AmEx versus lots of Visas or MasterCards. 

As a result, Apple would need to charter a bank to issue the card itself, subjecting itself to the intense regulations that banks operate under. And a bank cannot just exist to issue credit cards—it would need to be capitalized through some other means, like consumer banking or lending. It is much smarter for them, with much lower risk, to partner with an existing bank. Whether or not GS was the right choice or not is up for debate. I suspect if Chase indeed takes over at some point, the whole process will become much less fraught with the sort of problems GS suffered.

EDIT: Beaten by Caskey by 1 minute!  

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. 

Marvin said:

The iPhone runs close to expected

Indeed, and I think whatever performance they're able to get out of an iPhone is to be lauded. Amazing, even! The ability to play any of these games at any level on a mobile device is near magic. But there's a certain narrative on display in the comments here that is tantamount to glitter throwing, that somehow an iPhone is going to push rock-solid 60fps with everything set to to the max because a lot of nonsensical, out-of-context marketing pap about the performance of Apple Silicon has been swallowed without consideration about the complexity of games and Apple's wholly insular development stack.

Add to it the churlish "blame the developer" attitude, when all of these most recent games were produced with direct help from Apple, and one can imagine why developers would have dim interest in the platform. A pittance in sales is not worth the complexity to achieve baselines of performance or the agitation from an entitled, ungrateful user base. 

"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?)

Pema said:

Yes, they have Google Maps - which I use all the time, I don't trust Apple Maps - but that's not a money maker. They also have Google Docs - a mere blimp on their financial statement. And oh yes, YouTube. Does that make money?  

Google Maps location information (when you tap a business result, for example) has layers from free through sponsored. Which locations appear "automatically" in relation to y our location and zoom level are also sponsored. Apple is moving in the same direction with Apple Maps data.

YouTube reported over $30B in revenue in 2023 (through a combination of advertising and the YouTube Premium subscription program) and is generally considered to be second only to Google's search advertising business in terms of profitability. 

Like all other cloud compute providers (Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS), GoogleCloud has seen an immense surge in business as a result of companies spinning up cloud-based AI compute. While this may (or may not) be sustainable in the long-term, the immediate gains in terms of revenue and profit for all three companies are real. 

Yes, Google is over-reliant on its search-based advertising business, much in the same way that Apple is over-reliant on the iPhone. Either company could face an existential threat if development of new technologies, or changes in consumer preference, cause irreversible swings away from these products. The chance of that happening in either case is slim, however, due largely to inertia and because both companies continue to build moats. Paying Apple to keep Google Search front-and-center is a form of moat. Apple fighting tooth and nail to avoid the opening of their App Store ecosystem is a form of moat. Neither company is going to go quietly as challengers to their cash cows gather in the distance. 

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.