davidw

AppleInsider said:

..........

Apple has defended its decision, saying it "won't make an exception" for Epic to skirt App Store rules. The tech giant promises to terminate Epic's developer account and cut off its access to iOS and Mac development tools, a move that would prohibit Epic from updating the Unreal Engine on which many iOS and Mac games are built. Epic this week requested a temporary restraining order to stop Apple from following through with its threat.

Once again, that is not entirely accurate. Most news site are only reporting what Epic is saying. And epic is lying or at the very least, not telling the whole truth. And its doing as much as possible to paint Apple as the only bad guy in all this. Very few sites are reporting what is actually happening.

Epic is claiming that Apple will be terminating their developer license over their App Store violation of linking to an outside source to buy Fortnite V-bucks at a discount. Plus that Apple is retaliating against them for no other reasons. All Apple did for this violation was to ban Fortnite from the Apple App Store. As did Google from their Play Store.

The threat of terminating Epic developer license stems from other violations that Apple discovered, after Fortnite was already banned.

In a letter they sent to Epic, which few sites publishes or even mention, Apple gave the reasons for their action in terminating Epic developer license and the letter was not about Epic violating the Apple App Store agreement by including an outside link to buy V-bucks at a discount with-in the Fortnite app.

this from macrumor     https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-threatens-to-terminate-epic-games-developer-accounts-on-august-28.2250375/

The letter Apple sent reads .....

>Upon further review of the activity associated with your Apple Developer Program membership, we have identified several violations of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement. Therefore, your Apple Developer Program account will be terminated if the violations set forth below are not cured within 14 days. [...]

If your membership is terminated, you may no longer submit apps to the App Store, and your apps still available for distribution will be removed. You will also lose access to the following programs, technologies, and capabilities:

- All Apple software, SDKs, APIs, and developer tools
- Pre-release versions of iOS, iPad OS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS
- Pre-release versions of beta tools such as Reality Composer, Create ML, Apple Configurator, etc.
- Notarization service for macOS apps
- App Store Connect platform and support (for example, assistance with account transition, password reset, app name issues)
- TestFlight
- Access to provisioning portal for certificate generation, and provisioning profile generation
- Ability to enable Apple services in-app (i.e. Apple Pay, CloudKit, PassKit, Music Kit, HomeKit, Push Notifications, Siri Shortcuts, Sign in with Apple, kernel extensions, FairPlay Streaming)
- Access to Apple-issued keys for connecting to services such as MusicKit, DeviceCheck, APNs, CloudKit, Wallet
- Access to Developer ID signing certificates and Kernel Extension signing certificates 
- Developer Technical Support
- Participation in Universal App Quick Start Program, including the right to use the Developer Transition Kit (which must be returned to Apple)
- Engineering efforts to improve hardware and software performance of Unreal Engine on Mac and iOS hardware; optimize Unreal Engine on the Mac for creative workflows, virtual sets and their CI/Build Systems; and adoption and support of ARKit features and future VR features into Unreal Engine by their XR team

We hope that you are able to cure your breaches of the Apple Program License Agreement and continue to participate in the program. <

i have yet to see a site that has what the letter listed as the violations that Apple stated Epic must correct. Of course, maybe bringing a suit against Apple, might be a violation of the Apple developer license agreement that can get you license revoked. 

brian.on.android said:

waveparticle said:

verne arase said:

Apple is much too successful - we need to stop it now! -- Microsoft

Microsoft is pretty pathetic, and Apple's privacy terms rankle Microsoft's nerves. Too bad Windows doesn't have the same privacy safeguards - with Windows attempting to force everything through Edge.

Microsoft runs their own closed ecosystem with XBox, so it's a lot of Microsoft calling the kettle black.

The real monopoly is in the enterprise software realm where Microsoft keeps boosting prices for their good enough software.

What really pisses off Microsoft is that they don't have access to Apple Silicon ARM processors, so Windows ARM will run faster on Apple hardware than on their OEMs - or indeed on their own surface machines.

Microsoft has a point here. In the 90s it was so successful it almost killed Apple. On the other hand, Steve Jobs resurrected Apple without having to stop Microsoft. 

Worth noting Microsoft invested in Apple in the 90's. Apple may owe Microsoft to a degree.

Microsoft bought $150M worth of AAPL at around $20 a share. They were non-voting shares and if I recall, did not split in 2000 (Microsoft sold them all before the second split in 2005). At the time Apple had no debt and rumored to had had about $1B in cash. Apple did not financially need the $150M investment. 

What Jobs needed was time to get Apple back on track and he did not want to have to the spend the time and resources to fight Microsoft in court over Microsoft stealing QuickTime technology.  A case that Apple was sure to win. So he made an offer to Microsoft to settle by having them invest in AAPL. This ended the lawsuit so Jobs can concentrate on Apple Computer, not the lawsuit. Plus by Microsoft showing confidence to invest $150M in Apple, it gave AAPL investors confidence to not sell and other investors to buy AAPL Thus bolstering AAPL share price until Jobs can release the iMac. Jobs could had ask for $150M in cash and Microsoft would had probably settled. Apple had that strong of a case. But Apple didn't need the money. 

If Microsoft had held on to those shares, they would be worth close to $1.5B today, even without the splits along the way. Instead Microsoft "only" made about $350M profit with their investment. (If they had gotten the splits, their shares would be worth about $170B today.)   

On a side note. Steven Jobs himself boosted his role in saving Apple by claiming Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy when he took over and only had enough cash to last another quarter or two. But he was using a quarter where Apple lost over $600M. Apple was not losing $600M every quarter. That quarter was an anomaly. Apple was only losing about $100M to $200M a quarter at the time. So Apple could have lasted another year or even two, with just cash on hand. $150M wouldn't even cover what Apple was losing in a quarter. So how did Microsoft $150M investment save Apple?  

What's next? Are you going to tell us the fable about how Apple wouldn't be here today, if they hadn't "stolen" PARC technology? 

gatorguy said:

chasm said:

Anilu_777 said:

I still wonder why Google even cares about this and then why it’s pushing so hard. I don’t trust Google. 

Oh, let me clarify that for you. Google wants to a) collect data from messages, and b) push rich advertising into messages, which of course they would benefit from.

I didn’t make this up — it’s been referred to in previous articles talking about Google’s version of RCS. Apple would never allow crap like that, so Google was never going to get Apple to adopt their version of RCS.

I am actually starting to feel bad for Android users, because if Google gets its way their experience in messaging is about to get a lot crappier.

Google cannot collect user data from Google Messages RCS. End of story. So yeah, you made that part up.

Can RCS be used for delivering rich media which could include advertising? Yup, but that's not a Google exclusive.

saarek said:

Xed said:

saarek said:

Just in time for them to hike iCould rates in multiple countries by about a third.

Their greed knows no bounds.

So at what point should a company lose money due to inflation so that you can be happy?

You’re right, I’d not realised that inflation was running at 33%… oh wait, it isn’t. Perhaps that’s not it.

Maybe the currency has significantly weakened vs the dollar since the last price rise? No, actually, it’s improved.

Hmmm, so. Inflation is out. Currency fluctuation is out, what does that leave us? Oh, yes. Greed.

Maybe you don't realize but Apple buys nearly all of the cloud storage that their customers uses, from Google and Amazon (and maybe still some from Microsoft.) Apple is only in the "cloud" service business mainly for the convenience of their own customers. Apple own servers farms are primarily for their own internal business uses. Like Apple TV+, iTunes, Apple Music, Arcade, Apple Pay, rolling out software updates, etc.. Because Apple have to pay Amazon and Google for iCloud storage, Apple can not be as cheap as what Google, Microsoft and Amazon charges their customers. So Apple also takes the hit when Google and Amazon raise their prices for cloud storage, due to their own rising cost. I can guarantee you that no AAPL investors are buying more AAPL because Apple must be making a killing, by raising the cost of iCloud storage (in certain countries.).   

https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/06/29/apple-is-now-googles-largest-corporate-customer-for-cloud-storage

https://www.turningcloud.com/blog/apple-uses-aws/

 List of the top 10 cloud service providers. Amazon, Microsoft and Google controls over 65% of the cloud service market. Apple don't even make the top ten, even with over 1.5B iPhones customers. 

https://dgtlinfra.com/top-10-cloud-service-providers-2022/

https://technologymagazine.com/top10/top-10-biggest-cloud-providers-in-the-world-in-2023

You need to start thinking outside the box. (Or as Apple put it .... think different). What is the one re-occurring cost in running a cloud server farm that have risen dramatically in Europe recently?  It's not the cost of the servers or taxes or the cost of labor, but the cost of electricity. And can you think of what recent event that might have caused the cost of electricity in Europe to almost double in some countries and at the least to increase by over 30% in most?

Here's a hint in case you want to use one of your "lifelines" ...... (from the game show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire"). 

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/impact-war-ukraine-energy-prices-consequences-firms-financial-performance

gatorguy said:

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

rob53 said:

It's about time Apple drew a line in the sand. I'm sick and tired of countries dictating how a product is designed especially when those countries have nothing worthwhile to offer. Yes, the UK and EU make some cellular devices but nothing compared to what Apple produces. The removal of end-to-end encryption is simply a ploy to allow governments to capture all kinds of personal information without even having a warrant. The UK wants to go back to the days of the telephone party line so they can snoop constantly. 

The problem for Apple, at least in some eyes, including politicians, is Apple has found a way to adhere to a country's security laws even if it requires compromising user's privacy and individual security in order to do so. The demarcation line for Apple isn't yet clearly established, but there is one nonetheless, likely based on market size and type of government, and that's a fact.

"Apple stores customer data on Chinese government servers."

"Apple agreed to store the digital keys that unlock its Chinese customers' information in those (government) data centers. And Apple abandoned the encryption technology it uses in other data centers after China wouldn't allow it."

My guess is the UK probably teeters on that edge and perhaps where Apple makes a public proclamation that they are NOT big enough on their own. Or it could be that the UK has more exposure to public pressure than some other less open countries and Apple is counting on them to convince the UK to drop the plan.

 In order to try to avoid future demands from others, Apple might make the UK the sacrificial lamb. 

BTW- Even China allows end to end encryption with iMessage. 

AFAIK, as of 2021 (?) they do not, at least in a practical sense.  E2EE would mean the Chinese government cannot access typed or sent messages at all, which would be against Chinese security laws, the same reason other Apple E2EE services had to be disabled in China. It may be encrypted,but that does not mean the Chinese had not already established a means of seeing the typed messages on your phone prior to being sent.

The best I've been able to understand is that iPhone vendors in China install a new certificate in the enterprise enrollment chain-of-trust. This allows the Chinese government to use that certificate to bypass the Apple signed one for code execution on the device.

So they really don’t care that the data is encrypted on the way out of the phone, because they’ve already established access to it before it ever leaves the phone in the first place.

Now I may be wrong, but my understanding is that yes, in the practical sense, there is E2EE with iMessage in China. No one else can read the encrypted iMessage after it's sent from the sender device, while it's being sent and before it is un-encrypted on the receiver device. That is E2EE.

In the US, if the sender backups up his device to the iCloud, Apple re-encrypts the iMessages when they are stored in the iCloud. And  Apple has access to the key. If the government get a court order, Apple can access those E2EE messages.

But in China, when iMessage users backs up their iMessages to the iCloud, they are store in the government servers and the government now has access to those messages without needing to get a court order.    

The only place where E2EE messages can be kept where only the sender and receiver have access to them, is encrypted on their own devices that are protected by a passcode. Apple have no access to that passcode and not even a court order can force Apple to turn over something they don't have access to.  Pretty sure an iPhone in China do not have a backdoor that can bypass the user passcode. But not sure. And for sure, the government can install their own spyware on any iPhones they want. But iMessage E2EE works the way it does in China as in the US. It's just that in China, it's much harder to keep the government from seeing that message, when it's un-ecrypted on the sender or receiver device, due to government spyware. But spyware like Pegasus can do this with any iPhone, anywhere in the World.  And it's not Apple that installs the spyware on their China devices to compromise iMessage nor is there a government backdoor to the iMessage in China.

plalonde said:

Eddy should not be happy with this news after his testimonial earlier this week saying the opposite...

Apple executive Eddy Cue is expected to testify in court that the company has no plan to make an "Apple Search" engine, because its deal with Google is the best for users.

AppleZulu said:

First, Netflix encouraged users to share accounts.

Second, if you want a 4K HDR picture - the standard resolution for most TVs currently on the market - Netflix requires you to buy a $20/month premium subscription that allows watching on 4 separate devices, simultaneously. If you just want to be able to watch 4K on your one TV in the den, there are no cheaper options. 

Netflix wouldn't have to police who's watching if they simply priced their plans on a straight-up per-stream basis, with all subscriptions able to deliver the current 4K HDR standard. If I want to pay for three people, why do they need to care where those three people are? Instead, they're going to take a huge PR hit (and probably subscriber hit) as they roll this ill-considered nickel-and-dime plan out. What morons.

The standard resolution of most TV's means nothing when it comes to a "standard". It's the standard resolution of most of the contents thats matters. Watching a VSH, DVD or BR version of a movie on a 4K TV does not mean you are watching a 4K movie. You are not watching reruns of "Seinfeld" or "The Big Bang Theory" or  movies like "Star Wars" or "The Matrix",  from a steaming service in 4K, just because you have a 4K TV. 

How much contents are recorded in 4K? Well. it's not much. Not even when Netflix is the streaming service with the most 4K contents. 

https://pointerclicker.com/how-common-is-4k-content/

When 4K contents become more the norm, then one can claim 4k as the standard.  But right now, HD is still the standard.  One can't claim 4K as the standard when over 95% of the streaming contents are not and never will be, in 4K. Imagine how much more we would be paying for our internet service, if streaming 4K contents was the standard.  

https://pointerclicker.com/do-4k-tvs-use-more-data/

Could it be that maybe it's the other way around. In that many, if not most, of the premium 4K subscribers are paying extra for the extra two simultaneous  streams and not for the 4K contents?  I have 5 TV's (one of then a projection) in my home but only need 2 simultaneous streams because there's only 2 of us. But my brother (when his 2 kids were still living at home) subscribed to Netflix, he paid for the extra 2 streams because both his kids had TV's and computers and iPads and mobile phones, plus there were 3 other TV's in his home. For my brother (at the time), there was a real need for more than 2 simultaneous streams, regardless of the lack of 4K contents that he didn't care for in the first place. So in a way, the extra $5 he would be paying comes to $2.50 per extra stream. (But he couldn't just pay for 1 extra stream.) Then there are others that are paying for the 2 extra streams to share their account with others that not in the household. I imagine that more subscribers will sooner switch back to HD when they run out of 4K contents to watch, than subscribers that switch back to HD because they no longer need more than 2 streams. The average household have more the 2.5 TV's (not including tablets, computers and mobile phones that can also stream contents.)  And those that are sharing those extra streams are not incline to switch back as long as they can get away with sharing those extra streams. 

gustav said:

Why didn’t Sweeney go after or even mention Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft? Don't those consoles have exclusive app stores too?

danvm said:

davidw said:

danvm said:

davidw said:

>Bing had been the default search engine on Apple products from 2013 to 2017, but Google took over from there. The revenue share deal with Apple eliminated Bing's ability to compete, even when Microsoft made drastic offers.<

I don't know where they got that idea from. According to this ....

https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share

https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/united-states-of-america

Bing wasn't able to compete with Google even when they were the default search for Apple from 2013 to 2017.

The way I look at it, the importance of the "default" position is now way over blown when it comes to market share. If the "default" was that as much of a factor with regards to gaining market share as some are saying, then MS Edge and Bing should have much more than low single digit market share because they are the defaults on about 70% of the World desktop computers. 

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/

The fact that users can now easily change their "defaults", being the original installed default is no longer as meaningful as it was when MS IE was the default browser on Windows computers (in the mid 90's and early 2000's) and changing the default wasn't always that easy (thanks to MS). 

I still think defaults still important for Google, considering what they pay to Apple.  If not, they would pay nothing  to Apple and expect most customers to change to Google Search on their devices.  

But if you read between the lines, Google revenue sharing deal with Apple, which includes Apple having Google as the default search on Safari, was really about discouraging Apple from developing their own search engine. Over 50% of Google search occurs on iOS. This is the reason why Google is willing to share a portion of their iOS search revenue with Apple. It's not about being the default but about their fear that Apple might develop their own search engine for iOS. Thus maybe taking away a significant portion of Google iOS search revenue. More than what Google is paying with their revenue sharing deal.  

So long as there is no smoking gun that Google offered their revenue deal in exchange for Apple giving up any idea of developing their own search engine or that of Apple threatening to develop their own search engine unless Google pays them so much, there's not much of a case for anti-competition with the deal. There is no proof that Apple can develop a search engine that will compete with Google. Apple search could end up no better than MS Bing. But Google would rather not find out as Apple do have a much more loyal user base than MS.

I don't think Google is worried about Apple developing a search engine,
Apple won't make a Google search rival, says Eddy Cue (appleinsider.com)

And I don't think Google would have issues with the "loyal" Apple user base.  If you noticed, Apple loyal users are more focused in hardware (Mac, iPad, Apple Watch, iPhone).  But software and services is a different story.  Most Apple users have Gmail accounts, and don't use iCloud accounts.  MS Office and Google Workspace usage in Apple devices is ahead compared to the Apple suite of apps, even though they are free.  And even mobile apps and TV services like Google Maps, Spotify, Netflix and Disney+ are more popular than Apple alternatives.  I don't think an Apple search engine will make any difference to Google.  

StrangeDays said:

foregoneconclusion said:

Once again, the reason prices are always being raised is because streaming isn’t a workable business model.

Oh yeah? Then how come Netflix has been profitable for at least 13 years, more so every year? Oops

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/gross-profit


Why you carrying their water, bro?

It is only greed that demands ever-increasing profit margins year over year. Why are they entitled to that? Corporate greed for more is what drives inflation (not labor costs).

Me, what I’ve noticed when I look at legacy hit shows like Star Trek: TNG and compare it to streaming shows like Star Trek: SNW, is that the legacy seasons had two and a half times more episodes (26) while focusing on good writing and character development, while the new seasons have 10 episodes that focus on very expensive, cinematic set pieces and effects. That is a choice. Writing has been devalued, which we see again by the studios’ resistance to paying them. 

Only "gross profit" is not an indicator that Netflix have been more profitable every year.  oops!

Gross profit is the revenue from selling a product minus the cost of producing the product. It does not take into account the cost of operating the business. Which includes taxes, labor cost, rent, electricity, water, insurance, maintenance, accounting cost, advertising, improvements, etc.. If these cost total more than the gross profit, then company is operating at a loss, regardless of their gross profit.  


Try this ....

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/net-profit-margin

Clearly one can see that Netflix net profit did not increase every year. Now revenue has increased every year but increase revenue doesn't always lead to increase profit if cost increased more than revenue.

Plus Netflix net profit margin is not that outrages.

Here's Apple Inc. charts ....

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/profit-margins

Currently, Apple net margin of 25% is nearly twice that of Netflix at 13%, so is Apple twice as greedy as Netflix?