gatorguy said:

linkman said:

What sort of control does a company have over product placement like this? I know that Microsoft has to pay to get their products to appear on screen anywhere, but Apple does not. If I were a film maker and I wanted to put an Apple product on screen without any of Apple's approval/disapproval would I be completely free to do what I want?

Apple does pay, but traditionally in product rather than cash.

More recently they've had to modify tactics and enter into paid promotion contracts with some media companies which is why you now see “promotional consideration sponsored by Apple"  far more often than just two or three years ago. Why would they have to pay? Studio and broadcast media increasingly see Apple as a competitor rather than helpful partner and are far less apt to show them on screen in exchange for a couple of computers and a few iPhones. 

Years ago, the filmmakers paid for product placements.  Then someone figured out that it's the studios who should be getting paid and it's since become a big business with agencies cropping up just for product placements.  I doubt it has anything to do with film production companies seeing Apple as a competitor.  

Sometimes, if a director really wants a particular product in the movie because it's an appropriate prop, the product company doesn't pay.   I used to work for a publisher and we had a big set of books for the legal industry that frequently showed up in movies. We developed a set that was hollowed out on the inside so they wouldn't be so heavy.  Well before Google, we also had CD-ROM products. One filmmaker wanted one of those products for a well-known movie, but he insisted on one of the products from an international division even though the plot took place in the U.S. AND he wanted shelves full of them.   I actually manufactured more product just for the movie and in the end, they didn't use it or it wasn't noticeable and they could have used some empty boxes and wrapping paper and it wouldn't have made a difference.    Another famous film has the characters going to the library to search something related to the pattern of a murderer (before Google) and they wanted to use our search product and interface.   We supplied a special version that would display what they wanted and once again, it wasn't used for the film.   After that, I stopped going out of my way for filmmakers.   We'd only supply off-the-shelf product.  

And when there's no specific deal, every prop in a movie that has a copyright or trademark has to be cleared, even a poster hanging in the background of a living room set or a book jacket or magazine.   I personally think that if something is just in the background and not an integral part of the plot, it should be considered fair use, but that's not the current law. 

steveh said:

Microsoft's "saving" Apple was hardly done out of altruism, nor did it cost Microsoft anything in the long term.

In 1997, Microsoft bought 150,000 shares of Apple preferred stock, convertable to common shares of Apple stock at a price of $8.25, redeemable after a three year period, for $150 million. Apple was worth ~ $3B at the time.

By 2001, they'd converted all of the shares into common stock, netting the company approximately 18.1 million shares. 

By 2003, they'd sold all of it.

It was mostly optics.

One of the reasons Microsoft invested in Apple was to make sure Apple survived.  They needed Apple because there were threats of restraint-of-trade suits against Microsoft because of the dominance of Windows and (at the time), Explorer as the default browser.    There were fears the Government was going to get involved. 

Apple really was in trouble at the time.   There were calls for Apple to either shut down and give the money back to shareholders or sell itself to a company like Sony, which demonstrates how analysts and industry insiders were just as dumb (if not dumber) back then as they are now.

I've posted this before, but here's some brilliant quotes by these geniuses over the years:

John C. Dvorak, 1984. “The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a "mouse". There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I don’t want one of these new fangled devices."

former Apple VP Gaston Bastiaens, January 1996.  “Within the next two months, Sony will acquire Apple. … Sony will be the white knight who will step into the picture."

Michael Dell, October 1997.  "I'd shut [Apple] down and give the money back to the shareholders."

Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe, 1998.  "The iMac will only sell to some of the true believers. The iMac doesn’t include a floppy disk drive for doing file backups or sharing of data. ... The iMac will fail. 

10/5/2000   Michael S. Malone.  Apple R.I.P.   … “Nevertheless, the bloom is off the rose. The incredible run-up Apple stock has enjoyed since Steve's return is over, and the sheen of success that had enveloped the company has been tarnished.    A temporary setback? Don't be too sure. Unlike, say, Hewlett-Packard, Apple has always been a company that deals poorly with failure. When things go bad at Apple, they go very bad. “

5/21/2001  Cliff Edwards    Commentary: Sorry, Steve: Here's Why Apple Stores Won't Work. “New retail outlets aren't going to fix Apple's sales “

 12/23/2006 Bill Ray (Mobile)

“Why the Apple phone will fail, and fail badly”.  It's the Pippin all over again”

 1/14/2007 Matthew Lynn.   Apple iPhone Will Fail in a Late, Defensive Move

“…Don't let that fool you into thinking that it matters. The big competitors in the mobile-phone industry such as Nokia Oyj and Motorola Inc. won't be whispering nervously into their clamshells over a new threat to their business…

The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks. In terms of its impact on the industry, the iPhone is less relevant”

 

3/28/2007 John Dvorak.  Apple should pull the plug in the iPhone.   Commentary:  Company risks its reputation in competitive business

“… Now compare that effort and overlay the mobile handset business. This is not an emerging business. In fact it's gone so far that it's in the process of consolidation with probably two players dominating everything, Nokia Corp… and Motorola Inc.” 

Apple just had two record breaking sales and net-income quarters at a time when the analysts and press claimed the iPhone X wasn't selling.  Apple Services alone, if spun off, would make the Fortune 100 list and it's rarely even mentioned.    Apple's net income in fiscal 2017 was LARGER than their net sales in 2009 and before.  One quarter of Apple's Services revenue is LARGER than annual sales of the entire company before fiscal 2004.    And yet the analysts keep trying to imply that Apple is somehow failing.   Either they're completely stupid or this is clearly stock manipulation.     

I don't care what the article says - Buffet didn't buy more Apple stock because he saw that customers liked Apple and bought into the eco-system - there's no doubt in my mind that he looked at the numbers, which are extraordinary.  There's a good chance Apple will beat the fiscal 2015 net sales record of $233.715 billion as they're already at $149.44 billion after two quarters.   But having said all that, there is a question of what Apple is going to be ten years from now.   I've predicted for some time that 15 years from now, Apple will be an A.I. and robotics company, but with Siri still being so lame, I'm not so sure anymore.  

I don't get it.  You can already have other payment services in your iPhone wallet (at least in the U.S. you can).  Several of my credit cards are there as is my ATM card.   The only time I use a physical card are in the places where they don't have touchless payments set up yet.  Home Depot, for example, doesn't take Apple Pay (or any other such service).

By the way, my Apple Credit Card seems to have been hacked.  One fraudulent charge showed up on my bill from a local retailer who I've never once visited or bought anything from.   I don't quite get how this could have happened.   They took the charge off pending investigation.   

rcfa said:

The problem has never been that music is too cheap, but that artists don’t get enough of the pie while consumers got raped.

Example: LPs were more expensive to produce, store, transport than CDs. Yet CDs were priced higher than LPs, because “consumers get higher sound quality and convenience (no flipping over of records, cleaning off dust, etc.)
So record companies increased profit margins, artists got the same. When distribution went to download, costs for warehousing, transportation, dealers, etc. disappeared, being replaced by comparatively modest costs for server space. Did prices drop? No! Did artists get paid more? No! So the “record” companies wanted even more profits, but when consumers feeling being ripped off started pirating songs, they were complaining, using the “poor starving artists” as reason why pirating music is evil, all the while they pushed for legislation that made tons of artists work ineligible for royalties, declaring it “work for hire”.

In other words: as much I’m for artists getting paid fairly I am against consumers getting shafted by corporate greed under false pretenses. If this law doesn’t do anything to actually help artists and curb corporate greed, it’s pretty much useless.

The "meme" is that physical music was expensive starting with the era of the CD, but it wasn't.   That was just a message from consumers who thought music should be free and who were too cheap to pay for it.   And it's cheaper now than it's ever been.

The record labels are making far less money than they were during the heyday of physical music, which is why there are only three major record companies left:  Sony, Universal and Warner.  

In 1948, when the LP was introduced, the first LP sold for $4.85, which is over $50 in 2018 dollars.

In the 1960's, 45 RPM singles listed for $1 (albeit for a 2-sided single) and generally sold for 64 to 66 cents.  65 cents in 1963 is $5.36 in current dollars.  For ONE SONG (okay, two songs, but no one wanted the b-side in most cases).  

In December 1953, discounted LP's at Liberty Records in NYC were selling for $3.15.  That's $29.55 in current dollars
In December 1965, on sale LP's at Sam Goody's that listed for $3.79, $4.79 and $5.79 were discounted to $2.17, $2.77 and $3.77.   That's $17.23, $21.99 and $26.76 respectively in current dollars.
In December 1970, E. J. Korvettes was discounting $4.98 to $2.88 (Joe Cocker, Van Morrison), $5.98 to $3.38 (deja vu) and $6.98 to $3.88 (Abbey Road).  That's $18.26, $21.43 and $24.60 in current dollars.

Today, most new CD's retail for $10 to $14 and they tend to have more tracks.  Back catalog CD's are as little as $6  (not that anyone is buying CD's anymore).  That's the cheapest physical music has ever been. 

The record companies aren't the ones who are selling you downloads and streams, so their servers have little to do with it.  Those are third parties like Apple, Pandora and Spotify who must license from the record labels.   And while we don't know how Apple Music is doing because Apple doesn't break out the numbers, we do know that Pandora and Spotify are not profitable.   (Pandora was just sold to Sirius/XM).  

The North American recorded music market was $14.6 billion in 1999.  That's over $22 billion in current dollars.    In 2017, the industry did only $8.7 billion.  It's on track to do about $9.2 billion this year, but in real terms, the industry is only 42% its peak size (and those revenue numbers are based upon list prices, so actual revenue to the industry is much smaller).

And in any case, performing artists, writers and producers deserve to get paid a decent amount of money.   It used to be that successful artists made money from their recorded music and went on the road to support the album.  Today, it's the opposite.  Few are making anything from their recorded music, so their revenue comes from the road and the recorded music backs the tour.   But only the most popular acts can make any money on the road. 

As to whether artists will still get shafted under this new law, I have no idea.  At least they'll get paid for pre-1972 recordings.  Performing artists (and/or their labels) still won't get paid for U.S. over-the-air radio play.   But it's hard to be convincing about corporate greed when music is the least expensive it's ever been (except for the limited edition, very expensive boxed sets sold to collectors, like the forthcoming Beatles White Album deluxe boxed set and others like it).     Streaming now constitutes 77.1% of the North American business, downloads are 12.6% and physical units are 10.3% (all in dollars at list prices).   Only 18.6 million CD's were sold in the first half of the year.   At its peak in (full-year) 2000, it was 942.5 million.   And lest you think that vinyl LP's are the savior of the industry, only 8.1 million were sold in the first half of the year, more than last year, but less than 2015.   The full year will have fewer LP sales than what just two of the best selling albums of all time sold.    

While I don't disagree with everything the writers and bloggers have to say (I do think it would be a huge mistake to drop the headphone port), journalists have been getting it wrong for decades.   There's also this ridiculous attitude (also expressed by many on this forum) that if everyone doesn't want to upgrade every year, then Apple is doing something wrong.  

Some examples of past journalistic brilliance:

John C. Dvorak, 1984“The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a "mouse". There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I don’t want one of these new fangled devices."

 former Apple VP Gaston Bastiaens, January 1996.

“Within the next two months, Sony will acquire Apple. … Sony will be the white knight who will step into the picture."

 

Michael Dell, October 1997

"I'd shut [Apple] down and give the money back to the shareholders."

 

Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe, 1998.
"The iMac will only sell to some of the true believers. The iMac doesn’t include a floppy disk drive for doing file backups or sharing of data. ... The iMac will fail.

10/5/2000   Michael S. Malone

Apple R.I.P.

… “Nevertheless, the bloom is off the rose. The incredible run-up Apple stock has enjoyed since Steve's return is over, and the sheen of success that had enveloped the company has been tarnished.

A temporary setback? Don't be too sure. Unlike, say, Hewlett-Packard, Apple has always been a company that deals poorly with failure. When things go bad at Apple, they go very bad. “

5/21/2001  Cliff Edwards 

Commentary: Sorry, Steve: Here's Why Apple Stores Won't Work

“New retail outlets aren't going to fix Apple's sales “

 

12/23/2006 Bill Ray (Mobile)

“Why the Apple phone will fail, and fail badly”

It's the Pippin all over again”

 

1/14/2007 Matthew Lynn

Apple iPhone Will Fail in a Late, Defensive Move

“…Don't let that fool you into thinking that it matters. The big competitors in the mobile-phone industry such as Nokia Oyj and Motorola Inc. won't be whispering nervously into their clamshells over a new threat to their business…

The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks. In terms of its impact on the industry, the iPhone is less relevant”

 

3/28/2007 John Dvorak

Apple should pull the plug in the iPhone

Commentary:  Company risks its reputation in competitive business

“… Now compare that effort and overlay the mobile handset business. This is not an emerging business. In fact it's gone so far that it's in the process of consolidation with probably two players dominating everything, Nokia Corp… and Motorola Inc.”

 

Absolutely ridiculous.  Would a CEO who was offered say $50m not take the job if it was $25m?   How much wealth does any one person need?  No one should make $250m even if it is stock.  No one. 

His claiming he feels terrible about layoffs is about as good as politicians who offer “thoughts and prayers” after mass shootings.  

SpamSandwich said:

randominternetperson said:

SpamSandwich said:

It’s a powerful iPad, no doubt. Speaking only for myself, the lack of a headphone jack to accept recording studio standard equipment killed the possibility of me buying one for now. I consider this exclusion a shortsighted decision. Surely no “pros” expected Apple to do that.

I don’t care about Fortnite in the slightest and I’m not going to spend about $2K for a new iPad that’s incompatible with most of my industry standard audio gear.

Apple sometimes leads in the wrong direction on product design, IMO. They’re not perfect and that’s OK.

Serious question here: why can't you just use the Apple lightning headphone adapter?  It is tying up the port or the sound quality or an objection to extra cords?

It was a needless change on Apple’s part (sure they’ll justify it with resons, but those reasons don’t matter to people who place a premium on production speed). It was dumb to eliminate a standard audio port for headphones. My current iPad Pro will accept studio headphones, an adapter for power and a MIDI keyboard or mic without a lot of screwing around. I’m aware my use case isn’t everyone’s. Although I did note with interest similar comments about the elimination of the headphone jack by Alex Lindsay (Pixel Corps) who is even more deeply involved in production. Non-standard equipment changes for no apparent logical reason tends to irritate professionals.

That's all fine, but an analog headphone jack is not pro level either (except for earphones).   True pro analog is balanced +4dbm on an XLR connector.   A line phone jack at -10dbm is probably also acceptable, but not pro.   A headphone jack doesn't cut it for anything but a headphone.   So you really HAVE to take digital audio out of the port and convert it on another device if you want to use the audio for any pro application.   

Wow. Under $100,000.  What a bargain.   The price of EV’s has fallen each year and there are great cars for less than half that price from Hyundai and others. 

The Nikkei article is garbage journalism that quotes no sources.  While it has been quite obvious for some time that Nikon was not going to release any new DSLR’s or F-mount lenses, they are not yet leaving that business. 

Appleish said:

So just a speed/spec bump with no physical changes or new features? My 16-inch MBP M1 Max is still near the top.

Although, I'll admit. I have color-matched MagSafe charging cable envy on the new models.

I’ve never understood why people expect more from consecutively released models.   Do you buy a new car EVERY year?   If you already have an M1, it’s not really intended for you.   It’s intended for people like me who are using a much older Mac, in my case a late 2016 with a bunch of broken keys and WiFi that only works intermittently.