- Last Active
ihatescreennames said:I’m not trying to be snarky here, this is a legitimate question on my part. Can anyone explain why GMail has so many “may be collected” points compared to Apple Mail? Why would purchase info be collected, for instance?
For reference, here’s what Apple Mail says:1) There is a large difference between "apple mail the app" and "gmail the service". Apple's mail is just an interface to mail services, gmail's nutrition info covers the service as well. Thus, Apple's mail using the Gmail service would end up pretty much the same in what data Google gets.2) Google does a lot of useful stuff with your email - e.g. it will identify and categorise receipts so you can easily find them later. It will also find things like airline tickets, other things with set times (cinema tickets, for pre-covid times) etc and help you track all of these, updates etc.Of course, it doesn't use all of this info just to help you, it's also to be able to sell you for a higher price.
AppleExposed said:bbdroid said:The only reason there are no Spotify users on the 30% rate is because Spotify removed the ability to pay via Apple's payment system back in 2016. This also explains why there are relatively few (680,000) users on the 15% rate, since only long-term subscribers who haven't migrated to paying with Spotify directly are still paying via Apple.While it is misleading for Spotify to gloss over how the 30% rate decreases to 15% after a year, Apple's defence is even more misleading.If Spotify still offered payments via Apple's in-app payment system, it would undoubtedly have many more subscribers paying that way, and any new subscribers would be paying the 30% rate.And even though the 680,000 number is small compared to Spotify's overall paid subscription base, it is by no means insignificant.680,000 users x 12 months x $12.99/month x 15% = $15,899,760So that means Spotify is currently paying Apple (a direct competitor) roughly $15 million a year to process some payments. And that's only for users still utilising a payment method that was discontinued 3 years ago.
Are you bit**ing that Spotify has to pay Apple to use their service? Heck, only .5% of their users at that?
30% cut to Apple was fairly low for selling low volume software on a phone when it was launched. 30% recurring (15% after one year) for large, established services who have have their own signup and payment options - not so much. Competing against them in a market where the margin just isn't 30% makes this an even larger point.
stuke said:No one forced you to buy an iPhone nor iPad since 2007. No one also forced you to purchase any smartphone application on the App Store if you did buy an iPhone or iPad. Get off your high horse and innovate something out of the EU that the rest of the world finds useful, helpful, and or impactful, and is willing with their one free will to pay for that value.@Apple, quit selling in the EU Block. It will last for 3-6 months before the findings are negated. .Innovation? Spotify invented the music streaming service as we know it today - just as Apple was the catalyst of the generation before, the digital music store. My first Spotify receipt is from 2009, Apple launched their service more than 6 years later. (Disclosure: I'm a customer at both - or rather, I have the Apple family membership and my wife has the Spotify family membership due to needing playlists at her job)A platform owner using a dominant position to enter a new market and give themselves a large advantage is pretty much as clear cut anti-trust as you can get. I have no sympathy for Epic, but I think Spotify has a good case as Apple has entered the market Spotify created 6-7 years earlier. Giving themselves a 30% competitive advantage when entering a market is not a good thing.
goodbyeranch said:TLDR Someone doesn't think its worth it to replace his old laptop or learn new tech to support a tiny sliver of a microscopic partcile of a market.
While the first part - not replacing his laptop - sounded strange, the second is an issue. As Apple has gotten bigger, they've moved away from open standards and created their own products. In this case, they've deprecated OpenGL (after not their version for a long time) and created their own graphics API - Metal. That makes porting much more work and less interesting - and as a long time Apple user, it's something I don't like too. It will make porting harder, maintenance harder and create more platform-specific bugs. It will also make less ports happen.
Client side scanning of content is a China-sized hole in their privacy story.This is just a little push away from looking for pictures of Winnie the Pooh, democracy demonstrations, or even written language patterns that could be critical of the current regime. CSAM should be discarded - if no backhole exists, it's harder to be pressed to expand it.
Surround sound from AppleTV on my Airpod Max is something I was surprised didn't work when I bought them, so it's good to see it finally arrive.
When it comes to head tracking, I wonder if it's possible to turn it off? It is a very impressive gimmick, but without VR it is just that - a gimmick - and I'd rather have it off, while retaining surround sound.
There are two issues here: For consumers, more information is good as long as it is reliable. This is even more valid for Apple customers, since Apple maintains a stable price from introduction until it is replaced rather than gradually decreasing it through this time. As a customer, you want to avoid buying models that will soon be replaced to give one obvious example.As an Apple customer, it's also good that there are extensive leaks to third party accessory makers so that there is a good selection of e.g. cases, armbands for running etc as soon as possible after launch.Apple, OTOH, wants to avoid the leaks for multiple reasons. Surprising the customers is one aspect, to get the maximum media impact around launch. Decreasing the time to react for the competition is another reason. Thirdly, the more you can delay third parties making accessories, the more you can charge for a partnership program for selected vendors. Finally, Apple has a different interest than the customers when it comes to selling close-to-being-replaced hardware at full price - they want to sell it, even if it the customer would be better off waiting (weeks or months).
New colours is probably the last thing I want on a new laptop. Sure, please add stellar gray, but other than that - just leave it alone.I'm waiting for a new laptop, but don't need one right away. The first thing that comes to mind is that both the MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air need better front facing cameras. Previously, I didn't really care that much... but the last 16 months have been filled with online meetings, and I expect that to continue to be important - hopefully less so, but more than in the past. The cameras are pretty bad, because Apple didn't care either. Hopefully, the last year and a half have given them time to fix that... even though we see that there is some lag, in that many devices just support FaceID and don't include the new Touch ID on the side button. With hardware and a large company, it takes time before a need translates into changes in upcoming products.I like the idea of going fanless, so MBA is the front runner on that account - I don't use the touchbar much on my current MacBook Pro, and sustained performance isn't that important. But I will have to wait and see for the next gen for a better camera.Also, with Apple now building their own CPUs I'm also thinking that Q3 is not a good time to buy a laptop, just as that's a bad time to buy a new iPhone.