michael scrip
About
- Username
- michael scrip
- Joined
- Visits
- 37
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 254
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,916
Reactions
-
Apple rival Samsung posts high Q2 profits on rebounding phone division
AppleInsider said:
Although the company won't post in-depth results until later this month, Samsung said that its Q2 profits are estimated to have grown 17.4 percent year-over-year to 8.1 trillion won ($7 billion), according to Reuters. The company's mobile division is thought to have been the top profit driver.
Samsung made 8.49 trillion won in profit in early 2014... compared to a projected 8.1 trillion this quarter.
I wonder if that's Samsung's ceiling?
It will happen to every company eventually… some say we’re reaching peak-smartphone.
-
Apple hyping this week's opening of first-ever Brooklyn retail store
razormaid said:
Eeek. Looks like a building for some Planned Parenthood or something. Not very pretty is it. I'm guess this one will not be on "the tour" of most beautiful Over the top Apple stores. Looks like somewhere they'd make shoehorns for horses with that sheet metal sign. GRIN
-
Apple counsel attacks Spotify complaints as 'rumors and half-truths'
theothergeoff said:battiato1981 said:If that is indeed all that Apple provides, it does seem rather simple, except you have to put a value on the venue itself, which of course is valuable. On one hand, the upcoming system is a step in the right direction of fairness for the consumer (the 15% mark-up for subscribers who come via the app-store), perhaps there can be more descending tiers if that customer is in fact continuously loyal (next year 10%, next year 5%, then done - zeroed out). That would be another improvement. If there was a way for there to be a rebate for the first year on half of that 30%, once you hit the mark, that would be even better.
This is such a hot button issue and I admit that I hadn't thought much about it before this recent kerfuffle. I don't think that a company with a questionable business model should be rewarded much, especially if it's true that they totally lowball their content providers (i.e. - the musicians), but I think Apple has to stay ahead of the game and not be seen as gouging.
I still think that if I was in Spotifys shoes I would do what someone said Amazon has done and offer the Kindle app, which when opened informs the new customer that they need an account to use it. The customer goes to their website, signs away their privacy and then returns to the app and logs in. Spotify gets it all, Apple gets nothing. Everyone is happy.
- the DRM to trust the app is truly an unadulterated app from spotify
- The CDN to download the app.
- User notifications that the App has been updated
- A comments and review section for marketing the application
If I buy a $10 app... Apple gets $3. End of transaction. Apple never asks for any more money because that $3 is supposed to cover the costs of the above services.
But $3 every month?
Other than the monthly swipe of the credit card (which is automated BTW)... what are they doing different than any other app in the App Store?
Alas, those are the rules! Spotify was well aware of the rules. -
Actually, there is something new about Apple's upcoming iPhone 7
hagar said:Thanks for pointing me to Joanna Stern's article on iPhone and AI in WSJ. I think she's spot on. The position of Apple on privacy is not a desirable one. If I look at my Android friends that are amazed by the AI delivered to their phone by Google & friends that analyse their data, I can't help but wonder how Apple will ever deliver something similar? Nobody seems to care that Apple protects their privacy (it's a multinational too!) and Google not. They just want useful information delivered to them when they need it.
It's funny though... I bet a huge chunk of iPhone users use Google/GMail... as well as Facebook and other similar services.
So the privacy Apple is protecting for people is counteracted by the privacy they're losing by using those other services.