steven n.

magman1979 said:

You know what, you praise Apple in one breath for charging a measly $0.99 for 50GB and $2.99 for 200GB, which is literally less than (or the same) as sacrificing one of those Caramel Macchiato Latte's once a month, yet in the rest of this bash piece you claim you resent the 5GB? Self-entitlement complex much?

Seriously, NONE of the other services offer the seamless integration of what iCloud offers with iOS and macOS devices, and MANY of them I wouldn't trust with any of my data.

This whole article wreaks of bad advice, and endorsing inferior services, all to save, literally, a buck a month.

I say, don't be cheap, pay the buck (or three) a month, and have piece of mind!

avon b7 said:

What product numbers? None have been given. As I said above, one artist's data is irrelevant and doesn't constitute product numbers but simply Drake numbers.

Also, as I said before, is it outlandish to think that those subscribers (on both platforms) who weren't streaming Drake, were just streaming something else? Surely what counts - from a platform perspective - is total streams, not if some of your subscribers happen to be listening to the same record at the same time. Beyond simply adding up streams there is nothing interesting here except for Drake (and breaking a streaming record) and no one has been able to offer anything as a way of an argument to support how this is relevant from a platform perspective.

What counts is subscribers, then active subscribers. Subscriber numbers are important but if they are paying but not using the service you have a problem because at some point they could cancel the subscription. Active subscribers are better as they probably have a reason to keep subscribing and actively using the service.

Apple wants more subscribers. Spotify wants more subscribers. Why wouldn't they?

What those subscribers listen too at any given time is moot unless some streams report more profit than others (but do they and what are the details). We don't know. What we know is that individual artist stream tallies are not representative of very much at all.

And we know that Drake won't be releasing something every week which makes the whole thing even more pointless.

rogifan_new said:

steven n. said:

rogifan_new said:

Where are they getting this data from considering Apple doesn’t provide sales, revenue or profits by iPhone model? Also how do they know what the profits are for the smartphone industry? What companies provide profit data just for their smartphones?

But Apple does give values like ASP (Average Selling Price) and total units sold. People then combine this data to form various equations like (%iPhoneX * medianPrice) + (%iPhone8 * medianPrice) + (%iPhone7 * medianPrice) + (%iPhoneSE * medianPrice) = ASP; %iPhoneX+%iPhone8+%iPhone7+%iPhoneSE=100%. They make some educated guesses based on web analytics and come up with a range of potential values.

So it’s basically all a guess. Which is what I assumed.  What is the point of analysis like this that depends so much guessing and estimating?

bigmushroom said:
This is fanboy propaganda in the same way that the article deliberately blurred the distinction between Apis and implementing code.

Google didn't use the Java API to save time developing Android (they could have easily renamed function names and changed them slightly) but in order to make it easy for third party to develop for the platform. It's not clear why an API developer should own the human capital that stored in form of muscle memory in the heads of thousands of developers if they profited handsomely already from these developers writing code for them.

Finally, Apple stands on the shoulder of Giants like anyone else. Objective c is based on c and it's standard is heavily influenced by the c library. Swift's library is also obviously based on the countless libraries that came before. This is taken for granted: I have never seen the creators of C go around and Sue anyone I sight for repurpursing their libraries.

Sure, Google "only steals". I guess that's why these hadoop companies reimplemented MapReduce and the Google file system from the seminal 2005 paper and created Hadoop out of it. That's the reason why kubernetes (developed by Google) has become the container orchestrator of choice. That's why tensor flow is opensourced by google and the tool of choice for deep learning. That's why Node uses the V8 JavaScript engine to develop a huge ecosystem around it. That's why countless academics use syntaxnet (Google too) for creating syntactic parse trees. Etc. Etc.

Bending your mind like a pretzel to write stuff that fits your anti Google crusade isn't healthy.

id fileData;
fileData = [NSString stringWithContentsOfFile:@"MyDataFile];

FILE *inFile;
unsigned char *fileData;
size_t fileSize;

inFile = fopen("MyDataFile", "r");
fseek(inFile, (size_t)0, SEEK_END);
fileSize = ftell(inFile);
fileData = malloc(fileSize + 1);
fseek(inFile, (size_t)0, SEEK_START);
fread(fileData, fileSize, 1, inFile);