Dan_Dilger

crow said:

Spotify's historical revisionism insists that Apple didn't initially allow apps, but that's not true.

I minor issue, but you are wrong. Apple initially had zero intention of allowing native 3rd party apps. Jobs famously stated web apps could do anything native apps could and there was no need to allow developers to make native apps. Only after public outcry from Mac developers, and seeing the popularity of jailbreaking to install native apps did Apple shift gears and start work on the App Store.

I personally asked Steve Jobs in front of a room of shareholders (at the 2007 shareholder meeting in February) what Apple was thinking about apps, how free third parties would be to create native apps alone or in Apple partnerships in the model of iPod Games, and whether companies would be able to release their own custom internal apps the way Microsoft had been supporting.  

He made it clear that Apple was working through a series of issues, including Nokia style app signing. It was obvious that native apps were coming. It wasn't something Apple was blindsided by.

iPhone wouldn't be released for several more months. Tim Cook pulled his out on the stage and was checking it after the event. His was the first one I saw in person up fairly close.

The idea that developers had to change Apple's thinking, or that jailbreaking pushed things over the hill at the end of 2007--just a few months before the App Store was opened, is purely false. And silly. It took a lot of time to work out the architecture. As shipped, the original iPhone OS ran all apps as root--under the same user account. They didn't have an option to just "allow" third party apps and retain any control over security. 

Jobs presented web apps publically as the solution because that's all they had ready at the time.  

Jobs also once said it would be silly to have video on iPods, shortly before they released it. 

And the fact that Apple had signed, FairPlay third party partner apps working in iTunes for iPods back in 2005 makes it clear that it recognized the need for third party apps on iPhone. Maybe it didn't realize the extent to which this would be important or lucrative, but it did deliver it best (beating Microsoft!) and outmaneuvered Sidekick/Palm/Nokia and everyone else that had been dabbling in mobile apps. And it maintained the best app store for phones and the only real app store for tablets.

So no I don't think that's wrong.  

The reason for calling Spotify's timeline "revisionism" is that the issue wasn't that Apple "didn't allow" apps, but that it didn't have a viable option to allow native third party apps. But Apple did allow web apps, and Spotify could have used that for music streaming. So Spotify was being excessively sloppy with the facts to make Apple look like a big abusive boogeyman rather than the tiny underdog it actually was in 2007.

It's as if nobody knows that periodicals and newspapers have historically been sold by bookstores and other retailers that keep the same sort of "50%" of receipts that other retailers take to stay in business, pay rent, etc. Clothes you buy in a store are marked up 100% by the retailer. Books and magazines are sold for far more than they cost, and most are thrown in the trash. 

If the WSJ and others can do better on their own, fine. But they obviously can't or all these outlets wouldn't be going out of business, firing all their talent and hiring part-time bloggers who don't know shit from shinola and can only write clickbait garbage. For everyone else, this is the iTunes moment that could save writing--creating a real business model for creating magazine and video content--if Apple can pull it off.

djsherly said:

ericthehalfbee said:

Now that’s rich. You think predicting Apples future is as simple as “hiring a writer”?

The thing that was different this time, as opposed to all the other times the naysayers were crying wolf, was that Apple's behaviour itself changed.

Firstly, there were push notifications flogging new phones, then the upgraded trade in program, and the change in language on its web presence to promote actual features of the phone rather than some byline like, "All the power. All the time".

If this wasn't enough to pique interest.... but then those like DED simply dismissed this change in behaviour in favour of the rolling Apple juggernaut narrative, rather than trying to understand why this was happening. 

There is no "Apple juggernaut narrative." It's an observable fact that Apple has been making virtually all of the profits in the industries it participates in. Nobody is baselessly making up a story that isn't true about Apple's success. In suggesting that this is the case, you're simply inventing a lie. That's bad for discourse and makes the world a stupider place. So shame on you. 

There is also no mystery why Apple is working overtime to try to push upgrades: it's a commercial business engaged in a profit-making exercise in a shrinking market--smartphones have been retracting. Of course Apple is pursuing new efforts to sell phones. That's what it does. It's not a conspiracy or evidence that the company is right around the corner from doom. That's your narrative. Every story suggesting that Apple just now invented promotion, advertising and incentives because it was on the brink of going out of business is the lie you're looking for. That's the false narrative presented without supporting facts.  

asdasd said:

Bad news is China’s nationalist antipathy to Apple. The arrest of the huawei cfo is still an ongoing event. (And why is China subject to US sanctions?). That’s a long term issue. If this woman is extradited or jailed the saga continues. 

Good news is the increases in services and installed base. Note that he said a 100M increase in active devices, which might include AirPods or whatnot. So it’s not active users.  Still fairly impressive. 

China's nationalist antipathy to Apple is an invented media narrative. There is no evidence being presented that Chinese nationals (and note that "Greater China" includes non-PRC markets such as Hong Kong, which has antipathy for China, not Apple) are rushing to buy Huawei over iPhones. Rather Huawei is simply trampling the former domestic "market share" leaders in China and in emerging region exports. We know this because the overall market is going down and has been for a while now. 

We also know the Chinese market is dragging down other American companies and that domestic Chinese goods and services are being delayed/deferred by consumers tightening their belts. It has little or nothing to do with state Chinese propaganda supporting Huawei. 

"And why is China subject to US sanctions?" Because the U.S. sanctions U.S. technology exports to countries including Iran and North Korea. These are enforced as part of trade pacts, so a Chinese company fraudulently flouting sanctions has broken U.S. law and is subject to arrest, trial and punishment. Did you notice that this previously occurred with ZTE? The company paid a huge fine and agreed to stop skirting sanctions. Huawei will do the same. The U.S. wouldn't have had this executive arrested if there were not prosecutable evidence of wrongdoing. It's not like Trump woke up and decided to arrest a Chinese executive. 

rogifan_new said:

Wow DED is really panicked about Apple. Way too many defensive articles the past week or so.

Anyway can he point us to a previous example where Apple did this on their front page? I certainly don’t remember them pushing trade-ins like this last year. And putting a price right on the front page. They clearly want people to see that $449 price.

Why would Apple be doing any of this if the XR was meeting their sales expectations? 

You know it is possible some consumers find these phones too expensive and are holding on to what they have (which are still really good phones).

So you're saying Apple has never before promoted features or the price of its iPhones on its website? How incredibly brave to stake your reputation on that. 



And as for trade-ins, Apple was promoting that last year when Bloomberg and commenters like you were insisting that there was no possible mechanism that could enable anyone on earth to afford a $999 iPhone X.

2017: https://www.imore.com/how-trade-your-iphone ;