misa

rogifan_new said:

What do you mean "by profits"? How do we know how much profit Apple, Google or anyone else are making off their app stores? Apple has never disclosed App Store profits, I don't think has anyone else has either. I don't understand the weird obsession this site has with how much profit Apple makes as though that's all that's matters or all that anyone should care about. This isn't a biggest dick contest. I don't own Apple products because Apple makes the most profit. 

Anecdotal evidence from pretty much everyone who has put out an app on the iOs and GooglePlay stores pretty much.

eg, let's say I put out an app called "Slap the Troll", and simultaneously drop about a million dollars in advertising so that it's the #1 best selling app in the app store that month, beating out various crappy clones of candycrunch,goldfarmville,and testybirds. All things considered equal, I get 1 million downloads on iOS and 1 million downloads on Android, of which 85% of the players on iOS drop at least $10 to play the full version, and only 5% of Android Amazon and 10% Google Play users do. Everyone else over 1 million on Android has pirated the game and isn't paying for it.

You can see this readily online with every popular game. Games that have monetization schemes typically are pirated by Android users and then hacked to have unlimited in-game currency so they can just beat the game in about 5 minutes.

This is also why any real investment in games (eg Nintendo) on mobile segregates the iOS and Android users so that the Android users don't destroy their profitable iOS users who are more likely to continue to pay money for their game. It's in the best interests of iOS developers to not even port their games to Android unless they have an online component that doesn't work with pirated copies.

calebbenbekke said:

I would buy it if it comes with 4K resolution OLED display. If OLED is impossible for now at least give us 4K. That would be great.

In an iPad? It's as close to 4K as it's going to be able to get without changing the aspect ratio. The iPad Pro has 2732 x 2048, which a 4K screen is 3840x2160. You're literately asking for 5.2% more screen real estate. But no 4K content is produced in a 4:3 ratio. 4K is not really usable in a sub 30" screen anyway. I have a 24" 4K and it's the same difference between a non-retina and a retina display when upgrading from 1080p. The pixel density at 4K in a roughly 10"-12" screen is 4x denser than a 1080p screen.

Now if you're talking about MBP, same issue. The 15" is 2880x1800 which would still require 33% more screen real estate. Once you go beyond 1080HD, you are in the realm of UI scaling instead of native resolution, so you need a more powerful GPU, and Intel's iGPU's are rubbish.

9secondkox2 said:

Lol. Deducted this back when Apple Pay was being blocked in favor of whenever current-c would get its act together. If the mcx actually cared about security, convenience, and ease of use like they say, they'd simply throw full support behind Apple Pay. 

The only solution that that actually protects the consumer instead of tracks the consumer. 

Everyone knew CurrentC was going to flop. It earned the negative feedback before even launching due to merchants turning off NFC payments.

This is what happens when merchants get greedy. Credit cards have been a staple of American commerce since 1959. Making harder than the original card was doomed to fail. The reason Apple Pay works and bad alternatives like Google and Samsung have repeatedly failed, is because to make Apple Pay work, you can use it everywhere there is a NFC-enabled card terminal, which is pretty much everywhere. These alternatives don't work, are insecure (MST), or require special equipment not already present. So the end result is that you're better off using the plastic card you already have than have to flip through apps, or figure out how to hold the phone for it to work.

As an example of poor design. Many "loyalty cards" still use bar codes, and if you have a screen protector on your phone, most barcode readers can't read through it.

Groc said:

"Tim Cook to pro customers: We are not abandoning you."

He's in complete denial. What he should be saying is: "We're sorry we abandoned you."

And if he really wants to come back to us, he can start with the professional photographers. Next, he can start making new Mac Pros again. And displays to go with that Mac Pro. And how about putting some "pro" in iPad pro? How about some storage, some pro apps, and a way to make quick backups to external drives?

We're waiting. (But I don't know anyone who expects you to deliver. So sad.)

Indeed, but I want to make a few points:
1. The existing Mac Pro, and the last Mac Pro Tower before it were insufficient upgrades. The "trashcan" Mac Pro might have been sufficient for maybe a server render-cluster, but as a workstation or as a video/photography system it was too weak and not upgradable enough. If Apple wants the pros back, Simply go back to the MacPro5,1 model, switch the Motherboard with single and dual E5 Socket 2011-3 designs. (I think Intel is abandoning Socket 2011 now, in favor of a new socket, but you get the point), M2 SDD's, USB-C 3.1 ports, etc.
2. The iPad Pro is not a desktop replacement. At best it's a low-end laptop replacement (eg it could replace every use for the MacBook Air) , and the lack of expandable storage simultaneously with the ability to read data off another device is what excludes this from being a Pro device. At the minimum the iPad Pro would need 3 USB-C ports (One Input, One output and one Monitor) That covers all Audio, Music, Video and Photography uses, of which the Monitor port would also need to be the power port. If Apple continues to only have a single port on it, then it's utterly useless to replace a laptop.

Just based on Steve Jobs kind of thinking, I think the iPad Pro would never have been made. This seems like it was fishing for a market that nobody asked for. Likewise Microsoft's Surface Pro is essentially a laptop in a tablet form factor. The iPad Pro and the Surface Pro are different machines with different targets, with the iPad Pro being a "laptop replacement" that amounts to a clipboard/sketchbook, while the Surface Pro abandoned it's use as a "drawing tablet" when they switched to nTrig, but if you want to use it that way you still can, it's just laggy and inaccurate. I don't know if that's any better than Apple's Pencil. 

I personally think Steve Jobs would never have bothered with these larger iPhone models and smaller iPad models either. They're not quite fracturing the market, but they're falling into a value trap that automobiles have where they produce too many trim models of the same device and people would rather just have the maximum trim model in the first place if they can afford it. Like there is no reason for the smallest sized models.

This feels like a baseless lawsuit.

Apple can update the phone OS at any time, and up until iOS9, the end user had to specifically update the OS if they wanted it. (iOS 10 allows auto-updating.) If the phone is out of date, then you've been hanging onto that phone way too long and should have had no expectation that the software on it that relies on cloud services will last forever.

The same goes for plenty of other things on smart phones. Hell even my old Nokia N95 had google apps, but once the phone was about 5 years old, if I update the firmware I can't download or install the previously working google apps.

So this is the thing, in 3 years, all the pre-LTE phones will likely be forced to be upgraded due to all 3G/HSPDA and CDMA 1X networks being shutdown. So that is everything before the iPhone 5 and Retina iPad.