avon b7

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said: Again. If that were an issue, people wouldn't opt for them. 

Then that must mean Siri and AI are a non-issue for Apple. People buy iPhones. Non-issue. 

Not sure if Siri or AI (at least Apple Intelligence) actually sell phones. My wife hasn't used Siri in years.

We have unlimited access to Perplexity Pro and she doesn't use that either. 

Folding phones have a huge selling point: the folding part. It's safe to say 100% of folding phones are sold on that feature. 

jfreedle2 said:

The EU government needs to get out of these kinds of issues. Let the market forces deal with these kinds of licensing disagreements. Apple is the only entity that should decide what is provided on their platform as they designed the software and hardware. If you want something else, then choose a lessor device. Spotify and the EU government has no say in how Apple designs or build their products.

"The European Commission has fined Apple over €1.8 billion for abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps to iPhone and iPad users (‘iOS users') through its App Store."

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161

If it weren't for the EU, what kind of market forces would have changed the situation if market forces are themselves being stifled? 

Apple is free to decide what it includes on its hardware but the minute it decides to dip a toe into open waters (third party apps and stores, NFC, Wallets...) which include outside parties, it has to play by different rules. 

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said: From there on, aspect ratio is irrelevant as you are always doubling your screen size for more comfortable use for all the other tasks. Literally everything. And that is the appeal of folding phones. 

Caveat: you're doubling your screen size from an aspect ratio that is typically skinnier than non-folding phones. So the folded version is less productive than a non-folding phone and the unfolded version advantage for widescreen content is marginal versus a non-folding phone. 

Again. If that were an issue, people wouldn't opt for them. 

Apart from some models (noticeably older Samsung efforts) most people wouldn't notice a difference at first glance. That's because they look and feel just fine in the hand.

 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2024/09/30/honour-magic-v3-review-foldable-android-smartphone-battery-camera-size/

That is a 20:9 aspect ratio. The iPhone is 19.5:9

foregoneconclusion said:

Hopefully Apple can come up with a screen proportion that makes sense for both the folded and unfolded format. 

For people who actually purchase folding phones, the aspect ratio is a non-issue because they know exactly what they are going to get. 

Video will be letterboxed. No one will be surprised at that.

From there on, aspect ratio is irrelevant as you are always doubling your screen size for more comfortable use for all the other tasks. Literally everything. And that is the appeal of folding phones.

eBook reading, photo viewing and editing, office work, web use. Even video editing can be improved by moving elements off the overlay.

Then of course there is the multi-tasking which allows you to have at least three apps open onscreen at the same time. Anything that removes app switching for simultaneous tasks is an advantage.

Given that book style folding phones need to be useful in standard (non-folding) mode, and apps are designed for that, the aspect ratio is unlikely to change until a third panel is included. That has already come to market (Huawei). Samsung is likely to follow (soon if rumours are to be believed). 

If we look to where things can be improved, that is in software as each manufacturer currently needs to adapt its OS to folding phones. 

The good news there is that Android itself is moving forward to include support for folding phones. HarmonyOS already supports a wide range of aspect ratios. 

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

davidlewis54 said:

As the headline says, if Spotify is the dominant provider in the EU so it can hardly complain about Apple Music dominance.

We all have a choice which service we use so there’s no need for any external pressure.   If you want to build your company provide a reason why customers should buy from you.

It’s just nonsense and noise and just another attempt by companies to blame Apple for their incompetence.

Is it about dominance or abuse of dominance?

Does the headline fit in that context? 

If there is no need for external pressure then why did Apple need anti-steering rules? Why was it found to be not complying with the regulations?

Better to wait and see if Apple's changes bring it into compliance or not. 

IMO, they don't but it's not my call. 

You're right, it's about "abuse" of dominance. But how can Apple be abusing something they don't have? Spotify is the one abusing their dominate position (not only in the EU with 54% market share but Worldwide with 32%)  in order to sway EU politicians into thinking that Apple is not complying with the DMA because Spotify is having a hard time trying to innovate, in order to become profitable. Spotify recently had to rely on raising prices, laying off employees and reducing royalties payout to the artists, in order to report their first annual profit. This after nearly 20 years in the business and being the dominate player for all of those years. (And the first 9 years without having to compete with Apple Music.) This shouldn't be happening because the DMA should be giving EU companies a home court advantage. Not just an attempt to level the playing field.   

https://musictech.com/news/industry/spotify-reports-record-profits/

However, from the CEO, perspective, Spotify has been very profitable.

https://musictech.com/news/industry/daniel-ek-cashes-out-spotify-shares-for-fifth-time-in-18-months/

IMO- Spotify CEO aught to be spending his time and resources on making sure bills like this don't pass, anywhere they do business. Something that will actually negatively affect Spotify bottom line. Otherwise, it's lights out for Spotify and it won't be because of Apple "dominance". It will be because the likes of Apple, Google and Amazon can afford to pay artist $.01 per stream without raising paid subscription prices, as they have others means to subsidize their music streaming services.

https://fearlessmedia.substack.com/p/spotify-and-1-cent-per-stream-royalties

We often hear about Apple DNA

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2011/08/30/140039539/apples-secret-is-in-our-dna

but if these are any indication of Spotify DNA, any Apple "dominance" is not Spotify's problem.

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/06/29/spotify-executive-entitled-pay-penny-per-stream/

https://exclaim.ca/music/article/spotify-ceo-daniel-ek-claims-the-cost-of-creating-content-is-close-to-zero

Ek and Epic Games CEO Sweeney, are cut from the same cloth in that they are biggest CEO crybabies when it comes to demanding that the government help them compete with companies that actually innovates, without having to innovate.

https://truthonthemarket.com/2024/03/07/a-closer-look-at-spotifys-claims-about-apples-app-store-practices/

If Apple hadn't abused its dominance this complaint would never have been raised in the first place. It was based on something real and Apple was found to be abusing its position. 

Everyone has a right to make their opinions heard. There is no 'sway', only an investigation to determine whether Apple has complied to sufficient degree or not. We will find out this month.