melgross

Spoon! said:

If I were her and I were high, I doubt I'd admit it as a working professional decades later.

Note that Feiss was a student friend of the son of the director of this Apple commerical series, Errol Morris (who most recently directed the Apple TV+ interview/documentary The Pigeon Tunnel), and she and Hamilton Morris each jumped in front of the camera for an an impromptu recording, each of which became an Apple commercial. (You can see Hamilton's commercial here.)

Now, Errol Morris' son Hamilton not only was a massive acidhead, as an adult he got his own drug-focused show on VICELAND called 'HAMILTON'S PHARMACOPEIA'. 

So it's possible that Ellen Feiss just happened to be hanging out with Hamilton Morris while she has allergies. But it's also not implausible that this was just a convenient cover story.

I think it’s irresponsible for a poster who knows nothing about the person, to make comments about he in a negative way. I’ve been on allergy medication, and yes, you can get a bit loopy from it. Let’s leave it at that.

This is actually a good upgrade for the first gen M1 models. It’s a good 40% CPU and a good 50% GPU performance upgrade from those, p,use the various media encide and decide bumps. Additionally the machine learning cores are enhanced, which is important going forwards as Apple introduces their new AI into the various OSs in June, this year.

i do think Apple should do more each year than just SoC upgrades.

tech_traveller said:

melgross said:

tech_traveller said:

Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.

Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.

They never get 100% of sales (it’s not income). Apple takes care of everything for them. But now, they will have to maintain a sales site, not just a information site. That’s costs money. They now have to do none of their accounting for sales as Apple does it. But with this, they will have to do their own. The costs continue. I’ll bet that in the end they will get about the same percentage after all those added in costs are accounted for.

what has been so easily forgotten is that when Apple first announced the App Store and spoke about the 30% and what developers were getting for it, they were dancing in the streets because other stores were charging between 40 - 60% and developers had to do all of their own accounting, marketing, etc. Apple’s low charges changed the industry and forced others to follow. But people forget the old world and begin to get greedy. I’ve read a number of times over the years that of the 30 cents Apple gets on every dollar of sales, they get 5 cents of profit. The rest is spent in software development of the store, marketing of products, accounting for themselves and developers products, and of course, the fact that about 2/3rds of what’s in the store is free where Apple gets nothing for downloads. Those free downloads cost Apple plenty and they have to be paid for through the paid apps.

so when developers started to sell things through their apps, such as extra features, loot for games and such, Apple decided they should get a cut. The fact that most of these sales were coming from “free” apps, most of which weren’t really that useful without the extra paid for features, it’s understandable that Apple would want a cut. These developers were really getting around the rules with this. If they all had it that way, Apple would only be getting the yearly $99 developers fee. That’s nowhere near enough to cover even part of the App Store costs. So I can understand Apple wanting to staunch the bleeding. Some of these companies are really blatantly arrogant. They want their store within Apple’s store without paying them anything, all the while getting paid for goods sold in their own stores. That’s too much!

I do agree with Apple allowing them to point to other sources for products though. That does make sense.

I would argue there is some benefit to developers not paying the 30% cut, they wouldn't have been protesting so hard if it was so clear cut as you said.

According to my knowledge, Stripe or other merchants take only 3-5% which is a lot less than Apple. Big developers don't really have to worry about accounting as they already had those divisions and in the future will not utilise them more. Small developers will probably stick with Apple.

They’re protesting because they can. Most developers have been happy with the cut. But once a big developer decides they’re not happy with it, others begin to think that they shouldn’t be happy either. It’s easy to convince someone that an idea that will apparently make them more money is a good idea. The problem is that most of these smaller developers aren’t good business people. That hasn’t mattered when Apple takes care of everything other than writing the app itself. So do they all understand the implications, no, they don’t. Besides, under some pressure, Apple did cut the fees to 15% for developers under a million bucks a year. That’s the vast majority of developers. I don’t see how anyone can seriously complain about a 15% fee. Stripe and a number of others have a very low cost structure as they don’t, and can’t offer what Apple does. They’re just stores, really. Apple spends billions a year on their store, plus the developer’s kit and nany other services.

tech_traveller said:

Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.

Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.

They never get 100% of sales (it’s not income). Apple takes care of everything for them. But now, they will have to maintain a sales site, not just a information site. That’s costs money. They now have to do none of their accounting for sales as Apple does it. But with this, they will have to do their own. The costs continue. I’ll bet that in the end they will get about the same percentage after all those added in costs are accounted for.

what has been so easily forgotten is that when Apple first announced the App Store and spoke about the 30% and what developers were getting for it, they were dancing in the streets because other stores were charging between 40 - 60% and developers had to do all of their own accounting, marketing, etc. Apple’s low charges changed the industry and forced others to follow. But people forget the old world and begin to get greedy. I’ve read a number of times over the years that of the 30 cents Apple gets on every dollar of sales, they get 5 cents of profit. The rest is spent in software development of the store, marketing of products, accounting for themselves and developers products, and of course, the fact that about 2/3rds of what’s in the store is free where Apple gets nothing for downloads. Those free downloads cost Apple plenty and they have to be paid for through the paid apps.

so when developers started to sell things through their apps, such as extra features, loot for games and such, Apple decided they should get a cut. The fact that most of these sales were coming from “free” apps, most of which weren’t really that useful without the extra paid for features, it’s understandable that Apple would want a cut. These developers were really getting around the rules with this. If they all had it that way, Apple would only be getting the yearly $99 developers fee. That’s nowhere near enough to cover even part of the App Store costs. So I can understand Apple wanting to staunch the bleeding. Some of these companies are really blatantly arrogant. They want their store within Apple’s store without paying them anything, all the while getting paid for goods sold in their own stores. That’s too much!

I do agree with Apple allowing them to point to other sources for products though. That does make sense.

The point is to develop your own set of FRAND patents so that you have something to negotiate with. Apple has joined that club and they have plenty of their own patents, but 6G is still wide open. They’ve a better chance of gaining significant leverage if they start early, which they have, somewhat over a couple of years ago.