melgross
About
- Username
- melgross
- Joined
- Visits
- 111
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 10,525
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 33,510
Reactions
-
Early iPhone 15 tests after overheat-fixing patch don't show any performance losses
Guys, there was no serious problem here. As usual with new devices and major OS upgrades, there were a couple of hiccups. One was an OS bug by Apple and others are caused by a few third party apps. That’s it! Most of us never had the problem at all. I suspect that as usual, the OS bug interacted with the third party app problems. If you don’t have those apps, you won’t have the problem. People have reported that with the Uber app, for example, the same problem occurs on the 14 and even some iPads.
it may be remembered that the Messenger app from Facebook caused hearing and battery drain as well, and Chrome, under some circumstances can drain the battery and cause heating. This happens to Android phones as well, but nobody seems to care enough to make it out like a world ending issue as they do when it’s something that affects Apple.
-
Apple has most of the elements it needs to create its own search engine
We’re talking about Apple’s end here, not Google’s. So it’s profit that matters, not revenue. Almost all of Google’s profit comes from advertising. If app,EU had a search engine would they be nearly as aggressive as Google in getting user info? It doubt it. Their company direction is in the opposite direction. Not that they do t collect, but not nearly as much, nor most of the same type. So what would it cost for Apple to come up with similar profits? Too much I believe.avon b7 said:
As I made clear, the initial goal would have little or nothing to do with money for the sake of money.melgross said:
Just one thing. It’s not revenue, it’s profit. Virtually all the $19 billion, or so, that Apple is getting from Google is profit, other than a minuscule amount for accounting, etc. To match that, search would have to be much more in revenue as it would also have to account for the billions Apple would be spending on it every year.avon b7 said:
Several issues there.davidw said:avon b7 said:
It's important to not forget how Google got going at the outset.lmasanti said:First thing first… we need to acknoledge that it is a… ‘no news week’… so Gruman… and also Kuo… need to ‘fill’ their sites with… anything,
This quote is funny: “However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-”
You know… Apple knows nothing about ‘doing business’… so Gruman cleverly notes that they are wrong if they do not make their own search engine.
I just remember two quotes… I think both from Steve Jobs…:
“We are proud as much of what we have done as of what we have not done!”
“We like to enter a market when we can change it!“
So… why should Apple enter the search market for… selling ads?
Do we remember the iAds idea?
Do we remember the “TV as a hobby” until they develop Apple TV+?
But people keep ‘telling’ Apple to buy Disney, Netflix, ESPN, ABC…
Maybe… Apple is a trillion valued company… by not following bloggers and journalists' ideas.
For every search you made through Google, Google was earning revenues by just presenting the results page to you with two or three clearly marked promoted links. You didn't have to click on any of them for Google to get the revenue. That remains of course but a lot more has been added and interwoven into it since.
At the very least, Apple now has enough users to make regular search a viable and very profitable option. That would earn them revenue, increase competition and potentially take customers away from Google.
Of course, it's no wonder Google got where it got today because it's search infrastructure, algorithms included, is class leading.
However, you don't have to beat Google at its own game. You just have to be good enough and know how to market the functionality.
IMO, the current Apple - Google 'agreement' is basically a scheme to stifle competition and share the rewards.When Google got into internet search, they changed how to monetize search by creating new innovative ways to do it. They got to where they are today by being more innovative than the competition. That would not be true today for anyone creating a search engine, including Apple. All they would be doing is trying to duplicate what Google is already doing. AI might be the game changer but even then, Google is not standing still with AI and won't be caught by surprise if AI turns out to be the next innovative way to search the internet.When MS introduced Bing in 2009, MS it loss over $24B in two years and was still losing $1B a quarter in 2011. Bing didn't turn a profit until about 2015 when MS reported Bing generated $1B in revenue. Bing, after nearly 15 years, now generates $12B in revenue for MS and is profitable. But search is still no where near as profitable for MS as it is for Google, even though MS have just as many Windows users as Apple have iOS users. Even if Apple were to cut the cost and time in half, in order for Apple search to reach $12B in revenue, that is still a long way from making up for the loss of $15+B that Apple gets annually from Google revenue sharing with search on iOS. MS was referring to this when in court when a representative on the stand commented that Apple makes more money from Bing than MS. He was referring to Apple making $15+B a year because Google sees Bing as a threat, if Apple were to ever decide to have Bing as their default. Without Bing, Google would have no need to offer Apple as much in revenue sharing. (so it's assumed)How can this "agreement" stifle competition when Apple is not competing in the search business? That's like saying that HP is "stifling" competition because they are using CPU's made by other companies, rather than to invest in making their own. Would Apple be "stifling" competition if they were to buy Bing or DuckDuckGo? Of course not, so long as Apple themselves are not in the search engine business. By Google offering Android as Open Source for any mobile device makers to use for free, is Google "stifling" competition"? So instead of mobile device makers having to create their own mobile OS, they are limiting consumers choice by freely choosing to make more profit from using Android for free. Did MS "stifle" competition when they chose to exit the mobile phone market because it was not profitable for them? For sure Samsung can create their own mobile OS, they have one. But Samsung chooses to make more profit from marketing phones using Android, instead of marketing phones that uses their own mobile OS. Are they "stifling" competition by not really trying to compete in the mobile OS market with their own mobile OS because Android phones are more profitable?One can't "stifle" competition by eliminating someone that is not currently competing with them. So long as Apple is not competing in the search engine business, Google can not be "stifling" competition because of Apple freely choosing not to compete (by making their own search engine). And surely, Apple can not be "stifling" competition because they choose not to invest the time and money to create a search engine in order to compete. But if Google were to offer money to Bing or DuckDuckGo to no longer compete or offer to buy them out, Google could be accused of "stifling"competition and any buyout would not be approved.
Apple Search would not have to earn the company more revenue than the current Google deal.
Just like its other services business (Apple TV+) , profitability is not the initial goal.
Taking control away from Google, reducing its control, would be more than enough.
Google feeds so well off of the search pie that it can pay Apple billions and still sees the deal as profitable. Obviously in economic terms because Google is the king of search but how many of those billions are really there just to keep a competitor out of the the hen house?
Apple taking a net business loss (in Google deal terms) would be real. Apple is unlikely to be able to match those revenues from the get go, but taking a slice of the search pie away from Google would also be reducing its control of the search business in general. That would be a massive power shift in industry terms and, unlike say, Apple Maps, Apple search would not be limited to Apple device owners.
The owners themselves are different. Microsoft Windows users are not the same as mobile device users. The value attributed to Windows users from a search perspective is massively lower than that of mobile device users. There is no comparison here. PC users will occasionally switch away from work or regular productive use and search for something. What they search for may have a certain commercial value to a search provider.
However, most mobile users, apart from massively outnumbering Windows users will often be using their 'work downtime' to carry out searches for commercial reasons.
Your workplace might actively control how much time you spend using work resources for 'non-work' activities. Those same people, during breaks or while traveling to and from work, or at home will actively be using far more of their time on searches for commercial reasons.
If you, as a search provider, could choose between a huge group of Windows users or a huge group of mobile device users, which one would you choose? And if it was you who could default the search engine to your own own platform? Microsoft does not really have that option in the wider mobile space.
It's not difficult to see how the current situation might be stifling innovation/competition and harming consumers. The question is how the authorities might see the situation. IMO, if forced to look at the Apple-Google deal, I'm inclined to think they will see it as harmful and stifling competition.
It's not that just because Apple isn't providing a service that can't be part of the problem. The issue here is if someone says Apple is being paid to NOT get into the search business. Eddy Cue claims they don't because Google is better. For me that's hogwash but it's not my decision.
It remains revenue for Apple.
It would be about taking business away from a competitor, offering up a competing service and leveling the playing field.
Have you ever wondered just how much 'profit' Google gets out of the current deal?
During recent downturns and restructuring of the advertising business, Google has not been immune.
I'd wager the Apple deal maybe isn't as clear cut of an issue within Google although it's hard to really know.
Its own ads through services like YouTube are probably already on the limit of what non-subscription users are willing to take.
Has TikTok hit YouTube hard?
Paid subscriptions across the board are probably due for a shake up with prices creeping higher and more content becoming paid or ad supported. None of the big players have it easy now that the honeymoon period is over. Post Covid and inflationary headwinds are having a negative effect on the streaming business.
There is also a risk of Apple inadvertently getting on the wrong side of a fine here.
Although often glossed in people's minds the risk of seeing Google broken up still exists, however small that risk might be.
Google might actually be far weaker and prone to negative ripples in parts of its core business and I'm including cloud in this group too as smaller players are rising fast.
AI is taking us into unknown territory from a financial perspective and most people say Google looks well positioned but analysts also point to risks.
Apple entering search on all platforms could cause a microfissure that could open up over time.
Especially if the deal is deemed to be illegal. Then we might see Eddy Cue change his tune. -
Apple has most of the elements it needs to create its own search engine
Just one thing. It’s not revenue, it’s profit. Virtually all the $19 billion, or so, that Apple is getting from Google is profit, other than a minuscule amount for accounting, etc. To match that, search would have to be much more in revenue as it would also have to account for the billions Apple would be spending on it every year.avon b7 said:
Several issues there.davidw said:avon b7 said:
It's important to not forget how Google got going at the outset.lmasanti said:First thing first… we need to acknoledge that it is a… ‘no news week’… so Gruman… and also Kuo… need to ‘fill’ their sites with… anything,
This quote is funny: “However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-”
You know… Apple knows nothing about ‘doing business’… so Gruman cleverly notes that they are wrong if they do not make their own search engine.
I just remember two quotes… I think both from Steve Jobs…:
“We are proud as much of what we have done as of what we have not done!”
“We like to enter a market when we can change it!“
So… why should Apple enter the search market for… selling ads?
Do we remember the iAds idea?
Do we remember the “TV as a hobby” until they develop Apple TV+?
But people keep ‘telling’ Apple to buy Disney, Netflix, ESPN, ABC…
Maybe… Apple is a trillion valued company… by not following bloggers and journalists' ideas.
For every search you made through Google, Google was earning revenues by just presenting the results page to you with two or three clearly marked promoted links. You didn't have to click on any of them for Google to get the revenue. That remains of course but a lot more has been added and interwoven into it since.
At the very least, Apple now has enough users to make regular search a viable and very profitable option. That would earn them revenue, increase competition and potentially take customers away from Google.
Of course, it's no wonder Google got where it got today because it's search infrastructure, algorithms included, is class leading.
However, you don't have to beat Google at its own game. You just have to be good enough and know how to market the functionality.
IMO, the current Apple - Google 'agreement' is basically a scheme to stifle competition and share the rewards.When Google got into internet search, they changed how to monetize search by creating new innovative ways to do it. They got to where they are today by being more innovative than the competition. That would not be true today for anyone creating a search engine, including Apple. All they would be doing is trying to duplicate what Google is already doing. AI might be the game changer but even then, Google is not standing still with AI and won't be caught by surprise if AI turns out to be the next innovative way to search the internet.When MS introduced Bing in 2009, MS it loss over $24B in two years and was still losing $1B a quarter in 2011. Bing didn't turn a profit until about 2015 when MS reported Bing generated $1B in revenue. Bing, after nearly 15 years, now generates $12B in revenue for MS and is profitable. But search is still no where near as profitable for MS as it is for Google, even though MS have just as many Windows users as Apple have iOS users. Even if Apple were to cut the cost and time in half, in order for Apple search to reach $12B in revenue, that is still a long way from making up for the loss of $15+B that Apple gets annually from Google revenue sharing with search on iOS. MS was referring to this when in court when a representative on the stand commented that Apple makes more money from Bing than MS. He was referring to Apple making $15+B a year because Google sees Bing as a threat, if Apple were to ever decide to have Bing as their default. Without Bing, Google would have no need to offer Apple as much in revenue sharing. (so it's assumed)How can this "agreement" stifle competition when Apple is not competing in the search business? That's like saying that HP is "stifling" competition because they are using CPU's made by other companies, rather than to invest in making their own. Would Apple be "stifling" competition if they were to buy Bing or DuckDuckGo? Of course not, so long as Apple themselves are not in the search engine business. By Google offering Android as Open Source for any mobile device makers to use for free, is Google "stifling" competition"? So instead of mobile device makers having to create their own mobile OS, they are limiting consumers choice by freely choosing to make more profit from using Android for free. Did MS "stifle" competition when they chose to exit the mobile phone market because it was not profitable for them? For sure Samsung can create their own mobile OS, they have one. But Samsung chooses to make more profit from marketing phones using Android, instead of marketing phones that uses their own mobile OS. Are they "stifling" competition by not really trying to compete in the mobile OS market with their own mobile OS because Android phones are more profitable?One can't "stifle" competition by eliminating someone that is not currently competing with them. So long as Apple is not competing in the search engine business, Google can not be "stifling" competition because of Apple freely choosing not to compete (by making their own search engine). And surely, Apple can not be "stifling" competition because they choose not to invest the time and money to create a search engine in order to compete. But if Google were to offer money to Bing or DuckDuckGo to no longer compete or offer to buy them out, Google could be accused of "stifling"competition and any buyout would not be approved.
Apple Search would not have to earn the company more revenue than the current Google deal.
Just like its other services business (Apple TV+) , profitability is not the initial goal.
Taking control away from Google, reducing its control, would be more than enough.
Google feeds so well off of the search pie that it can pay Apple billions and still sees the deal as profitable. Obviously in economic terms because Google is the king of search but how many of those billions are really there just to keep a competitor out of the the hen house?
Apple taking a net business loss (in Google deal terms) would be real. Apple is unlikely to be able to match those revenues from the get go, but taking a slice of the search pie away from Google would also be reducing its control of the search business in general. That would be a massive power shift in industry terms and, unlike say, Apple Maps, Apple search would not be limited to Apple device owners.
The owners themselves are different. Microsoft Windows users are not the same as mobile device users. The value attributed to Windows users from a search perspective is massively lower than that of mobile device users. There is no comparison here. PC users will occasionally switch away from work or regular productive use and search for something. What they search for may have a certain commercial value to a search provider.
However, most mobile users, apart from massively outnumbering Windows users will often be using their 'work downtime' to carry out searches for commercial reasons.
Your workplace might actively control how much time you spend using work resources for 'non-work' activities. Those same people, during breaks or while traveling to and from work, or at home will actively be using far more of their time on searches for commercial reasons.
If you, as a search provider, could choose between a huge group of Windows users or a huge group of mobile device users, which one would you choose? And if it was you who could default the search engine to your own own platform? Microsoft does not really have that option in the wider mobile space.
It's not difficult to see how the current situation might be stifling innovation/competition and harming consumers. The question is how the authorities might see the situation. IMO, if forced to look at the Apple-Google deal, I'm inclined to think they will see it as harmful and stifling competition.
It's not that just because Apple isn't providing a service that can't be part of the problem. The issue here is if someone says Apple is being paid to NOT get into the search business. Eddy Cue claims they don't because Google is better. For me that's hogwash but it's not my decision.
-
Apple confirms iOS 17 fix for overheating iPhones is on the way
i’d like to have this on my iPad.dewme said:I wish Apple would release a macOS Activity Monitor equivalent for iOS and iPadOS. None of the diagnostic apps that I’ve seen come anywhere near offering the level of detail needed to track down thread level issues.I’m assuming Apple has such a tool available internally for their developers and third party app approval testers.Such a tool would obviously be outside the scope of the types of apps that are available on the App Store but I can easily see Apple making such a tool available through their developer network that runs on macOS and requires tethering the device under test to the Mac with a lightning or USB-C cable. -
Apple has most of the elements it needs to create its own search engine
No, it really wasn’t. Phones were pretty terrible then. Most of us didn’t notice because there was nothing better to compare to. The iPhone changed everything. Nothing major has come along since, just incremental improvements.FileMakerFeller said:
The mobile phone market was mature and well served in 2007.coolfactor said:
You're not changing a market when the market is already mature and well-served.
