radarthekat

araquen said:

I am skeptical. Apple Intelligence is not a product, and everyone gets that wrong. Apple Intelligence is functionality that is intended to enhance and improve the various platforms Apple has (macOS, iOS, iPadOS, etc). How do you monetize that without monetizing the OS? An OS Apple offers for free.

I highly doubt Apple will start charging again for their OS, just to monetize Apple Intelligence. Rather, what Apple is more likely to do is use Apple Intelligence to enhance the user experience for services. Perhaps “Enhanced AppleTV+” or “Enhanced AppleMusic” where the AI infrastructure is used to enhance the users’ experiences on those services. And I am on the fence about charging for that extra functionality. If Apple boosts prices for their services, it would be for far more than just “look it has AI now."

At the end of the day, it is easy to predict how Apple is going to do something once you understand that Apple is a hardware manufacturer first and foremost. Their goal is to have you buy their devices, originally the Mac. Even the iPhone was originally intended to be a supplement to the Mac, and Apple shifted gears when the iPhone proved to be as widely popular as it had become. But regardless of device - Apple wants to sell you their hardware. And they want to justify the premium consumers pay. So EVERYTHING ELSE Apple does is intended to be a value-add to make it worthwhile to have invested in Apple’s hardware. Everything. Mail. Messages. Pages. FaceTime. Numbers. Keynote. AppleMusic. Apple Arcade. iCloud. AppleOne. All the software and services are there to give your Mac, your iPad, your iPhone something to do without being dependent on the “kindness of strangers.” Because Apple hasn’t forgotten (nor have long-time Mac users), there was a time where developers were cheerfully refusing to develop for Apple offerings.

People call it “walled garden” but that assumes an even playing field. For decades, Apple has been on the periphery of popular tech, and barely anyone was developing for the Mac. The iPhone was largely developed because prior to that, not a single cell phone manufacturer would provide interoperability between their devices and the Mac (and I loved my Motorola flip phone, but its lack of connectivity to my Mac was a royal pain in my ***). The iPhone was the first cell phone Mac users could sync with their computer. From that point, Apple’s offerings remain consistent with: how do we (Apple) provide solutions that extend the efficacy of the products our customers already own? How do we keep improving the value of our brand to our consumers?

Apple’s goal isn’t to sell us an Apple Intelligence product. That’s Google’s world. Apple’s goal is to use Apple Intelligence as the infrastructural foundation for having Apple solutioning a “personal digital assistant” for their customers. That isn’t a product. It is core functionality of the hardware and software systems Apple provides.

But pundits (especially those driven by the limited vision of Wall Street) can’t understand this, so keep getting it wrong.

Trust me. Once you start looking at Apple as a hardware manufacturer first and foremost, whose business model is based on the idea of providing a boutique experience for their customers (who have paid a premium for such treatment) you’ll have a better understanding on how Apple intends to leverage its software and services solutions.

blastdoor said:

anonymouse said:

blastdoor said:

Every time I read one of these EU stories I try to think about what Apple should do to deal with this situation. It’s tempting to say Apple should just leave, but it doesn’t make sense to leave money on the table.

They won't be leaving money on the table by pulling out of the EU. First, the EU is just a fraction of what Apple classifies as "Europe" (which includes the Middle East and at least parts, if not all, of Africa), and obviously doesn't include European countries not in the EU, such as the UK and Switzerland. The fines the EU is threatening far eclipse the value of the EU as a market. Second, if EU rules force Apple to cripple, compromise or otherwise dumb down their products, that makes them less competitive in the rest of the world. There is at this point almost no upside for Apple to release anything in the EU and plenty of downside, not to mention all the resources wasted "negotiating" with EU bureaucrats who are not acting in good faith and are making up the rules as the go and changing them retroactively.

So, what exactly is the downside for Apple to simply pull out of the EU until there is a more favorable business climate there? I can't see any upside to staying at this point.

I’ve read that the EU represents about 7% of Apple’s revenues. That’s almost $30 billion a year. I see no reason to walk away from that if you don’t have to. 

Note that my suggestion to create a subsidiary is meant to create EU-specific (lobotomized) versions of apple products to meet the needs of Eurocrats. 

The question is — can Apple make money selling lobotomized products? Since everyone else also has to sell lobotomized products in the EU, it’s possible that they can. But if it turns out they can’t, then sure — leave. But I think it makes sense to try first. 

Companies that don’t try to do hard things end up like IBM — slowly leaving every market that seems too hard to fight for.

avon b7 said:

rob53 said:

avon b7 said:

This:

"Specifically, we are concerned that the interoperability requirements of the DMA could force us to compromise the integrity of our products in ways that risk user privacy and data security," said Apple. "We are committed to collaborating with the European Commission in an attempt to find a solution that would enable us to deliver these features to our EU customers without compromising their safety."

And then this:

"From previous statements including ones to AppleInsider, it's known that Apple has been continually working with the EU on its responses to the DMA, so it's reasonable to assume that will continue.

Leads to the question: Why even bother putting the subject into the public domain if communication and clarification are ongoing? 

Far better to say as little as possible until things are clarified. All it takes is clarification and all for a roll out that isn't even planned for this year! 

Basically FUD on Apple's part and Vestager has a valid point in her response to a question that wouldn't have been asked if it weren't for Apple. 

Basically FUD on the part of EU-loving commenters. Apple has a right to provide whatever capabilities it wants to in whatever country/region it wants to. You're buying a product with certain features. There's nothing that says Apple has to provide the EU with everything it has the capability of including. The EU can demand Apple provide everything but that's not the way companies work. This is a brand new Apple capability and Apple has the right to provide it when they feel it's ready, not when a corrupt EU demands it. At this point, I feel Apple is well within its rights to start charging for features in countries it wants to. As far as I'm concerned, Apple should start charging for macOS, iOS, tvOS, iPadOS along with every Apple app and feature it wants to. I'd like to see the EU try and force Apple to provide everything for free. It isn't going to happen.

No one is disputing Apple's right to bring or not bring certain features to the EU. That is up to them and is irrelevant here. 

The point is 'making a meal out of something' and putting it down to the DMA even when Apple itself claims it's in contact with the EU on the subject and also claims not to know what is possible or not. 

It's all completely unnecessary on Apple's part. Why not simply ask the EU and wait for a reply? 

tmay said:

I found it interesting that the iPad is being used in the F-15EX test program;

https://www.twz.com/sponsored-content/f-15ex-testers-are-now-preparing-the-eagle-ii-for-rapidly-adapting-to-new-missions

“What the F-15EX brings that other F-15s do not is what you hear being talked about as the digital backbone of the aircraft,” adds Maj. Eshkenazi. “It has ethernet wiring running throughout the airframe and it’s linked to the weapon stations. This opens up future potential in terms of integrating weapons. We might have a separate computer or a tablet that can be linked [to the jet] that allows us to connect to the weapons stations while keeping our safety of flight elements [in the mission software] isolated. So we could run apps but not have them running through our main computer, which isolates this from the safety of flight things like the flight controls, for example. This means I’m not concerned about an app coming from a vendor that might affect my ability to fly the airplane.”

“One of the big capabilities that the F-15EX brings to the fight is the ability to rapidly put new weapons on it, because of its external carriage capacity and its ability to carry a lot of weight,” Col. Daniel Lehoski, 53rd Wing commander, further explained. “We have the independent ability to upgrade the jet’s Operational Flight Program [OFP] as well as actually working around the OFP to add some capabilities. I’ll give you an example; we have a jet that we’re using to push situational awareness and command and control [C2] capabilities to the leading edge of the fight. We’re doing that literally with an iPad hooked up to the jet in order to get information into it. That sits outside the OFP. It’s a little clunky because you have an iPad in the cockpit, but that is enabling us to add capability in conjunction with our agile OFP upgrades. The iPad is getting power from the jet and then using Link 16 datalink to communicate with the aircraft.”

Psamathos said:

This seems like a whole load of posturing and blackmail to me. Basically they are saying "we can't enable screen sharing to apps that Apple hasn't authorised because they might allow data to go somewhere that violates the users' privacy". Well, you know, you could always ask the user, couldn't you? Maybe a dialogue box the first time you connect to an app that's not signed by Apple isn't the absolutely perfect user experience, but it's an awful lot better than killing the feature all together. Given that Apple's own app store doesn't have a perfect record on vetting applications, that same pop-up-on-first-connect would probably be useful for Apple App Store apps too.

So no, this isn't EU regulation causing problems. This is Apple causing problems and attempting to blame the EU, because it doesn't want to loose its insanely lucrative monopoly by which is takes 30% of the entire value of the App Store for its own profit.