creek0512
About
- Username
- creek0512
- Joined
- Visits
- 64
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 276
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 111
Reactions
-
Apple Maps adds 29 Flyover locations, expands traffic and transit
Yeah, but it's easier to pretend like Google Maps supported transit directions for everywhere in the world when in launched back in 2005, or to ignore that Apple Maps is less than 4 years old and the transit directions less than a year old, and to forget that Google only made their iOS app full featured when they had to compete with Apple Maps.JinTech said:
Because adding detailed high quality transit maps for every city in the country is incredibly easy! /sentropys said:And now for the Worlds slowest roll out of a high profile feature! And the award goes to.......drum roll. Drum roll keeps going. Drum roll goes a little longer. Audience falls asleep. Celebrity announcers fall asleep. Drum roll is still going. Bueler! What are you doing here?
Rome wasn't built in a day you know.
-
Apple Maps to gain Japan transit data in iOS 10
Apple Maps is less than 4 years old, so no.plankton said:At last.
I wonder if it is too late though. Google Maps with transit has been eating Apple's breakfast, lunch, and dinner here for 4 or 5 years. -
Apple Maps to gain Japan transit data in iOS 10
You can tell which cities Apple is working on because the station outlines start appearing. In addition to Japan, also Vancouver, Dallas, Houston, San Diego, Pittsburgh, São Paulo, Singapore, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Milan, Prague, and most of the UK. No idea about the order or timeline, but I would expect the NA cities sooner as that has been Apple's focus so far, and their transit systems are less extensive and therefore less time consuming to map every station entrance and exit.. -
Apple counsel attacks Spotify complaints as 'rumors and half-truths'
It is easy to sign up with Netflix, Spotify, whatever outside of their iOS app. Apple's argument is that if a customer discovers that app and service through the App Store then Apple has helped facilitate that sale, and they get a cut. What Apple doesn't allow, is a company to put a product on it's shelves with a label telling the customer to buy the product somewhere else, "Don't but it here, buy it direct from us." No store in the world allows that.jonl said:
Companies like Netflix, Spotify, etc don't need Apple to facilitate subscription payments. Apple should make it easy for customers to pay what the services actually cost, by making it easy to sign up with the actual providers of the services. This should be the default, because an iOS device is no different than a TV, BD player, or other device on which the apps are installed. These other manufacturers don't have the gall to try to charge a ridiculous tax.battiato1981 said:For an ongoing subscription (one year +), 15% sounds about right, 30% sounds high. A one time fee of $1.50 (at the new upcoming 15% rate) is rather low when a long time customer might be spending hundreds of dollars. And at the same time, if a customer should establish an account directly with Spotifys site, and just use the app downloaded at the AppStore to log in to that account, Apple would get bupkis.
Now, for customers who actually want to manage their subscriptions through Apple, a small fee would be appropriate. I'd put it somewhere between Apply Pay levels and 1% at the very most for companies that have their own payment processing. Something higher would be appropriate for a developer who doesn't want to process his own payments.
-
How the UK's Brexit vote to leave Europe affects Apple
How will things calm down after all the leave voters realize they were lied to and none of the promises are met. The Leave leaders have already said the NHS funding was a lie, the only way they'll get full trade access to European markets is if they accept free movement and follow EU regulations, and it'll be a lot harder to control immigration when instead of the Channel seperating the UK, it'll be the unsecurable border in Ireland, plus Scotland will likely vote for independence to stay in the EU creating another land border, half the leave voters were Labour members who did it to spite Cameron and instead now handed the country to the even further right wingers.thewhitefalcon said:
Honestly? There will be some short term pain but things will stabilize pretty quickly. It's in both parties (meaning the UK and the EU) interests to keep things relatively calm.mobius said:Speak for yourself! Please don't label all Brits as being in your camp because we're not. I disagree with you that this move is not "I'll-considered". I don't think anyone, let alone any pro-Brexit voters really know what the hell is about to hit us after this decision. After listening to many opinions of people who voted to leave - they are ill-informed. There has been a dirty campaign (on both sides I might add) which has been deliberately liberal with the truth, spreading misinformation about immigration figures and EU membership costs vs saving once we leave. Many voters have also been swayed by the xenophobic immigrant-hating gutter press and the weak pro-remain campaign hasn't helped. Remember, the decision has effectively been made by just 2% of the electorate - that's how close it was. That means almost half of the U.K. wish to remain.
The Pro-Brexit camp are playing fast and lose with our economy. So far it's looking pretty bad and I fear for the future - especially for young people who were far more pro-remain than the older population.
And if Trump gets in then the world really has gone mad!
The Leave campaign won by telling people the EU was the source of all their ills, whatever they were. What will be the new scapegoat when nothing has changed?
