danox

Xed said:

danox said:

Xed said:

danox said:

OLED isn’t that good, burn in and color accuracy when compared to LCD still isn’t that good, Android hardware makers don’t care cartoon colors are fine.

What about Apple with their iPhones and Watches?

What about them OLED isn’t used in a iPad Pro, iPad Air, iPad, iPad Mini, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, the new iMac M1 desktops, or the best monitor you can buy from Apple, and since the current new M series Macs released so far use LCD, Apple will probably continue to do so, color accuracy on those displays (laptops, desktops) used for editing might be important.

OLED is a compromise that isn’t better for the end user long term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Disadvantage

You say they aren't good and yet Apple uses them on their most popular product and they've been using it on the Watch since day one. If you think that a TFT-LCD for an battery powered, always-on display is a good idea then you don't understand the technologies. All you care about is some pathetic, nerd-invented rivalry between Apple and the conglomerate Samsung, who happens to manufacturer the best OLED displays which usually Apple uses after they do their own tweaking. If Samsung still had the best fabs for microchips they'd surely be using them over TSMC, too.

gatorguy said:

lkrupp said:

magman1979 said:

Those Sunnyvale photocopiers are back at it again, as usual...

Can’t these bozos innovate anything on their own? Why are they watching what Apple does and then follow Apple’s lead? 

Yeah, they're called Chromebooks

gc_uk said:

22july2013 said:

You make a fair case for consumer freedom. But you don't realize that corporations also have freedom to not be required to provide the software and services to allow for third party app stores. How would you like it if you sold lemonade on your street and were told by the government that you had to sell your neighbor's lemonade and give the profits of that lemonade to your neighbor? Apple works very hard and deserves the right to not have to share its app store profit with its competitors.

You realise governments regulate markets when they are anticompetitive and harm consumers?

Google has no problem with alt-stores. Why is Apple special?

john gibson said:

22july2013 said:

john gibson said:

If Apple was forced to compete for payment processing and as a result were only making as much as say Stripe was instead of 30% that would surely be a short term hit but all the additional commerce they would earn by digital content that can't be sold on iOS today would make up a good chunk of that. 

You are living under a myth that Apple's 30% fee is a payment processing fee, which is clear because you compared Apple to Stripe which is nothing but a payment processor. On the contrary, there are billions of dollars in expenses that Apple has which Stripe doesn't have. Do you realize that? For example, Apple makes development tools that are free to obtain and use.

Do you want Apple to start charging for all those free services when it loses its 30% exclusive fee? Here are a few examples:

• Do you want Apple to add a $1 processing fee for every "free" app that's available on the App Store?
• Do you want Apple to charge developers for its free tools such as Swift and xCode?
• Do you want Apple to charge each developer for each free API that is used by any app that they develop?
• Do you want Apple to charge end users each time their app accesses one of the currently free iCloud servers?
• Do you want Apple to charge developers a processing each time there is an update to their app?

All these free services, and dozens more, are funded through that 30% cut. If you want to reduce that 30% cut to 3%, then tell me where Apple will raise the prices to cover the $60 billion per year loss. Frankly, I don't mind if Apple choses to eliminate the 30% fee and start charging everywhere else.

It is a payment processing fee for digital content.  As I've said, I'm fine with the higher commission for apps and anything else that relies on the platform like games.  And stop pretending like the App Store is being run at or close to break even making extracting 30% from both apps and digital content is somehow required for the platform to survive.  We don't know the exact number but best estimates are close to a 70% margin for the App Store so any argument that 30% is required for the App Store to thrive is nonsensical.  

The difference between how to treat digital content and apps should be self-evident but if you don't see the difference take an example of digital content and think through what Apple says it provides for the 30% and tell me how it applies.  They don't provide discovery - individual eBook titles aren't advertised, searchable SKUs in the App Store.  Apple doesn't provide storage - unlike apps the developer handles that.  Apple doesn't provide distribution - unlike apps the developer handles that.  They don't provide the developer tools to create the digital content file.  So tell me, for an eBook, other than payment processing what specifically does that 30% cover?

To address your questions - no, I don't think a processing fee is needed for free apps.  But a question the judge had is a good one.  Using the eBook example again - why is the provider of the eBook subsidizing billion dollar corporations like Facebook?  

Apple does charge developers.  $99 a year.

As for APIs and iCloud - no I don't think developers should pay for that - there is no need for Apple to double dip.  Those kinds of services are more than covered by the 30-40% margins on iOS hardware devices no different than how they are on Macs which do just fine with alternatives to using the App Store and paying 30%.

If the end result was Apple lost the 30% on digital content and consumers getting a much better result led to their margins on the App Store going from 70% to say 40-50% why would you consider that a bad outcome?