tmay

VictorMortimer said:

tenthousandthings said:

blastdoor said:

I recently bought a refurbished m2pro Mac mini because I gave up on an m3 mini being released. I also would not be surprised if the studio skips m3 too. 

With regard to the Mini and the iMac refresh cadences, whatever. It’s fine. But if Apple skips the M3 Ultra, they need to explain what they are doing with the silicon. It raises a lot of questions, not all of which are (how shall I put it?) strategic.

It’s not enough to just say it’s all product-driven, and they only build the silicon their products need. Everyone understands why Apple doesn’t talk about unreleased products. But expectations need to be managed.

Marketing and management needs to wake up and realize the architects and engineers need to be allowed to explain more than what is currently being explained.

My understanding is that the M3 is based on a dead end as far as process tech goes.

Apple's failure to release roadmaps has been a huge problem for years.  It's why we're forced to rely on rumors sites like this one for planning purposes.

spheric said:

Ah, I see. Sorry for the „hogwash“. 

It didn’t occur to me to measure the size of telecoms providers by anything other than subscriber numbers. 

spheric said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said:

Xed said:

avon b7 said:

Xed said:

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

jimh2 said:

VictorMortimer said:

Apple's 30% is highway robbery.

Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge.  As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.

But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.

You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.

Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store. 

It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.

Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month. 

I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d

Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers. 

We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business. 

It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform. 

This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily. 

It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product. 

As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify  (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.

You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited  due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.

I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools. 

Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere. 

Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations. 

That is not word salad. It's fact based context. 

They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.

Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist. 

It's not possible for Apple to prevent competition due to the fact that app developers are the ones that choose which platforms to develop for and not Apple. Haven't you ever noticed that the apps available for the iPhone aren't necessarily available for iPad/ATV/Vision Pro? Those are single store platforms too and yet somehow Apple's anticompetitive powers don't seem to translate into forcing developers to support them.

Apple prevents competition by literally not allowing competing stores to exist. 

That is enough to demonstrate consumer harm and is undeniable IMO. Apple does not allow consumer choice in App Stores unless a law obliges them to do so. It matters not that multiple Apple stores exist. 

As the world has moved into a digital era, a platform 'duopoly' has emerged which needs new laws to regulate. That is why the DMA/DSA were created. 

To look at things from a different perspective, if ten independent platforms existed and mergers and takeovers were proposed to reduce those to two in 2024, it would never ever get regulatory approval. Too much influence in two few hands leads to abuse of dominant position. That is what we are seeing. 

While I don't support the idea of platform break ups I can see why some people think it's a reasonable proposal. 

Interestingly enough, when AT&T was broken up into the regional Baby Bells, the market was on the cusp of change to mobile, and a few of the Baby Bells were ultimately reincorporated into the AT&T of today, which continues as the fourth largest mobile operator in the world, behind China Mobile, Verizon Communications, and Comcast.

This sounded weird to me, and sure enough: It's hogwash. 

The top 10 is populated by 3 different Chinese networks, two Indian, América Móvil from Mexico, South African MTN, UK's Vodafone, Spanish Telefónica, and Orange (France Télécom). The latter three are EU-wide providers. 

#11 is Vodafone India, and then comes AT&T Inc. at #12. 

Verizon is at #19, and Comcast isn't even in the top 30. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operators

This is a list of the world's thirty largest terrestrial mobile phone network operators measured by number of subscriptions.

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said:

Xed said:

avon b7 said:

Xed said:

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

jimh2 said:

VictorMortimer said:

Apple's 30% is highway robbery.

Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge.  As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.

But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.

You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.

Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store. 

It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.

Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month. 

I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d

Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers. 

We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business. 

It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform. 

This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily. 

It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product. 

As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify  (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.

You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited  due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.

I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools. 

Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere. 

Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations. 

That is not word salad. It's fact based context. 

They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.

Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist. 

It's not possible for Apple to prevent competition due to the fact that app developers are the ones that choose which platforms to develop for and not Apple. Haven't you ever noticed that the apps available for the iPhone aren't necessarily available for iPad/ATV/Vision Pro? Those are single store platforms too and yet somehow Apple's anticompetitive powers don't seem to translate into forcing developers to support them.

Apple prevents competition by literally not allowing competing stores to exist. 

That is enough to demonstrate consumer harm and is undeniable IMO. Apple does not allow consumer choice in App Stores unless a law obliges them to do so. It matters not that multiple Apple stores exist. 

As the world has moved into a digital era, a platform 'duopoly' has emerged which needs new laws to regulate. That is why the DMA/DSA were created. 

To look at things from a different perspective, if ten independent platforms existed and mergers and takeovers were proposed to reduce those to two in 2024, it would never ever get regulatory approval. Too much influence in two few hands leads to abuse of dominant position. That is what we are seeing. 

While I don't support the idea of platform break ups I can see why some people think it's a reasonable proposal. 

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said:

Xed said:

avon b7 said:

Xed said:

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

jimh2 said:

VictorMortimer said:

Apple's 30% is highway robbery.

Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge.  As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.

But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.

You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.

Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store. 

It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.

Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month. 

I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d

Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers. 

We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business. 

It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform. 

This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily. 

It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product. 

As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify  (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.

You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited  due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.

I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools. 

Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere. 

Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations. 

That is not word salad. It's fact based context. 

They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.

Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist. 

It's not possible for Apple to prevent competition due to the fact that app developers are the ones that choose which platforms to develop for and not Apple. Haven't you ever noticed that the apps available for the iPhone aren't necessarily available for iPad/ATV/Vision Pro? Those are single store platforms too and yet somehow Apple's anticompetitive powers don't seem to translate into forcing developers to support them.

Apple prevents competition by literally not allowing competing stores to exist. 

That is enough to demonstrate consumer harm and is undeniable IMO. Apple does not allow consumer choice in App Stores unless a law obliges them to do so. It matters not that multiple Apple stores exist. 

As the world has moved into a digital era, a platform 'duopoly' has emerged which needs new laws to regulate. That is why the DMA/DSA were created. 

To look at things from a different perspective, if ten independent platforms existed and mergers and takeovers were proposed to reduce those to two in 2024, it would never ever get regulatory approval. Too much influence in two few hands leads to abuse of dominant position. That is what we are seeing. 

While I don't support the idea of platform break ups I can see why some people think it's a reasonable proposal.