canukstorm

kellie said:

The AI I want to see on a Mac or an iPhone is a configuration assistant that would analyze all of the configuration parameters and then ask me using plain English questions how I would like to use my system, my privacy preferences, my risk tolerance, etc. and then make suggestions for recommended changes.  Or being able to instruct Siri about configuration changes I’d like to make and it goes and makes the changes without me having to plod through all sorts of menus. 

neoncat said:

Xed said:

2) If you really want to have a conversation about music distribution and your insights into that industry then you could focus on that. Most of your comment was an irrelevant mention about a musician that doesn’t appeal to you to multiple odd mentions of an age group and attire for reasons that escape me. If there was a salient point to your comment it needs to be more clearly stated.

OK, yes, I'm prone to rhetoric. My bad, and I'll own that. I used the promotional activity supporting Taylor Swift, and Billie Eilish, as examples. We're responding to an article specifically about Taylor Swift, I'm not sure it's so out of bounds to focus on that. That I made it a point to react to an imagined Swiftie backlash was probably unnecessary, you're right.

As for Apple Music: Did you know that Apple has no affordances for self-represented artists or non-major labels to create marketing partnerships? Let's say you're a self-represented artist who does not release albums but individual tracks (you may scoff, but this is the fastest growing segment of the music industry). Apple Music is the only major streaming service that provides no promotional hooks to non-album, non-represented releases. Not even pay-to-promote. Until recently, it was impossible to even establish a relationship with Apple Music if you were non-represented/ASCAP (again, Apple was unique in this regard). My comparisons to Top 40 radio was to imply that Apple is fostering the same sort of closed-loop, self-referential music pool that forcibly restricts discovery to specific artists only. It promotes major label/brand-centric music, as does so primarily to associate its own brand with that of certain hot artists. 

Taylor Swift doesn't need Apple's help to have a wildly successful album. Her tangible benefits from the partnership are minimal, any more so than Labron James needs Nike to be a successful, HoF athlete. Apple, however, believes its association with Taylor Swift improves the appearance of Apple Music. That brand synergy, I believe, is more important than how Apple creates a platform for musicians and music discovery (much as how Nike has dropped any pretense of quality in its products—look at the disaster unfolding with the MLB uniforms). Ultimately, it's us Apple Music users who suffer as a result of Apple's singular focus on brand rather than the function and quality of their service. The time spent by Apple constantly promoting these partnerships and explaining how hard they work to promote artists who don't need their help, to me, rings of a desperate need to be seen as "cool" rather than "good." (hence my sniping about "boomers" ... rhetoric!)

Again, to be clear: My opinion based on my work for artists and record companies that operate contrary to the baseline norms of music promotion. Obviously I'm going to react negatively to entities who operate using traditional methods. You should therefore take my opinions in that context. If major label and album-centric is what you want your streaming service to be, and you put no or low value on music discovery, then Apple Music as-is serves your needs and what I represent does not. And that's fine, genuinely. It should, after all, always come down to experiencing the music we love (including Taylor Swift!) Apple's constant need to insert its brand into that relationship is what I am reacting to and as a music lover resent. 

paisleydisco said:

LOLOLOLOLOL 

the rich guy looking for a handout 

avon b7 said:

canukstorm said:

avon b7 said:

blastdoor said:

avon b7 said:

igorsky said:

avon b7 said:

That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.

The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.

What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works. 

Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue. 

The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist. 

So Apple has a monopoly of the Apple market, eh? Kind of like how the movie theater doesn't allow outside food or drink? Or how if you go to your dentist, you can't choose a hygienist from another dentist? 

That approach to defining the market is absurd and if that's the basis for the DOJ's case (and it very well might be), then a victory by the DOJ would mean economic chaos. Consumers like bundles of goods and services. They don't want everything unbundled. To force that unbundling would harm consumers because it would impose on them the cost of creating those bundles themselves and doing all the integration themselves. 

Apple's practices are only potentially problematic if they are a monopoly. The revenue share argument strikes me as pretty weak. Apple is not stopping any other firm from offering a bundle of goods and services as attractive as theirs. Many other firms have the money and IP portfolios to pull it off. The thing holding them back isn't Apple, it's that their leadership is fundamentally corrupt and uninterested in creating a company like Apple, instead they are only interested in getting rich quick and moving on. That's not Apple's fault. 

It's all a question of perspective. These are new times for digital services and hardware. It should all be put into the system, scrutinised and dealt with. The Google search default on iPhones is also being scrutinised. Different places could well see things differently. 

This is the beginning. The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected. 

As for food and drink in movie theaters, they try that here (signs and all) but it is actually illegal to stop someone taking their own food and drink into a movie theater if the theater offers its own options. The reason being that food and drink isn't the main business of movie theaters. 

Again, different places see things in different ways. 

We'll have to wait and see how the DoJ plays it and how Apple responds. 

"The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected. "

The EU is not leading on anything.  This is nothing but the EU trying to regulate their way out of becoming economically irrelevant because they, and their companies, don't have what it takes to compete on an even playing field.  If you can't compete, regulate.  That's the EU's motto right now.   As far as the DOJ's case goes, it is wrong on the facts and the law.  It should have never brought.  If I were Apple's lawyers, I wouldn't pay the EU a penny of whatever fines they're thinking of levying, and I would go to town on the DOJ.

The EU has led the way on pretty much all the major legislative efforts related to 'digital'. 

WEEE, RoHS, GDPR, right to be forgotten, consumer protection, common chargers, Big Tech, Cyber Security... 

An AI directive is advancing well. 

If you read the just the preamble to most of those directives you will see why they are needed. That is basically accepted by all parties. That is why they got approved. 

They are also models for other parts of the world. 

The EU competes very well and the last time I checked there were a lot more US-EU strategic dependencies than EU-US strategic dependencies. 

Much is being said about the US Chips Act but long before that became something to talk about the EU was implementing its own chip road map. 

The EU rolled out widespread EMV payment support about a decade before the US. 

Interoperability within the banking and ICT sectors was dealt with long ago. 

'Common' policies were introduced to resolve big problems and have succeeded in many areas. 

avon b7 said:

blastdoor said:

avon b7 said:

igorsky said:

avon b7 said:

That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.

The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.

What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works. 

Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue. 

The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist. 

So Apple has a monopoly of the Apple market, eh? Kind of like how the movie theater doesn't allow outside food or drink? Or how if you go to your dentist, you can't choose a hygienist from another dentist? 

That approach to defining the market is absurd and if that's the basis for the DOJ's case (and it very well might be), then a victory by the DOJ would mean economic chaos. Consumers like bundles of goods and services. They don't want everything unbundled. To force that unbundling would harm consumers because it would impose on them the cost of creating those bundles themselves and doing all the integration themselves. 

Apple's practices are only potentially problematic if they are a monopoly. The revenue share argument strikes me as pretty weak. Apple is not stopping any other firm from offering a bundle of goods and services as attractive as theirs. Many other firms have the money and IP portfolios to pull it off. The thing holding them back isn't Apple, it's that their leadership is fundamentally corrupt and uninterested in creating a company like Apple, instead they are only interested in getting rich quick and moving on. That's not Apple's fault. 

It's all a question of perspective. These are new times for digital services and hardware. It should all be put into the system, scrutinised and dealt with. The Google search default on iPhones is also being scrutinised. Different places could well see things differently. 

This is the beginning. The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected. 

As for food and drink in movie theaters, they try that here (signs and all) but it is actually illegal to stop someone taking their own food and drink into a movie theater if the theater offers its own options. The reason being that food and drink isn't the main business of movie theaters. 

Again, different places see things in different ways. 

We'll have to wait and see how the DoJ plays it and how Apple responds.