citpeks
About
- Username
- citpeks
- Joined
- Visits
- 335
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,007
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 272
Reactions
-
FTC concludes manufacturer repair restrictions harm consumers
I do my own maintenance and repairs on my own stuff, like cars, and generally support the principle of repairable goods. There is a lot of stuff that's disposable nowadays because consumers only look at price, not quality, and that discourages well-engineered, durable, and repairable products which would have higher costs.On the flip side, I also recognize that there are limits to what can feasibly repaired, and this movement, particularly as it relates to electronic devices, has veered into dogma, not unlike the zealotry surrounding open source software a while back, lacking both nuance and pragmatism.
-
Apple values acquihire targets by the number of engineers
Beats said:I wonder how Apple handled Beats? So many good people left Apple from that acquisition. Some weren’t engineers but powerful record execs. Jimmy Iovine for example ran Apple Music much better than that new guy. Apple Music went from the “cool” service to just another bland tech service like Amazon Music.Apple got three primary things from Beats:1) A headphone company with brand equity, and good margins. Apple had some experience with audio accessories, but it's likely the AirPods line wouldn't be what it is without some contribution from that group, also enabling it to better compete in a growth segment, beyond EarPods (which could have been compared to bringing a knife to a gun fight).2) A foundation for its streaming music business, which it didn't have to build from scratch. Apple was in denial, thinking that sales would remain the way, and slow to react to Spotify, and the market shift toward streaming. Time was of the essence, and to this day, Spotify still leads.3) Two respected music industry veterans with the relationships and skill to navigate a move into the business from beyond merely being a storefront, into a member of the club. They understood the business, and had the credibility that Eddie Cue lacked, and probably opened doors that he could not have.Was that worth $3B? How much time and money would it have cost Apple to replicate any, or all of the above on its own?
-
German advertisers file antitrust complaint over Apple's App Tracking Transparency
EsquireCats said:Something to notice: the only ones complaining are people selling advertisingThat's a distinction that should be noted.On the whole, the German people, and the government value privacy.Google has faced obstacles with Gmail and Maps in Germany over privacy concerns. Cruise around Germany in Street View, and notice how many more blurred out sections are found, and spottier coverage overall, compared to other places. Those result from specific requests to be excluded from Street View, and hindered mapping efforts. -
New 2nd-gen Siri Remote backward compatible with older Apple TVs, available for $59
This is one instance where Apple's "eco-friendly"unbundling practice would have been very welcome.I have more than enough Lightning cables, Leave it out of the package and price the remote at $40.But, still very happy to see Apple listened to users. The "precise control" ad copy touting the D-pad acknowledges one of the major complaints.Suck it, Ive.
-
Coalition for App Fairness wants iOS app distribution to work like Windows
DAalseth said:This is not the same thing however. This is equivalent of some company demanding federal legislation to force Target and Walmart to sell particular brands. Even further it’s them demanding that the government step in and mandate how apple’s business run, not because apple is doing anything wrong, but because these companies don’t want to play by the rules. Look at what MS did today with their gaming platform. XBox Cloud will now run on iOS devices. They faced the same limitation, and solved the problem. The group that is taking things to Congress though doesn’t want to solve the problem. They want to use the government to use its big stick to beat Apple into submission.
What they are doing is deceptive, disingenuous, against free enterprise, and wrong. wrong on so many levels there isn’t space to cover them all here.There is no shortage of examples outside of the App Store, like stores and shopping malls, entertainment venues (movies, concerts, sporting events), restaurants, and even government facilities like airports, that are restricted markets, have percentage-based agreements with vendors, elect not to take all forms of payment, or use internal data to compete against their vendors with house brands that share the same shelf space. Consumers are free to patronize, or not, any or all of these places. Well, perhaps with the exception of being past security in an airport, where you're gonna have to cough up for that $4 drink if you're thirsty, and a train from NY to London isn't quite a feasible alternative; in that case, you're stuck.One would have to be incredibly naive, or just plain ignorant, to think that a Target, Walmart, or your supermarket, doesn't dole out shelf space according to its own desires, give better promotion, or more desirable placement to the best selling brands, or negotiate with vendors for such things. Those stores have the power to decide what to carry, how to carry it, and whether or not they'll take AMEX, and its higher fees, as payment for those goods or services. Where is the outrage?It is disingenuous to frame the arguments being presented as a matter of fairness, while ignoring all of the other examples entrenched in the course of daily life, and the normal course of business.Any developer, or member of these companies that patronize any of the above are hypocrites in doing so, under the same terns and practices that they're so vehemently arguing against.
