robbyx

About

Banned
Username
robbyx
Joined
Visits
58
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
516
Badges
1
Posts
479
  • Apple Card vs Amazon Prime Rewards Visa: which credit card offers the most cash back and b...

    There’s another factor not covered in this article, and that’s security and privacy.  I’d love to see an article delving into those aspects.  
    My concern as well. I don’t shop Amazon at all, partly for privacy concerns. I do use Apple Pay and very much appreciate the security of it. Every year or two we’ve had our credit card compromised. It doesn’t cost anything but it is a royal PITA because of all the auto-payments we have tied to the card. 
    My card gets compromised at least once a year.  I've never had to pay for anything.  No big deal.  I think a lot of people get a bit histrionic when it comes to "security and privacy" quite honestly.  Changing auto-payments is a royal PITA, I do agree, so I got a second card and use it exclusively for everything auto-pay.  It never leaves the house and has never been compromised.
    lostkiwifulwildchemengin
  • Mouse support over USB-C could arrive for iPad Pro in iOS 13

    StrangeDays said:

    ...while I’m aware Apple has changed its mind on things before, they’ve spoken to this topic specifically and so many times that I have no reason to doubt them.
    That's because they are not merging the two operating systems.  They are building a new desktop iOS variant that will one day take macOS's place.  That's how I see it.  So they aren't exactly lying.  Apple has always been good at wordplay.  

    Marzipan ipad apps running on Mac still have a more general UI and I don’t see them replacing the window metaphor on macOS. 
    Yet.  Marzipan is brand new.  It's impossible to say what Marzipan apps will look like, much less be capable of, in a few years.  Plus iOS supports multiple windows, just not the overlapping, drag them around the screen metaphor used on the desktop today.

    I think the upcoming Mac Pro is the last big hurrah for today's macOS and Intel-based Macs.  I think macOS XI is going to be when we see ARM "Macs" running iOS with a macOS-style desktop interface.  I'm thinking five years, give or take.  That's enough time to fully bake Marzipan and get the majority of developers on board.  Once iOS and macOS apps all use UIKit, the guts of the operating system become far less important.
    canukstormcornchip
  • Apple Card: no multi-user support, no penalty rates, foreign transactions, more

    slurpy said:
    It is still a stupid credit card, with 15%+ interest rates!  For god’s sake don’t carry a balance.

    I love Apple products, but this is just another way to make it even easier to give them your money ߘ顠 Don’t get let them reel you in.

    https://youtu.be/e874AUNCJo0

    Oh, and will patiently wait for your elaboration on how Apple makes money with this credit card. 
    Does that mean you think Apple is getting into the credit card business to NOT make money?  I mean, come on, of course they’re making money on this card.  None of us knows how. They make money on every Apple Pay transaction, so it stands to reason they’re getting a chunk of each card transaction’s swipe fee, or something like that.

    Between getting into the credit card business, that awful “if you subscribed to each of these separately, you’d pay over $8000, but with Apple News+, you get it all for $9.99” infomercial sales pitch, and a confusing product line, things are starting to look more and more like 1995 again. 
    chemenginwilliamlondonrogifan_newAutigerMark
  • Impact of Apple's upcoming video service 'likely small,' analyst argues

    robbyx said:
    "While new Video and/or News products might help to increase iPhone stickiness they seem unlikely to make much of an impact on Apple's bottom line," Rod Hall wrote in a new memo to investors, seen by AppleInsider. Even if the video service gains 20 million subscribers by the end of 2020, and charges them $15 per month, that would only boost consensus earnings forecasts by 1 percent, he estimated. If the service costs $10 per month, that would only raise earnings 0.4 percent.
    So, charging 1/3 less would drop the earnings increase by over 50%? Wouldn't a less expensive offering attract more people?

    Who knows what model Goldman used to arrive at these figures, but I think Apple is going to have a hard time attracting a mass audience unless they do something truly revolutionary.  Another "me too" video service with a few original shows simply isn't going to cut it.  The die-hard Apple fans will subscribe en-masse, of course, claiming it's the best video service and original programming ever, but convincing the other 99% of Apple customers to jump on board will be more challenging.

    A few good original shows will not be reason enough for most people to subscribe.  I'm a big Star Trek fan (as I imagine many of us here are), but I'm not paying $10/month for CBS to watch that one show.  Admittedly, I find Discovery to be rather weak, but even if it was amazing, I still don't think I'd pay $10/month for it.  Instead, I'm going to wait for the season to end, subscribe for a month, watch the whole season, and cancel.  Netflix, on the other hand, I gladly pay for each month because there's enough content that interests me.

    Other analysts have worried that Apple won't be able to compete with video rivals like Netflix or Disney in terms of quantity or quality, and that it may be years behind without any special reason to subscribe beyond particular shows. 
    I only subscribe to Netflix to watch "particular shows". It started with House of Cards but then I found a few more that I like.  What's to say the situation will be any different with Apple? Granted, if they're really launching with 11 shows they may have a long way to go, considering Netflix has a lot of original content that I have no interest in whatsoever and only a few that I like. It's like Netflix is just throwing whatever they can against the wall to see what sticks. So far, according to the rumors, that isn't Apple's current approach.


    Netflix's approach is actually the better approach, though.  What sticks for one group of people doesn't stick for another.  What one person finds terrible, another loves.  You have to offer a wide variety of content to attract a wide viewership.  Netflix understands this and has the subscriber numbers to prove it.  No one else comes close.  Apple's video service with succeed or fail based on the service itself, not the original programming.  The original programming will no doubt sweeten the deal, but the service itself has to improve upon the television experience enough to make customers switch or add yet another monthly charge to the credit card.  I think this is going to be a challenge for Apple.

    The more I have sat on Apple’s strategy the more I am feeling like I’m understanding it. Your point about subscribing for a month to binge watch Discovery is exactly why Apple pushed their subscription model to the content providers. Had that gone through like Apple had hoped, I would only have one subscription to manage not 2 or more.

    While having only one subscription to manage is a nice convenience, would it have been cheaper?  Probably not.  The reality is, those of us (and I include myself here) who advocated for a la carte pricing completely got it wrong.  As much as I hated paying for shows and channels I didn't watch, the bundled cable model is still the simplest, most convenient, and cheapest if you want access to a wide variety of content.

    Apple recognizes that there is only so much time in a day that people can be consuming video. Yes there are the heavy users but for people like me, I may only watch 1-2 hours on a typical day, there isn’t enough time in the day to make 80-100 dollars a month for full cable or for 6 streaming services worth while. It IS a waste of money for many people. However, the content providers did not want to relinquish control over how and when their content can be viewed and so here we are.

    A la carte pricing works great if you only want to subscribe to one or two services.  Otherwise you're better off with cable.  I'm not sure it's really about content providers not wanting to relinquish control either.  Not every show is going to make money.  The bundled cable model, in essence, has the more successful shows (and channels) subsidizing the less successful ones.  I don't think anyone has figured out how to make this work.  That's why we're seeing services like DirecTV Now and PlayStation Vue and Hulu with live TV.  They've essentially moved the cable bundle to the Internet.  They still nickel and dime for services like DVR.  There are still commercials.  You're still stuck with channels you don't want to watch but have to pay for anyway.

    Netflix is the only one who is truly thinking differently about content.  Content is why they exist.  They aren't a hardware company or online shopping behemoth looking for an additional revenue stream.  Netflix is the first global television provider and they've managed to build this massive worldwide service completely free of advertising.  I'm looking forward to Apple's announcement, but I don't have high hopes.  I'd love for them to deliver a radical new approach to content delivery, but my gut tells me they'll be delivering something far more mundane.

    Apple, I believe, is not trying to become Netflix. That is something that may happen organically after many years (kinda like how some artists refused to put their music on iTunes initially, now most have finally accepted that Apple’s model does provide benefit in this new world). I can see the same thing happening with Apple’s subscription; not much older content when it launches... but give it enough time and things could start changing. What I think Apple is trying to do is become a high end YouTube. With the ability for good quality content to be produced entirely on consumer level products, individuals wanting to reach a larger audience, could put their stuff on Apple TV. And just like that the individual becomes their own content manager and does not have to worry about distribution. This is something I think the content providers are not used to, they create and distribute content and therefore collect all the money. They are not used to paying for distribution. In short, this is something that Apple is in for the long haul. People are just becoming open to what consumption of content could be outside of what television has been for all these years. They’ve got time to steer people’s understanding to be in line with what they see the solution to be.

    I also don't believe they are trying to become Netflix.  They are trying to grow their Services category.  The two product category bright spots for Apple are Services and Other.  The rest, iPhone, Mac, iPad, are mature markets.  They will fluctuate a bit, but none of them will experience significant growth at this point.  The Other category is growing thanks to the Watch.  Most of Apple's Services revenue is AppleCare, which is tied to hardware sales.  Padding the Services category with video and paid news offerings makes sense, especially if hardware sales aren't as strong.  These services don't have to be wildly successful to add a bit to the bottom line and further lock users into the ecosystem.

    **I really have no clue what I’m saying here... just thinking aloud.  :smile: 

    I can't say that I follow re: a "high end YouTube", but I think you're right that this is all a long game.  The advantage Apple has over everyone else is that hardware is their bread and butter.  If Netflix doesn't get it right, they are out of business.  If Apple doesn't get it right, it would be embarrassing given the public's perception of them as an unstoppable "disruptor", but they'd be just fine and on to the next thing.

    StrangeDaysdesignr
  • Impact of Apple's upcoming video service 'likely small,' analyst argues

    "While new Video and/or News products might help to increase iPhone stickiness they seem unlikely to make much of an impact on Apple's bottom line," Rod Hall wrote in a new memo to investors, seen by AppleInsider. Even if the video service gains 20 million subscribers by the end of 2020, and charges them $15 per month, that would only boost consensus earnings forecasts by 1 percent, he estimated. If the service costs $10 per month, that would only raise earnings 0.4 percent.
    So, charging 1/3 less would drop the earnings increase by over 50%? Wouldn't a less expensive offering attract more people?

    Who knows what model Goldman used to arrive at these figures, but I think Apple is going to have a hard time attracting a mass audience unless they do something truly revolutionary.  Another "me too" video service with a few original shows simply isn't going to cut it.  The die-hard Apple fans will subscribe en-masse, of course, claiming it's the best video service and original programming ever, but convincing the other 99% of Apple customers to jump on board will be more challenging.

    A few good original shows will not be reason enough for most people to subscribe.  I'm a big Star Trek fan (as I imagine many of us here are), but I'm not paying $10/month for CBS to watch that one show.  Admittedly, I find Discovery to be rather weak, but even if it was amazing, I still don't think I'd pay $10/month for it.  Instead, I'm going to wait for the season to end, subscribe for a month, watch the whole season, and cancel.  Netflix, on the other hand, I gladly pay for each month because there's enough content that interests me.

    Other analysts have worried that Apple won't be able to compete with video rivals like Netflix or Disney in terms of quantity or quality, and that it may be years behind without any special reason to subscribe beyond particular shows. 
    I only subscribe to Netflix to watch "particular shows". It started with House of Cards but then I found a few more that I like.  What's to say the situation will be any different with Apple? Granted, if they're really launching with 11 shows they may have a long way to go, considering Netflix has a lot of original content that I have no interest in whatsoever and only a few that I like. It's like Netflix is just throwing whatever they can against the wall to see what sticks. So far, according to the rumors, that isn't Apple's current approach.


    Netflix's approach is actually the better approach, though.  What sticks for one group of people doesn't stick for another.  What one person finds terrible, another loves.  You have to offer a wide variety of content to attract a wide viewership.  Netflix understands this and has the subscriber numbers to prove it.  No one else comes close.  Apple's video service with succeed or fail based on the service itself, not the original programming.  The original programming will no doubt sweeten the deal, but the service itself has to improve upon the television experience enough to make customers switch or add yet another monthly charge to the credit card.  I think this is going to be a challenge for Apple.

    designr