minisu1980

avon b7 said:

franklinjackcon said:

AppleInsider said:

but both Google and Android enthusiasts note that shopping outside of Google Play is exceptionally dangerous due to the malware and spyware that satiates open software markets.

This is a bit like saying walking outside is dangerous. Yes, it can be, if you have must or choose to frequent dangerous areas. But the vast majority of people buying outside of the play store (in the US, as this data looks at) are giving their money to established companies like Spotify and Netflix on a desktop.

DED, it would be interesting to see an unbiased look at the two different business models. Rather than saying Google fails at being Apple, why not look at what it is actually trying to do. Its goal is to get many devices into hands and make money from advertising in apps rather than clip the ticket on app purchases. The world is better if we have competing business models.

Agreed. It would be better if this claim were supported with a link but even then it wouldn't hold much water:

"Android enthusiasts note that shopping outside of Google Play is exceptionally dangerous".

The title would be more correct if it stated this information is limited to U.S. App Store. The linked source article makes this clear:

"U.S. iPhone Users Spent An Average of $58 on Apps in 2017, 23% More Than the Year Before"

The numbers are estimates, not absolute numbers, and although the article states that Google Play doesn't represent the entirety of the Android App store market, no estimate is given for how much the missing part could represent. Without such an estimate, the whole idea is out of whack.

A far better observation could be made if it were based on numbers (even estimates) worldwide.

Last year Android App stores were on track to overtake Apple (not sure if services and subscriptions are included, though):

"However, when factoring in Google Play and third-party Android stores combined, consumer spend should overtake iOS for the first time ever in 2017"

https://www.appannie.com/en/insights/market-data/app-annie-forecast-2017-mobile-app-store-revenue-exceed-139-billion-2021/

It would be more interesting to see how that eventually played out.

So google loses, which happens a lot when compared to Apple, and now we need to expand the conversation in such a way that they maybe don't come up short. DED can't write an article to your satisfaction because you will insist on moving the goal posts. Since better observations are made by estimating, I can estimate Apple sells more ads than Google. Doesn't make it true, but numbers don't matter right.

ivanh said:

If I already have 80% of songs and albums I like in my personal collection, will I get 80% off for subscribing to Apple Misic? If not, I’ll stay with Spotify.

I didn't realized Spotify gives an 80% discount off it's paid service for me having songs and albums I already own. That's a flawed business model I could really get behind! (currently holding puts on Spotify).

Soli said:

DavidAlGregory said:

In a time where even a cheap car is $20k, including CarPlay should not be that big of a deal.

Are you suggesting that everyone should buy a new car just to get CarPlay? Are you saying that every car that's $20k+ has CarPlay? What $20k automobiles have CarPlay?

You should look how often people tend to buy new cars, what happens to cars after their original owner gets rid of it, and what percentage of automobiles actually offer CarPlay before suggesting that "it's no big deal."

I'll agree on this, neither of my families cars have CarPlay and we won't buy new ones until they start to need more than standard maintenance which could be several years. When we do purchase our brand new vehicles and only those that have CarPlay will be considered. There is of course a large amount of the population that does not replace their old car with a brand new one, but buys a used vehicle instead. It will be at least a decade more before the majority of cars being purchased will have CarPlay capability.

The iPhone X failure narrative seems to be predicated solely on the belief that people are unwilling to pay a higher price for something they want. I think it fair to assume that a large portion of Apple's existing market share is not sensitive to price. Wall Street seems unable to wrap their collective heads around this, which is strange as they don't seem to have that problem with high end car markerS. Patiently sitting on a bunch of call options waiting for reality to bear its fruits.

Anyone else find the tone of this article odd? It kinda felt like an article you would see on the Verge. Anyway, some point:

1) Week long battery life - Why? Most Apple watch owners charge it every night, right along with their iPhone. Would have a long battery life really enhance the user experience? It's sort of like the questions of how long does it take to charge an electric vehicle, answer is it doesn't matter because it's owner is going to let it charge overnight while they sleep.
2) Roughed design options - Sure, you can never have something too indestructible
3) Podcasts - I don't listen to them, but makes sense to me that many people would find this useful.
4) Pride band - This should be available.
5) Video - Can't see the stated use cases not being incredible clumsy to interact with.
6) Full functionality without iPhone - Kinda feel like their would be no market for a stand alone Apple Watch. It was designed as an accessory to supplement and enhance the iPhone, most purchasing it have an iPhone.
7) Greater fitness tracking - I disagree here, I think the keep is simple approach works here.