derrickdoingit

jungmark said:

derrickdoingit said:

I would agree with your walmart reference 100% if that's what Apple did, but that's not what Apple is doing.

Apple isn't selling a knockoff of Adele's "Hello", they're selling the real Adele. So they're not offering they're own brand of Coke, they're selling Coke at a cheaper price because they're not paying an extra 30%

Fine. Let's use generic drugs vs name brands. Both are exactly the same drug. 

It's still not the same. I dunno if you've ever played the older Guitar Hero, but they had name brand music, being sung by non name brand people. It sounded almost exactly the same as the original, but it was noticeably different for anyone who had heard the original song.

Apple isn't selling Guitar Hero music (Generic Drugs), they're selling the original song (Name Brand drug) for CHEAPER because they're not paying 30% extra.

latifbp said:

derrickdoingit said:

I would agree with your walmart reference 100% if that's what Apple did, but that's not what Apple is doing.

Apple isn't selling a knockoff of Adele's "Hello", they're selling the real Adele. So they're not offering they're own brand of Coke, they're selling Coke at a cheaper price because they're not paying an extra 30%

That's because they made the investment into ecosystem absorbing the risk and liability and cost for the developers on their shoulders. They pro vide the platform and take on the risks for others welcoming competition. Spotify has so many more users. As they've jabbed their customers with their business operation costs while using that expense as a business tax deduction in guessing they also profit a lot more than Apple as they have three times the paid users Apple Music does. What's the damn problem?

Walmart also has built their own stores, created a mega chain where distributors can place their product on their shelves. But Walmart has never EVER sold the EXACT SAME PRODUCT and UNDERCUT their distributors. That's Anti competitive and monopolistic behavior REGARDLESS OF WHO DOES IT.

As it stands now, any company that wants to make a subscription music service must price it $3 more than Apple Music, and that immediately puts that company at a disadvantage. This was not the case before Apple Music entered the market.

Apple has entered a market that they've profited from by charging other companies a 30% subscription fee. And with this profit they created the same exact type of service at a cheaper cost, and undercutting the same companies they helped start. By making a cheaper service and having it be a preinstalled app (similar to what Windows did with Internet Explorer in the Netscape days), they are wielding unfair advantage over competitors and if left unchecked will create a monopoly in these markets.

Or we could just let all these other music services die and let Apple Music be the only music service, with probably just Google Play Music or Amazon as the only competitors, and completely kill any chance of small companies trying to gain a foothold in these markets because... well it's Apple, and they should do whatever they want.

jungmark said:

derrickdoingit said:

I keep hearing the mall reference as an example of how Apple is right

First of all, if the app store is a mall, and they gave spotify space in their mall and charged them 30% of sales, that's fine.

If the app store is a mall, and they set up a completely similar store that sells almost exactly the same merchandise (Apple Music) right next to the Spotify store, but charged it 0% of sales (Since it owns it), then that's wrong. It gives the Apple Music store unfair advantage in pricing, as it can pass on the 30% savings onto consumers, and gain unfair market advantage.

It's like Walmart offering say it's own brand of soda next to Coke and Pepsi. It's unheard of! Oh wait. 

First of of all, Apple allows Spoitify it's mall rent free. Secondly, Apple only gets paid when someone subscribes. So Spotify gets a free rides for free users?

I would agree with your walmart reference 100% if that's what Apple did, but that's not what Apple is doing.

Apple isn't selling a knockoff of Adele's "Hello", they're selling the real Adele. So they're not offering they're own brand of Coke, they're selling Coke at a cheaper price because they're not paying an extra 30%

I keep hearing the mall reference as an example of how Apple is right

First of all, if the app store is a mall, and they gave spotify space in their mall and charged them 30% of sales, that's fine.

If the app store is a mall, and they set up a completely similar store that sells almost exactly the same merchandise (Apple Music) right next to the Spotify store, but charged it 0% of sales (Since it owns it), then that's wrong. It gives the Apple Music store unfair advantage in pricing, as it can pass on the 30% savings onto consumers, and gain unfair market advantage.

The only downside to this phone is anyone with a 5s lost about $200 resale value

sog35 said:

rogifan_new said:

Amazing how your tone changes when the stock is on the upswing. If Apple was at $90 instead of $107 you'd be calling for Tim Cook's head on a platter and blasting these decisions.

I blasted Cook for not releasing the bigger iPhone earlier.
I also blasted  him for not addressing supplier chain rumors.

I see no reason to blast him about an older model not having every single feature a newer model has. Tech keeps going forward.  Face it.  The 12.9 Pro is FOUR MONTHS older than the 9.7.  

And you think I'm happy with the $107 stock price? Hell no. I still think the stock is 40-50% undervalued.  

So purposely making a product inferior so that a future product has a distinguishable feature is ok because...?