EsquireCats
About
- Username
- EsquireCats
- Joined
- Visits
- 128
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 5,577
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 1,268
Reactions
-
UK antitrust regulators again denied permission to examine Safari dominance
This constant insistence that the customer is some stupid sheep that is tricked into a platform is irritating to the point of nausea. Informed people choose the platform to avoid historical computing hazards. Apple have done an excellent job of maintaining the advantages of personal computing, while isolating the overwhelming majority of security and scam vectors.
Annual malware reports provide irrefutable evidence that supports Apple's decisions for the browser-engine and the app store limitations, yet so frequently these realities and hard-learned lessons on security are hand-waved away as if they're not detrimental to computing.
iOS has the lowest share of malware of any platform, even less than the far less popular macOS. Top of the list is Android with more than 50% of malware, then Windows, then IoT devices, one needs to go to the very end of the list to find iOS, with the platform taking less than 1% of malware despite having a massive install base and a relatively wealthy average customer.
These efforts to crack-open Apple's user protections for the sake of utterly lazy and greedy developers is sickening; it's clear corruption to anyone that has an understanding of computing history and malware threats.
-
Ford will stick with CarPlay as GM exits for Google tech
Hottake: GM will come back around a few years down the line when this effort goes down in flames.
The reason CarPlay exists is because car companies seem completely incapable or disinterested in developing good UX for their digital interfaces. Even luxury cars pale against CarPlay, some even go the wrong direction, such as with the recent changes to Tesla's system being largely deemed as user-hostile, distracting and unintuitive. Car companies seem to regularly put the user in second place, only to realise that these small changes can have an outsized effect on their product, and then ultimately on their sales.
Pair that against GM's stated intention of increasing profits by selling the user data they obtain (something that CarPlay wouldn't permit), and the change becomes even more sour for buyers.
-
Apple Store crash driver pleads not guilty to second-degree murder
"100% preventable"- good grief, it's a store not a fort. Full sympathy to the poor people who were victims of this psycho's crime, but trying to profit off a tragedy is so on brand for the litigious American stereotype.
-
Spotify is still bleeding money but predicts a return to profitability
Spotify's business has always been in shambles, that's why they spend a very large amount of time attributing their failures to Apple and Google.Looking at Spotify's public finances we can effortlessly divide their revenue by paying user count to reveal that they heavily subsidise members. Spotify have over-incentivised heavily discounted paid accounts to get conversion, and this is the weight that holds the company down.To enhance their business Spotify screw artists and use PR to attack their various boogeymen. Their press releases are full of lies:
- They argue that Apple harms them by locking them out of platforms such as their speakers and carplay. Yet even when the APIs for these become available Spotify is either slow or completely non-existent even years after the launch. It can't be a cost/development issue, as smaller players with less resources are available on these additional Apple-run platforms.- They argue that Apple 30% cut harms their revenue, yet not one single user is at the 30% rate, nor do they even offer the ability to subscribe through Apple.- Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of paid Spotify users signed up through their website, yet Spotify continue decry that Apple are directly harming them even though Spotify chose this approach.
- Spotify simultaneously believe they should have the right to advertise a route to payment on their website (against the terms they agreed to), while providing Apple no payment for the cost of distributing their app to hundreds of millions of users. Every single update that they push is a new cost for Apple, amongst many other costs of hosting their app. So all things being equal, if Spotify wish to break that agreement, why should Apple keep their side of the deal? Why shouldn't Apple be sending them hosting and distribution costs?
- Spotify do not compete in the media landscape whatsoever, all other media providers have expanded into other offerings such as video or enhanced audio technologies. Spotify still hasn't delivered on enhanced audio years after their published launch date.
The company's board needs to be vacated and replaced with people who aren't freaking idiots.
-
Future Apple Watch band could detect the smallest finger movements and gestures
I'm already surprised by what it can detect (finger pinch versus full fist close for example.) I find these useful for one-handed scenarios such as when I'm carrying something. However I imagine interacting with the product with air gestures and flicks to be a way of interacting with the device when it's not easy to touch the screen directly, such as when wearing gloves or underwater.
