1STnTENDERBITS

We agree that Apple shouldn't buy Netflix.  That would be wasteful and unnecessary.  A lot of the reasons you listed for not making that acquisition are spot on.  Your analysis of Apple's advantages in selling subscription content... there are some assumptions there that don't stand under scrutiny.  Nitpicky but relevant, you can't say Apple has an audience of more than a billion users because nothing supports that.  You can say Apple has more than a billion active devices.  Those two things are not the same and can't be used interchangeably.  We both know there's no 1-to-1 correlation.   Apple does have a ton of potential subscribers.  There's no doubt about that.  But they don't have as many potential subscribers as Netflix so their base of users isn't the advantage you make it out to be.  Netflix includes Apple's base as potential customers along with users of any device that has streaming ability regardless of ecosystem.

Those huge cash reserves and that massive cash flow... yeah that has content creators licking their chops.  A lot of companies are going to be bidding for top quality content.  None of it is going to be cheap.  Just because Apple has more money than anyone else, doesn't mean they want to part with it wantonly.  They're going to win some bids, and they're going to lose some. Either way, that initial billion dollars they earmarked for this venture is going to be in the rearview mirror pretty quickly. It's going to cost -substantially- to play in this arena.

I'm really not sure why you're looking at ATV+ strictly from an ecosystem standpoint.  Short term benefits yes.  But I'd bet Apple is looking at it long term as it's own version of Netflix.  Ubiquitous and available everywhere on every device.  The same way it looks at Apple Music which is available on iOS, Mac, PC, and Android.  Services don't really benefit from being closed off.  That's why Apple has AirPlay 2 spreading like wildfire beyond it's own ecosystem.

You say ATV+ is free from having to support every mobile device and any console or USB stick that can be attached to a TV.  I say that is Apple's eventual goal.  Their service everywhere.

Apologies for length.  Lot to unpack.

"Ha! They call it a bug.  We just called it part of our business plan. " 
-U.S. Telecoms.

22july2013 said:

1STnTENDERBITS said:

jbdragon said:

This really seems like a dumb case. While I'm against Apple's Censorship. I think that's completely WRONG. On the other hand it's their App store. A store they created and opened up to allow 3rd party's into. Just like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony have their own store on their console systems. It's no different.

Do these developers remember the days of having to put your software on a disc and into a Box and sell it in the store? All that was a bigger cut than Apple's 30%. The same 30% that Google and Amazon charge in their own App stores.

Apple only has about 20% of the Global Market anyway. They are far from some Monopoly.

The evidence you're using to defend Apple's position is bad.  In fact, it's actually evidence that would sink Apple's position if it were presented in an actual court.  So that I'm clear, I'm not saying Apple's position is bad.  Your evidence is.  You claim Nintendo, MS, and Sony have their own stores on their systems.  True.  Apple has it's store on it's system.  Also true.  Here's where your evidence fails.  3 of the 4 companies allow you to buy software for their systems in their stores, but more importantly -and key to refuting your argument- from multiple other sources on the web and brick and mortar stores.  Only 1 of the 4 stores -Apple- require you to purchase in their store only.  It's completely different.  

You can't use the Google and Amazon argument because both ecosystems allow customers to load apps from other stores with a simple tap.

Apple's global market share is immaterial to topic.  No one is claiming they have an app monopoly in general.  The claim is a monopoly over iOS apps via the App Store.  There's effectively one place to get iOS apps.  As I said earlier, that doesn't apply to Nintendo, MS, or Sony.  Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the actual case.  I'm arguing that you're inadvertently providing an argument against Apple instead of for Apple.

Very lucid and logical points. Can you explain if any of the other three stores mentioned above provide vetting and digital signature services like Apple does? If these are distinct services provided by Apple that could be a reason why Apple can't allow third party stores.

Honestly, I have no idea whether or not any of them do.  Not really germane to my comment since it -my comment- has very little or anything to do with Apple's reasoning.  I was specifically countering jbdragon's arguments that Apple's App store is just like the stores of Nintendo, MS, and Sony.  It definitely isn't.  Whether Apple can, can't, or simply chooses not to allow 3rd party stores is a different issue from what my comment addresses.   None of us know, so guessing at reasons seems kinda...   But I do know the points put forth by jbdragon were easily refutable.

jbdragon said:

This really seems like a dumb case. While I'm against Apple's Censorship. I think that's completely WRONG. On the other hand it's their App store. A store they created and opened up to allow 3rd party's into. Just like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony have their own store on their console systems. It's no different.

Do these developers remember the days of having to put your software on a disc and into a Box and sell it in the store? All that was a bigger cut than Apple's 30%. The same 30% that Google and Amazon charge in their own App stores.

Apple only has about 20% of the Global Market anyway. They are far from some Monopoly.

The evidence you're using to defend Apple's position is bad.  In fact, it's actually evidence that would sink Apple's position if it were presented in an actual court.  So that I'm clear, I'm not saying Apple's position is bad.  Your evidence is.  You claim Nintendo, MS, and Sony have their own stores on their systems.  True.  Apple has it's store on it's system.  Also true.  Here's where your evidence fails.  3 of the 4 companies allow you to buy software for their systems in their stores, but more importantly -and key to refuting your argument- from multiple other sources on the web and brick and mortar stores.  Only 1 of the 4 stores -Apple- require you to purchase in their store only.  It's completely different.  

You can't use the Google and Amazon argument because both ecosystems allow customers to load apps from other stores with a simple tap.

Apple's global market share is immaterial to topic.  No one is claiming they have an app monopoly in general.  The claim is a monopoly over iOS apps via the App Store.  There's effectively one place to get iOS apps.  As I said earlier, that doesn't apply to Nintendo, MS, or Sony.  Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the actual case.  I'm arguing that you're inadvertently providing an argument against Apple instead of for Apple.

Latko said:

1STnTENDERBITS said:

Apple should give the XR some bolder colors instead of the pastels imo.  A navy, an emerald, a burnt orange.  Anything like that would be nice.

Especially if you want to win the Chinese market back. And (like coding) it doesn’t require a 4 year education to see that, Tim

It's not like they don't already know how to do vibrant colors.  I mean really good vibrant colors.  Colors like these:

These colors look great.  The pink is hot.  The red is fire.  That orange always reminds me of the time Nissan introduced the Burnt Orange 350Z,  If I could change one thing, I make the blue a darker shade,  Other than that, Apple could pick any of those flavors and they'd be tasty.