1STnTENDERBITS

cpsro said:

So much for the "promise" of a la carte channel subscriptions.

I wonder who are the people who actually thought a la carte was going to be a viable option?  No one is really that naive.   This was always going to turn into a situation with lots of different services vying for the same few customers.  The value of content was always going to increase due to service exclusivity.  Prices were always going to go up and people were still not going to get content the way the want it.  We just traded one big bundle priced at X for a lot of little bundles priced equivalently at Y... where Y is ~X.

The fun is really going to happen when consolidation takes place.  The failed services are going to get absorbed by the successful and we'll probably end up right back where we were: big bundles priced at X.

Mid Priss said:

 I was driving through Indianapolis the other day and my iPhone 10 XS hooked up to 5G. I ran Speedtest and topped out at 120 Mbps. 

Your post represents the perfect anecdotal evidence of the deceptive nature of AT&T's fake 5G campaign.  With 5Ge, it's pretty obvious their intent was to make customers think they're on 5G... actual 5G.  In this instance with you, it seems to work just like they planned.  You even shared your Speedtest results as "proof".  AT&T needs to be kicked, metaphorically of course, in the nards.  Here's to Sprint's lawsuit wearing steel toed boots.

genovelle said:

rogifan_new said:

What is Samsung selling at a loss?

Their cheap android phones. The last time the had a huge drop some divisions lost money while they still made money the ones that compete against Apple didn’t do so well

I think you may be confused.  It seems you're conflating "YoY losses" with "selling at a loss".  Those are separate terms that mean entirely different things and they can't be used interchangeably.  YoY losses, what's actually being discussed in the article, occurs when a company sells less than they did the previous year.  Trying to tie that to selling products at a loss makes no sense. 
An easy example to illustrate exactly how much sense it doesn't make is this:  Apple just had a YoY quarterly loss where they missed by several billions of dollars.  No one in their right mind would conclude Apple missed earnings therefore they were selling products at a loss.  That would be insane.  Apple sold fewer products, that's why they missed.  It's also why Samsung missed.  It's literally right in the article.  They sold fewer memory chips, OLED, panels, and phones.  Considering most of Samsung's handset volume is generated by it's economy and mid tier phones, it's a pretty good assumption they aren't selling them at a loss.  To suggest otherwise would be equally insane.

The sound is there.  The looks are there.  The I/O is not.  Apple could have easily increased the appeal of the HomePod with decent I/O.  This is an ecosystem lock-in device.  With decent I/O it could have been a Services device.  

spice-boy said:

Ok, before any of you start raging against the Swiss people, Swiss courts or Swatch, how many cases has Apple lost in US courts?

Well they recently lost cases against Samsung and Qualcomm so...  and they lost against VirnetX.  Going back even further, they lost the e-Book case, they lost...  
So to answer your question, they've lost a few.  Can't really use that "US courts are biased too" angle it seems you were preparing to trot out.