1STnTENDERBITS

Folio said:

Savvy move, IF one can pinpoint the blame for any privacy slip and therefore shift to Apple TV to get wholly within protected ecosystem. Case in point: Last night I was searching in private mode using Safari iOS 12.3 iphone X on Duck Duck Go. Everytime I clicked on a link (for fish sauce) I was served an advertisement, based on past browsing history days ago (cat scratching issue). Even though I keep in phone in private dark mode and use DDG, someone was tracking! When one small banner ad exploded and took up 80 percent of real estate I cut short my search. Looked up DDG on Wiki and see they still make big claims but are allied with Yahoo and Bing. But I'm not sure who to blame really. DDG? ATT my provider? Siri who I've given much tracking leeway? How do I (and Apple) prevent in future? It's a dystopia come true, when ads takeover and infringe on productivity. Most of time I switch off Javascript on mobile, but not last night.

You may want to enable Limit Ad Tracking to opt out of targeted advertising.  By default targeted advertising is enabled.  You won't be able to get rid of ads entirely.  They just won't be targeted to your interests.  I'd also recommend resetting your Advertising Identifier first, then enabling Limit Ad Tracking.  Understand that apps that don't use Apple's ad platform aren't affected by Limit Ad Tracking unless they track you using Apple's Advertising Identifier.  If they track using other software, all bets are off. Separately, you may want to turn off Location Based Apple Ads, also enabled by default.  
Relevant info found here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223  

Hope that helps.

Ars Technica has a pretty good article with more detail about this phone.  It's apparent Samsung had to make some real compromises to get this phone to work.  It is definitely, a phone for a first adopter phone geek.  They had to increase the size of the phone, reduce the metal used and increase the glass, include an SD855 for 4G, the X50 for mmWave, and add 4 5G antennas along the side.  This is a big ass phone.  Bonus: The Ars article does have a video clip of someone in the right place at the right time hitting astronomical mmWave speeds.  Not gonna lie, it is impressive.  Not impressive enough to fork over thirteen hunnit for a limited use speed boost that has to annihilate data at an alarming rate.  Two device generations from now the 5G network should be more fleshed out and the $1300 phone will probably be $450.  Til then somebody's gotta be first I guess.  Not exactly worth it imo. 

corrections said:

1STnTENDERBITS said:

corrections said:

MAU47 said:

TL;DR Marketshare

That's a really dumb comment when the first picture is IHS's claim that Android is "winning" and has the most "market share" in smart TVs. The context of its report:

Dumb comment?  Stay classy.  Is it any dumber than stating IHS claimed that Android is "winning" when that's clearly the author's slanted narrative?  These editorials would be much more informative if the author spent less time trying to be derogatory and more time clarifying his points; some of which are actually salient.  The editorials read as if a reasoned and rational adult is fighting with a teenage fanboy for time on the keyboard.  Far too often, the teen wins.  It's kind of fascinating in a watching a trainwreck sort of way. 

As the author points out in a round about way, Samsung has the largest and most lucrative share of the smart TV market.  That's why Apple chose Samsung.   They didn't choose Android because Google's flavor has a smaller share (10% vs 23%) of the smart TV market... even smaller than WebOS' 13%.  The various forks of Android also had smaller shares, so they weren't worth it either.  Apple chose the company that had the largest market share... just like @MAU47 correctly stated.  So not so dumb after all.

TL;DR is absolutely a dumb comment.

As is offering advice on "class" when you make the types of comments you're making. 

"stating IHS claimed that Android is "winning" when that's clearly the author's slanted narrative"

I highlighted the text in a photo: there was no misrepresentation of IHS statement: "Android is currently the most popular smart TV operating system platform."

And please check out the article again. Apple didn't select Samsung for "unit market share." If Apple were trying to cast a broad net by sheer volume, it could write an Android app and target not only most of 2018's smart TVs but millions of Android tablets used as TVs. Apple was not in any way seeking to target volume. That's the entire point of the article. You could get that from standing across the room and just reading the subheadings. 

It's not a dumb comment.  It strips away all the extraneous content and boils it down to the purest element; hence the tl;dr. Samsung's market share absolutely played a large part in Apple's decision.  

I'm a rando on the internet bud.  You're supposed to be some type of professional writer.  That usually comes with a sense of decorum.  Usually.  I simply addressed you in the same crass manner you often employ when addressing forum members.

Your own words: "That's a really dumb comment when the first picture is IHS's claim that Android is "winning" and has the most "market share" in smart TVs."  IHS reporting that Android in totality has the most market share is not a claim of "winning".  That's 100% DED conflating.  IHS says Android has most market share therefore IHS claims Android is winning.? That's preposterous.  You parsed the text, ignored the original context, and supplanted it with your Android is winning narrative.  The full report is actually about the global increase in smart TV adoption and how the digital assistants (Alexa and GA) will drive consumer decisions.  Anyone reading it will see that to be the case. 'Cept you it seems.

Why would I need to check out your article again?  It's not going to change my opinion of what's in it.  I think it has some good points but the overall narrative is wrong.  You spent too much time trying to disparage anything not Apple and not enough time making sensible connections.  All the information was there for you to do it.  You just chose to go a different direction.  So there's no need for me to read the editorial again.  I get the point you're trying to make. It's just a bad point that's all.  Whether I'm point blank close or standing across the room, the point's bad.  

corrections said:

MAU47 said:

TL;DR Marketshare

That's a really dumb comment when the first picture is IHS's claim that Android is "winning" and has the most "market share" in smart TVs. The context of its report:

Dumb comment?  Stay classy.  Is it any dumber than stating IHS claimed that Android is "winning" when that's clearly the author's slanted narrative?  These editorials would be much more informative if the author spent less time trying to be derogatory and more time clarifying his points; some of which are actually salient.  The editorials read as if a reasoned and rational adult is fighting with a teenage fanboy for time on the keyboard.  Far too often, the teen wins.  It's kind of fascinating in a watching a trainwreck sort of way. 

As the author points out in a round about way, Samsung has the largest and most lucrative share of the smart TV market.  That's why Apple chose Samsung.   They didn't choose Android because Google's flavor has a smaller share (10% vs 23%) of the smart TV market... even smaller than WebOS' 13%.  The various forks of Android also had smaller shares, so they weren't worth it either.  Apple chose the company that had the largest market share... just like @MAU47 correctly stated.  So not so dumb after all.

Rocwurst said:

1STnTENDERBITS said:

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.

Except, that 1 Billion Apple users using 1.4 billion active Apple devices ARE ALREADY signed up users with AppleIDs in Apple's ecosystem.  That is a big difference from billions of users who have a web browser that *might* sign up for Netflix.

The barrier of entry is significantly different - Apple users would merely click a button or two to enable AppleTV+ and in many cases their credit card details are already also on file as iTunes, App Store or iCloud paid users.  

Way back in Sept 2014, there were 885 million active iTunes/App Store users, all with credit card enabled accounts already set up with Apple.

All Netflix has is 149m existing users and a much higher bar for users to jump to even try out their services.

Where are you getting 1 billion users?  As I said to DED, there's nothing to back that claim.  1.4 billion devices divided by the average number of devices per person... yeah that ain't going to get you a billion users.  Back in 2016 when Apple had 1 billion active devices, the per customer device average was 1.7 (per Credit Suisse estimates).  That's 588 million.  Even if you use the same 2016 estimate of 1.7 devices per person against 1.4 billion devices, you still don't get a billion users.  I'd bet the device per person number is even higher now considering iPhones, iPads, iPods, Macs, ATV's, and Watches.  I'd be darn near shocked if the average Apple device per person isn't over 2.  Anecdotally, I have an MBP and an MBA.  Both my daughters have iPhones.  We have 4 iPads in our home.  That's 2.7 devices per person.  I'd bet your personal numbers would be even higher.  To achieve the billion users, the average device per person would have to go down from the 2016 estimate of 1.7.  Neither one of us believes that happened.  There is no realistic combination of numbers that net you a billion users.  ← That was my point to DED.  He equated more than a billion active devices with more than a billion users.  Can't do it.

Apple users aren't Borg.  There is no monolithic group think.  ATV+ would face the same issues as Netflix: convincing the user the service is worth subscription.  I'm not sure what barrier of entry you think Netflix has.  There is no much higher bar.  Signing up for the service it easy.  If ATV+ has a couple fewer clicks the significance seems pretty insignificant.  Content is going to be the driver, not "they already have my cc info".