bells

About

Username
bells
Joined
Visits
37
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
370
Badges
1
Posts
122
  • Artists claim Apple pays in goods instead of cash for Today at Apple sessions

    DAalseth said:
    It isn't an Apple problem. Talk to a lot of artists, musicians, designers, and such and you'll find that nobody wants to pay them for their work. Apple wouldn't try this if they needed an electrician, or someone to fix the roof, or replace a window. Why do so may people think merch and "exposure" is all an artist needs for all their training and hard work. "Exposure" wont put food on the table or keep a roof over your head. Do you think Apple pays its own designers with an AppleWatch 3? Then why would they do this for an artist they brought in for an event at their stores?
    I don’t know. Maybe because plumbers and electricians are professionals that Apple is forced to hire when the need arises and these professionals get what the market bears. They don’t need exposure. Artists coming to the Apple store are amateurs and they also get what the market bears. If they didn’t want to do the Apple store gig they wouldn’t. There are plenty of clubs where performers play for nothing other than exposure. Here they are at least recieving product. Apple also doesn’t need their services just desires them.
    pscooter63
  • Artists claim Apple pays in goods instead of cash for Today at Apple sessions

    seems like another AppleInsider made up controversy. It is really light on details concerning who is complaining. Further the artists agreed to do something for what they got. No controversy. 
    danh
  • Elizabeth Warren confirms Apple is on her big tech breakup list

    Democrat here. She'd never get my vote...Apple hater.
    I’m a democrat as well and she would get my vote if she was the nominee but not at the primary. Her view makes more sense for companies like ATT and Comcast not Apple. It is wacky one company can be both an internet service provider and own the content. In many areas ATT and Comcast are abusive monopolies. 

    Apple is not a monopoly and it build the App Store concept from the ground up. I don’t always like how it polices the store but I could switch to another phone if it mattered that much. 

    Google and Facebook and Amazon have different issues. They often use their monopoly status in one area to push a new product in a new area at the expense of fair competition and to the detriment of consumers. 




    LordeHawkwatto_cobrabaconstangdavgreg
  • Elizabeth Warren confirms Apple is on her big tech breakup list

    Getting bold these Lefties. 
    First set of naming calling. Don’t address the argument just throw out a label.
    montrosemacschiabaconstangdavgreg
  • FTC opens task force to keep tabs on competition in US tech market


    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    Note: Google takes 45% of the ad revenue on YouTube.
    A fair bit different than Apple and Google taking a 30% cut of independent apps in their storefronts, but still a good mention that some aren't aware of. 
    This is popcorn being eaten in Apple’s Theater.  As far as I’m aware only Apple devices run iOS, and iOS does NOT belong to you, the consumer.  It’s licensed, and therefore remains Apple’s property.  And so that means that all the APIs apps call to interact with the hardware are Apple’s property.  So every app that does anything under iOS is constantly making use of Apple’s APIs, and if Apple chose to make such an argument, they could well make a strong argument that it’s not merely the App Store (and its marketing power) and not merely the purchase transaction, that constitutes justification for its 30% cut, but also the ongoing development and maintainanve of iOS and it’s APIs, which provide the secure, privacy protecting, smoothly functioning and stable platform upon which those apps run.  

    Like when you buy food at the movie theater consession stand, there’s both an extra cost versus the same food you could buy outside and also a prohibition on bring in and consuming food from outside while attending a movie on the theater’s property.  iOS is Apple’s property.  The videos you watch, via YouTube or any other source, and the apps and media you run, are all being run via calls to Apple’s API’s.  This is also true for Windows, et al; the fact those other OS vendors chose not to prohibit externally sourced apps does not argue that Apple has no right to do so.  It’s how they maintain a superior experience.  It may not be possible to do so if they didn’t lock it down as they do.  Witness Android... 
    The food you eat at the cinema has no bearing on the reason you are there - the film.

    You can watch the film without eating anything.

    You cannot use an iDevice without iOS.

    The two are intrinsically connected and this raises questions. The App Store is currently winding its way through the US system to decide if it constitutes some kind of abusive/uncompetitive system.

    I believe that the EU is also reviewing different aspects of digital platforms.

    I will add that it is completely legal to take your own food to the cinema in Spain and all of the cases that have been to court on this subject have come down on the side of the consumer. Cinemas still try to ban you from taking your own food hoping that you won't bother to make a formal claim. Fines against cinemas can be as high as 6,000€ when they do go to court.

    The logic behind this is simple. Food and beverages are not the prime activity of the business and not allowing you the option of taking your own food allows for abusive practices as there is no competition.

    If the cinema (or theatre or whatever) in question does not offer food or beverages, then you cannot take your own.

    If the main activity of business is food and beverages, you cannot take your own either.

    Social media is proving to be a problem for cinemas on this issue. In one well known case someone opted to take the Burger King menu into the cinema but the cinema refused to let the person in with it. He agreed to dump it but demanded a complaint form (a government form that all establishments must have). The cinema people continued to argue their case but the client just said he would file the complaint and see what the final ruling was. He proceeded to see the film.

    On leaving, he was met by cinema staff offering to cover the cost of his meal but in exchange for withdrawing the formal complaint. He refused and eventually won the case and thanks to Twitter it did the rounds on social media.





    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    Note: Google takes 45% of the ad revenue on YouTube.
    A fair bit different than Apple and Google taking a 30% cut of independent apps in their storefronts, but still a good mention that some aren't aware of. 
    This is popcorn being eaten in Apple’s Theater.  As far as I’m aware only Apple devices run iOS, and iOS does NOT belong to you, the consumer.  It’s licensed, and therefore remains Apple’s property.  And so that means that all the APIs apps call to interact with the hardware are Apple’s property.  So every app that does anything under iOS is constantly making use of Apple’s APIs, and if Apple chose to make such an argument, they could well make a strong argument that it’s not merely the App Store (and its marketing power) and not merely the purchase transaction, that constitutes justification for its 30% cut, but also the ongoing development and maintainanve of iOS and it’s APIs, which provide the secure, privacy protecting, smoothly functioning and stable platform upon which those apps run.  

    Like when you buy food at the movie theater consession stand, there’s both an extra cost versus the same food you could buy outside and also a prohibition on bring in and consuming food from outside while attending a movie on the theater’s property.  iOS is Apple’s property.  The videos you watch, via YouTube or any other source, and the apps and media you run, are all being run via calls to Apple’s API’s.  This is also true for Windows, et al; the fact those other OS vendors chose not to prohibit externally sourced apps does not argue that Apple has no right to do so.  It’s how they maintain a superior experience.  It may not be possible to do so if they didn’t lock it down as they do.  Witness Android... 
    The food you eat at the cinema has no bearing on the reason you are there - the film.

    You can watch the film without eating anything.

    You cannot use an iDevice without iOS 



    Yes but you can use iOS without the App Store much like you can go to the movies without buying food. I bought a phone primarily to call people, text, read my email, and surf the internet. I can do all of this without the App Store which is just a bonus. The original iPhone didn’t even have an App Store. 
    watto_cobra