Notsofast

Thank you for this critical update on this momentous tech issue.  Next teaser for Trump obsessed folks:  "Sources tell us DT uses screen protectors on his iPhone, but leaves air bubbles sometimes."  

deminsd said:

mfryd said:

I went to the Genius Bar a couple of months ago complaining of poor battery performance.  I told him I thought it was time to replace the batteries.   The Genius spent some time researching AirPods in his system.  He told me my only option was a service replacement at $69/each to replace the buds.  I asked if there was a lower price for just a battery swap, and was told "no,"  $138 to swap the ear pieces ($69/each) or $159 to buy new AirPods at retail.

For the $21 extra I ended up paying $159 and bought a new set.    

I am very annoyed that the Genius was unable to provide accurate information.  However, even at $49/each, I find it an appalling price to pay for  new batteries.  That's over 60% of the cost of a new unit for an expected, and normal, maintenance issue.  Replacing all three batteries at $49 each is over 90% of the cost of a new unit.

Apple really should be better at disclosing that these are intended to be disposable units with an approximately 2 year service life.   I suspect most buyers think they are buying something that lasts longer and can be serviced.
 

You're appalled because Apple normally charges a very reasonable "at cost" price for out of warranty repairs?  It seems just the opposite, with ANYTHING that Apple sells is neither reasonable or value.  So, it comes as no surprise that this price is not far off from just buying a new set.

Many people don't seem to have a good sense of business finance and economics.  Apple is not likely making money on the battery replacement.  There's more than the battery cost, which Apple has to not only purchase, pay to inventory, track, etc., but Apple has substantial labor costs to deal with the person brining in their AirPod, making the repair, and dealing with the pick up and payment, including paying a processing fee when you pay with a credit card, etc.  

This is just part of the mad race to pander to the far left among a field of far left politicians.  Stay tuned as they try and outdo each other.  It's astonishing that they think these and the other proposals are where the party's base is.  I guess time will tell if things have really gotten that crazy. 

Problem is that the media won't push her enough on it. You can see how antiseptic it would be if we had an unbiased group of journalists who asked tough objective questions and then pushed politicians to answer them, regardless of party. Here we see how Warren immediately started to fold on the question of what her proposal would do for security.  Other questions should include:  

"Why would any company in the future take the risks and spend billions developing the platforms if they can't benefit from them?  "

"If this is ruled Constitutional, and if the country swings toward governmental control of this degree, what else will she decide to break up? For example, Amazon has spent a couple decades and many billions of dollars building its platform where it gets massive data on consumers buying habits, etc., and where it promotes its products.  Will she order Amazon to sell its on line platform or stop selling products on it?

Will any journalists call her out on her grossly inaccurate comparison of actual monopolies like oil, etc., where consumers had to have the product and had no other options, to situations like the App store where you don't have to purchase an iPhone and if fact the vast majority of the world chooses one of the many other competitors phones; where Apple has only a few of the millions of apps, where the overwhelming majority of the revenue goes to someone other than Apple; where Apple's biggest competitors are able to push their products to the detriment of Apple, e.g., Google Maps, Amazon Kindle, Netflix, etc.?

flydog said:

Given the lack of enthusiasm in the developer community to embrace and incorporate Force Touch, AR, Files, multitasking, Apple Watch, etc into their apps, I don't see this gaining much traction. The problem is Apple generally dumps this stuff out there in hopes that developers will find a use case.   

You're talking about features; whereas this would be an entire new device. Two different worlds. If Apple is able to introduce AR headsets in an Apple way, e.g., nice design, great integration, high quality, etc., they will have a massive hit. Just in the gaming arena, the better analogy is the iPhone and gaming. In the iPhone, Apple figure out a way to have a great device for gaming and now the iPhone is the largest gaming device in the world and it brings in billions in revenue from the App store.

gatorguy said:

Notsofast said:

gatorguy said:

Notsofast said:

Spotify is in deep trouble as it has always paid among the worst for songwriters and artists,  almost half of what Apple Music pays out to artists. It finally crept above Amazon this past year.   That's why Apple is viewed most favorably by artists. Here's the latest on who pays what to artists.  (*Note, Napster is likely to go under)  **Also note how Google is hosing artists!!

Google Play Music at #4 is just one teeny percentage behind Apple Music @#3, .00676 compared to .00735 per stream. But Google is "hosing artists!!" while Apple isn't?
BTW, your source posted an update on those rates based on actual royalty reports the next month:
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/01/30/2018-streaming-music-price-bible/

Absolutely.  Youtube music is estimated to account for almost 50% of all music streaming.  From Forbes "YouTube is far and away the most popular option in the world when it comes to streaming music."

Really? I wouldn't have guessed it, but I also think Forbes is wrong. According to your own chart source doesn't it go on to claim Spotify and Apple Music as the largest ones?

FWIW YouTube royalties are paid out in an entirely different manner, generally as a percentage of the ads connected to it, and music that artists/labels don't want streamed is blocked at upload even if background sound within a video stream. Music artists don't rely on Youtube for an income anyway do they, instead use it mostly for promotional purposes with any pay for play a bonus IMHO. 

LOL.  Of course musicians don't relay on Youtube for income, Google pays by far the worst so they can't!  Let me guess, you use Youtube music to stream? How would you feel if your boss said they weren't going to pay you much, but don't worry, by working for a pittance, you'll get great "promotional" value.  And, you are wrong about how musicians are paid when their music is listened to on Youtube as every article points out.  There's a reason the musician's groups have battled Google in particular.

You should also search for information about streaming services. I'll get you going. 

"A full 47 percent of global music consumption is now happening on YouTube, according to a new report published by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The IFPI’s Music Consumer Insight Report 2018, which takes a look at the state of music consumption across the globe also found that more than half, 52 percent, of on-demand music streaming occurs over video."