Notsofast

GE was undoubtedly also inspired by the tremendous cost savings that IBM documented,  $535 per device over a four year

period.https://www.computerworld.com/article/3131906/apple-mac/ibm-says-macs-are-even-cheaper-to-run-than-it-thought.html

Send them this:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3131906/apple-mac/ibm-says-macs-are-even-cheaper-to-run-than-it-thought.html

"IBM today told the record-setting seventh Jamf Nation User Conference that it is saving even more money by deploying Macs across the company than it thought: each Mac deployment saves the company up to $535 over four years, in contrast to the $270 per Mac it claimed last year.

That’s a hugely significant statistic for any Mac user and follows extensive use of the platform by IBM. IBM VP of Workplace as a Service, Fletcher Previn, told the conference that 90,000 employees are now using Macs, up from 30,000 in 2015. 100,000 of IBM’s global workforce will be using Macs by the end of the year, he said, and the number is climbing.

There are lots of reasons for this, not least that better OS software means Apple needs to update its systems far less often than Microsoft updates Windows. "We have to go out and manage the Mac environment 104 fewer times a year than PC,” Previn said."

Thank you for including the link to "why are Apple transit directions rolling out so slowly?"   It should be included with every update as it is the best piece on the web that explains in detail why Apple doesn't simply turn on every country at once by just importing 3rd party data like Google did, and why it is a much better approach.

Not so fast.  Amazon has made a major mistake by pushing so prominently into major brick and mortar move with Whole Foods.  It has awakened people to the less than ethical aspects of what they are doing to destroy competitors. I support free market capitalism as it is designed to produce greatest benefit, but at some point, there is going to need to be a need for reexamination of anti-trust law where you have group of venture capitalists fund a company to run at a loss for many years as it gobbles up and destroys competition. When profit/loss is no longer important there is something wrong. 

As for the controversial "discount" Amazon advertises, in many cases it is downright absurd, e.g., "216%," but often it is inarguably a price that no one is selling at, and would fail many states consumer fraud laws .    Amazon needs to fear also a consortium of states going after its advertising of false prices practice. 

london11 said:

I’m always a little surprised when I read any news about Tidal. I don’t know a single person who has used Tidal past the trial period.  It’s very difficult to convince someone currently using Apple or Spotify to jump ship and I think the part ownership by celebrities is a good niche to have but they should be using the “hifi”of their sound quality as their USP but at the same price as everyone else, ie. $9.99/£9.99 and compete that way.   

That might actually convince me to give Tidal another go, especially if they also worked on their iOS and Mac apps (aesthetics mainly).

Problem is that most people can't hear a difference, certainly not on the devices that the vast majority of people use to listen to music, so it's a poor business model to assume people are going to fork out another $10 a month for "hi-fi" sound.  That said, I anticipate that when the HomePod is ready for sale, Apple will announce a small additional monthly fee of $1.99 or such for listening to enhanced tracks as yet another inducement to switch to Apple Music and to celebrate the fantastic sound of the HomePod. But for Sprint's desperate investment, Tidal might be down and out already, but when AM offers a low price enhanced stream, they will be doomed.  Tidal is desperate to be bought out, but with music streaming now largely a commoditized product, there is really no reason for anyone to buy them.