78Bandit

GeorgeBMac said:

To me, this whole case involving the App Store is based on a lack of understanding:
-- If you look at the App Store as simply and strictly and only a market place then, YES! It is a monopoly.
-- If you realize that the App Store provides numerous services critical to well being of Apple, its products and its reputation, then you realize it is NOT a marketplace.

Allowing anybody to install anything on Apple products would make those products no more stable, reliable and secure than a Windows machine.   Apple's reputation for reliability, security and privacy depend on the App Store and, without it, both Apple and its developers will suffer immeasurable economic harm.  And, we the users will be deprived of a lone island of safety in sea of Googles and Microsofts.

"Frederick's arguments ignored Amazon's Android app store for Kindle devices, however, which functions in a similar manner to Apple's with Amazon's own vendor-locked hardware."

The biggest difference between iPhone and Kindle is that, unless something has changed recently, I can easily side-load apps onto my Kindle.  Sure, I have to click through the legal disclaimer screen to enable it, but it is allowed.  Unless you jailbreak iOS similar opportunities are not available on an Apple device.

Users would not be deprived of the "lone island of safety" as anyone wishing to remain in Apple's closed, sandboxed ecosystem would be free to do so.  If Apple's marketplace provides enough tangible benefit to justify the 30% commission then it will continue to thrive based on the individual merits.

The one thing I do like about Apple's app store is that I generally trust their review process to ensure malicious apps are weeded out.  However, I also believe the end user should have the ultimate decision if they want to install something that Apple hasn't given their blessing for.  If a developer wants to take responsibility for developing and distributing their apps and handling all the payment processes in order to bypass Apple's store then I think that should be an option.

flydog said:

applejeff said:

Since the devices are, as far as I understand, only listening to the satellites, not transmitting to them, why do they need FCC approval?

Because the FCC’s authority is not limited to “transmitting” and because even devices that are purely receivers emit radio frequency energy that can interfere with other devices. 

The article says the same band range is utilized for GPS so there wouldn't be any difference in the energy emitted by a GPS equipped receiver.  There's got to be some bureaucratic reason for the ban.

ericthehalfbee said:

Apple has issued guidance for this quarter at $89-93 billion.

How stupid are these analysts? Apple doesn’t miss guidance, so how are they going to achieve another record quarter for revenues without selling a boatload of iPhones? Are Mac sales going to double to 10 million this quarter? iPad sales doubling to 20 million?

If they think iPhone sales are declining sharply then they must also think Apple will miss their guidance by billions of dollars (not going to happen) OR that miraculously Apple will make up lost iPhone revenues somewhere else (also not going to happen).

It's not so much that iPhone sales are declining sharply. It is more that the anticipated bump in sales due to the release of the XR is in doubt. Expectations were high that the XR would sell well and consistently throughout the year.and now supply chain rumors have thrown doubt on that prediction. Given that services had been increasing at a 20% rate for the past few years it should account for almost $2B in additional revenue in Q1, Apple could see a decline in iPhone revenue of over $1B compared to last year and still meet the low end of their guidance. That's pretty much the point of the article. Investors and analysts are overly focused on the iPhone market maturing while services continues to grow at a much greater pace. Even if iPhone sales drop Apple is still in good shape as far as the future goes.

People will use what they want.  Surprise.  Maybe the companies will finally get it through their heads that "influencers" don't have all that much influence.  Ultimately it is the quality of the product that creates momentum in market penetration, not one of the Kardshian clan being seen with it.

Build a better product and more people will buy it.

StrangeDays said:

Love how you’re “disappointed” by the lack of an unneeded adapter for a device you would never actually purchase in a million years. What bullshit. 

While the use for the lightning to headphone adapter is getting less common, there are still a number of users who do indeed need one.  I don't have Bluetooth in my car but I do have an AUX port.  I will need an adapter.  I'm certainly willing to pay for it myself (under $20 from Amazon for the one with a charging port too), but don't assume just because you won't use something that nobody will.