techconc

Beyond the technology in this proposition, I have to wonder about the business model.  Apple is apparently receiving billions of dollars from Google to use their search engine by default.  Why would Apple want to stop that revenue stream?  Further, does Apple really want to get into the advertising business?  One of the reasons we trust Apple today is precisely because their business model doesn't depend on them harvesting our information to monetize with advertisers as Google does.   The alternative is to have an unpaid service like Maps, but not only would that cost money to run such a service, but Apple would be losing revenue from Google in the process.  None of this makes much sense to me from a business model perspective. 

wood1208 said:

Mr. Tim Sweeney, don't be hypocrite. You are not fighting for unjust but your own interest. So, shut up, Make your own App Store and stick your App there. Make your own phone or console so you don't have to deal with IOS or Android platform. 

That's not the only reason he's a hypocrite.  Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all have the same deal on their consoles, yet he's content with that.  Somehow, the rules are different for them than they are Apple and Google.  

BGnATC said:

Can anyone verify whether the CBS component is the commercial-free version or not?

Thanks!

Yes, it appears to be the commercial-free version.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/08/apple-tv-plus-subscribers-get-cbs-all-access-and-showtime-bundle-at-a-great-value/

"By subscribing through Apple TV channels, customers can watch content from all three services online and offline, ad-free and on demand, only on the Apple TV app. Through Family Sharing, up to six family members can share the subscriptions to Apple TV+, CBS All Access, and SHOWTIME using just their personal Apple ID and password."

He reportedly said that a watch's 300 x 300 pixels would require around 300,000 micro LEDs.

I'm not sure how that math works...  MicroLED uses one led per pixel.  300 x 300 = 90,000.   Okay, maybe if they use separate red, green and blue leds to form the sub-pixels it would come to 270,000.

linuxplatform said:

This may come as a shock to you but Microsoft is the dominant force in PC computing. They are not in a position to where they have to respond to anything that Apple does until Apple's marketshare like triples. It would be great for someone to come up with a competitive alternative to Apple's offerings ... let me state this again. Microsoft has 90% of the market. Because of software compatibility and other issues, they have no reason to believe that ARM-based Macs are going to lead to this massive shift. Apple designing its own desktop chips is a huge deal to the Apple fandom but outside of that nobody cares, just like most people really don't care about Intel vs AMD on the Intel side.

Realistically, both Apple and Microsoft have approximately 1.5 billion active computing devices.  Android has 2.5 billion.  When you speak of PC's specifically, yes, Microsoft has more, but realistically with out people use their computing devices, that distinction is largely irrelevant.  For that matter, most PCs sold are the low end variety that could easily be replaced by a tablet, etc.  The last numbers I saw said Apple has over 90% market share of higher end PCs costing >$1000 USD.  Also, if you're comparing CPU designs, it's something like 4 billion ARM based active devices vs. 1.5 billion Intel based devices.  That should give you an idea why more R&D is being put into ARM based designs.  The "Wintel" market is still very large, but becoming increasing less significant each year... especially as we move to the cloud (where MS does quite well) and business apps are not designed for any particular platform anymore.