mylovino

About

Username
mylovino
Joined
Visits
15
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
23
Badges
0
Posts
18
  • 'Ted Lasso' cast in 'mourning' as filming for third season wraps up

    Or….you give it another twist. Imagine Ted being called back to the US (I leave the reason to the writers getting paid 😉), and he pulls over some of the folks from his British team for whatever nice stuff the authors come up with. Sounds familiar? Right, Crocodile Dundee had that, but was fun nevertheless (at least to me old dinosaur 😅)
    watto_cobra
  • Netflix raising prices on all plans in the US and Canada

    docbburk said:
    Is it raising prices as new customer growth wanes, or potential customers deciding they didn’t want to even start a relationship with a company that hikes rates so fast?  Their moves to split current subscribers plans to sap state disc and download plans that would cost more, if they wanted both quickly followed by the increase in rates to cover the cost of streaming rights for Europe and other regions, was enough to turn me away.  Why on earth should US customers pay more so they can stream movies in Europe?  They should take out a loan, and let the European customers fees cover the cost of the rights.  Seems like they were putting a lot of the financial heavy lifting on the backs of the US customers, to artificially keep the prices low in Europe, to corner the European market as much as they can, then raise prices in Europe. Netflix, get a loan, don’t abuse your US customers. 
    Not sure where you get the info from, besides the fact that the way you formulate the allegation itself is sort of questionable. Anyway, I just googled and found right away a ranking of costs of 2021 on comparitech.com where the US was listed on position 11 (for the standard package), and all other 10 before that are European states. I leave it at that regarding the non fact based statement, not much more to say other than that I could argue the fact that actually digital US companies are not paying much tax outside the US while cashing in quite some revenue, something you may want to consider in the future before jumping on other nations outside the US.  

    But I agree at least to the fact that a constant price increase, likely to finance more and more blockbuster material with highly paid stars, which in terms on entertainment time is rather little compared to classical series material, is probably not the way to go, but I assume the market will sort this out as usual.
    StrangeDays
  • Judge in Epic v. Apple trial presses Tim Cook on App Store model, competition

    avon b7 said:
    mylovino said:
    There seems to me something wrong in so many ways with this whole farce that I struggle to start with something meaningful. Maybe a good one is the fundamental clash I personally see here between capitalism and ethics. Let‘s face it, the undercurrent of the whole questioning is if Apple is violating ethical behavior. Surprise, capitalism just allows for only so much ethics, otherwise we would have very different laws i. the western world. Epic is among the ones who should be challenged to begin with, extracting money from gamers in so many questionable ways - from a pure ethical PoV to be clear. Do I like everything Apple is doing? No! Do I think a 30% cut is fair? Not really. But let‘s face it, Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.

    Apple certainly runs a thin line here, but to set an example with the current challenger is just wrong. Alternatives are there, so no real monopoly in sight, and the players are really on eye-level when it comes to ethics, each with different weak spots in this arena. To punish Apple just for them being so successful also seems not right. And look at nature, just because the shark is one of the most successful hunters on this planet it still has a symbiosis with the pilot fish. If one of them tries to change the rules of the symbiosis it would likely cause it to break ;-)
    But what does the old saying say: having right and getting right are two very different things, and in my experience this is most true in front of the court of law :-o
    I think you're missing the main point here.

    I doubt there would be the slightest problem if Apple's ecosystem were entirely self contained.

    The problem is that it isn't self contained. 

    On top of that, it depends on outside developers. Without them the platform could still exist but likely in a vastly different manner. 

    When you have a billion dollar bridge leading in and out of your ecosystem, new rules apply. You may get away with falling under the radar but as you go and industry changes you run the risk of being investigated. 

    Of course they wouldn't apply only to Apple, but to anyone in a similar situation assuming things don't go Apple's way.

    Those rules can't be set by the gatekeepers to the ecosystems. The rules currently require competition. 

    There are several investigations currently in process to determine precisely if competition and consumers are being harmed. Some have already deemed competition has been impacted and consumers have been harmed.

    I see a few ways Apple could avoid these problems and all of them would probably be considered just fine by many posting here but none of them would be fine for Apple. Of that I am sure. That is telling. 

    As are many of the comments and emails that have emerged as a result of the this particular trial. 

    I definitely haven't been convinced by anything I've seen so far (although admittedly I haven't really been following all the proceedings). 

    Logically Apple is trying to show things in a different light but I have yet to see anything that really makes me think, 'they have point there'. 
    I think you got me wrong here ;-) - Apple is for sure using all its power to max top and bottom line, and certainly there is a lot negative to say about it. But at the end its a choice I as consumer make, and Epic is not a pin better than Apple in this game. If there is anybody out there seriously believing that this trial is about the greater good, please dream on! I have ample opportunity as consumer, and do not tell me that there is one premium business out there that is not using similar mechanisms. That’s what I meant with rules in need to change, any car, and media device, every service would need to offer a similarly self-contained environment…but guess what, if you temper with any other device, and do not get distracted by the fact that we discuss software here, you lose any warranty. Apple is just so on top of doing it that the spotlight is naturally on them.

    So if it would be David vs. Goliath here I would have more sympathy for David, but in this case I just can’t find a lot of positive vibes for Epic impersonating David. But hey, I am not here to fight for sympathies for one party or the other, everybody has the right to like one player more than the other ;-)

    elijahg
  • Judge in Epic v. Apple trial presses Tim Cook on App Store model, competition

    There seems to me something wrong in so many ways with this whole farce that I struggle to start with something meaningful. Maybe a good one is the fundamental clash I personally see here between capitalism and ethics. Let‘s face it, the undercurrent of the whole questioning is if Apple is violating ethical behavior. Surprise, capitalism just allows for only so much ethics, otherwise we would have very different laws i. the western world. Epic is among the ones who should be challenged to begin with, extracting money from gamers in so many questionable ways - from a pure ethical PoV to be clear. Do I like everything Apple is doing? No! Do I think a 30% cut is fair? Not really. But let‘s face it, Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.

    Apple certainly runs a thin line here, but to set an example with the current challenger is just wrong. Alternatives are there, so no real monopoly in sight, and the players are really on eye-level when it comes to ethics, each with different weak spots in this arena. To punish Apple just for them being so successful also seems not right. And look at nature, just because the shark is one of the most successful hunters on this planet it still has a symbiosis with the pilot fish. If one of them tries to change the rules of the symbiosis it would likely cause it to break ;-)
    But what does the old saying say: having right and getting right are two very different things, and in my experience this is most true in front of the court of law :-o
    watto_cobra
  • Apple must face lawsuit alleging that 'buying' media on iTunes is misleading

    DoomFreak said:
    Apple is full of crap.  It is very misleading to tell users they can purchase something with a "Buy" button and then suggest that they do not own it.  I think they would get a lot less money , if they had a "Use for an unknown amount of time" button.

    They know people think they are buying it.  Purely deceptive.
    mmmmh...though I understand (and actually share) the frustration, I also believe it is out of line to again shoot only at Apple. E.g. I can also not accept that Amazon’s Kindle content follows a similar logic, as actually most of the digital content. Part of the problem might also be the owners of the content itself, they still seem to ignore the lessons from the initial music issue after MP3 saw the light of day.

    So looking forward to the decision of the court here...just pleeeeeease stop being so one-sited, it is essentially an general industry issue, not Apple specific 🙏
    dysamoriaviclauyycwatto_cobra