narwhal

Well, I had Tiles for a couple years -- but they were expensive and not great. Seemed nobody was running the Tile app, so your lost stuff stayed lost. I bought a bunch of Apple's AirTags when they came out and they work better and are cheaper. Tile and now Life360 are a business with no future. And to hear that Life360 sells customer data -- they've slit their own throat.

I get that Epic doesn't like to pay 30% commission to Apple, but Amazon and Netflix didn't want to either and they found a solution that works for them. I'm thinking Epic would be better off negotiating with Google and Apple, not suing them. Make some money while their product is hot. By the time the Epic trial is over, they may not have a product anyone wants. Or more likely they'll get bought out by someone, someone who doesn't want to participate in a multi-year lawsuit.

As for Spotify, I think they have a case. Since Apple competes in music streaming, Spotify should NOT be charged a commission. It gives Apple an unfair advantage. Same with other categories. If the host OS competes, they need to eliminate commissions for competitors in that product category. Probably should do the same for video streaming and audiobooks. Apple's not making money from Netflix and Audible anyway.

williamlondon said:

narwhal said:

They were smart to bail from Apple, and California employment laws prevent Apple from doing much about it.

Why? And what do California's labor laws have to do with it?

California Business and Professions Code Section 16600: “Every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

Non-compete contacts aren't enforceable in California.

Given how short-lived the Nuvia company was, I'm guessing they always planned for a quick buyout and payday from any of Qualcomm, Microsoft, Samsung, or Google. Impeccable resumés and exactly the ARM chip expertise those companies want. They were smart to bail from Apple, and California employment laws prevent Apple from doing much about it.

danox said:

Is Microsoft desperate enough to have the (full version of Windows) run native on a Qualcomm owned product? Will others want to have anything to do with Qualcomm when they can roll their own chip and avoid a FRAND Qualcomm scenario? Qualcomm is worse than Intel in that respect.

I don’t know how much Microsoft wants to invest, but if Qualcomm can produce a decent PC chip, Microsoft might want to buy them out. That way it would own a piece of the cell phone market, and increase its control of the PC market.

It would be great if Qualcomm could approach M1 parity within 9 months. Competition helps Apple focus, Microsoft might fully embrace WOA, Qualcomm might create a profitable new business unit. Only losers in this scenario are Intel and AMD.

Having said that, Qualcomm has its work cut out for it. They have good former Apple engineers, but will their M1 equivalent be ready next year? If Qualcomm delays, will Microsoft kneecap them by releasing Windows for Apple Silicon? Apple was forced into an agreement with Qualcomm for modems due to Intel not delivering 5G. Might Microsoft be forced into Apple's ARMs if Qualcomm can't deliver a good PC chip? Windows loyalists won't be pleased if Mac benchmarks smoke even Windows on Xeon benchmarks next year.

Intel's chips are the most expensive component of a PC. Apple likely has more pricing flexibility now than its PC hardware competitors. It's not inconceivable that Apple could markedly increase its PC marketshare this decade if Microsoft's and Qualcomm's ducks don't align. (or something like that)