- Last Active
gatorguy said:badmonk said:If the Music industry is upset with Apple they can always negotiate deals with Spotify, Amazon and Alphabet. We can see how that works out for them.
Suddenly, they were faced with the threat of piracy. Rather than analyse the situation and determine WHY people were downloading electronic versions of (in most cases) individual songs, and maybe figuring out that unbundling songs from albums was an untapped market demand that could now be fulfilled cheaply enough to justify a shift in production, they stuck to their existing model and tried to pursue the pirates through the legal system.
Then Apple, which had taken the time to analyse the situation, appeared with an offer that would allow the music publishers to mitigate the piracy threat and keep the revenue flowing. The solution offered (a) a relatively low transition cost and (b) a large portion of their customers would buy downloadable versions of songs/albums they already owned. The music publishers were cautious but quickly acquiesced.
Here we are fifteen years later. Rather than analyse the market and build their own infrastructure, the music publishers have simply continued with the outsourced solution that minimised their hassle back when it mattered, and largely failed to improve the situation for the creators and the consumers. They are not seeking new ways to add value. Contrast that with what the tech companies are doing, and you'll see why the tech companies are succeeding.
The music industry grew huge and fat on the back of the content creators, taking advantage of the power imbalance that consumer demand gave them, and chose to operate in the same manner for decades. The chickens have come home to roost and I shed no tears. If the publishers and promoters want to regain power in the market, they need to do the work to give consumers and creators what they want, finding a balance that all parties can live with.
So maybe Social Tech is only filing this lawsuit to provide evidence later on that they acted to protect their trademark? There seems to be something in US law that requires protective action to be taken regarding branding IP in order to continue to receive protection. I remember that a few years back Apple was taking action against the Woolworths brand in Australia based on a _really_ broad similarity between the company logos. (See https://woolworths.com.au for an example, the logo is a "w" character stylised to look like a green apple)
sirozha said:How would you know that? How do you know if the extended lead time is due to an increased demand or due to a lower inventory?sacto joe said:sirozha said:randominternetperson said:First, I wouldn't put much weight in this type of analysis.
However, isn't their conclusion exactly backwards using their own logic?However, while the iPhone 11's lead time is relatively lower than the iPhone 11 Pro range, it reported six days for the first week and 12 days in the second week. The doubling of the lead time "implies to us increased interest in the 'lower end' model that initially anticipated by Apple and the supply chain," writes JP Morgan.
Think that through. There is a longer lead time for the Pro and Pro Max than the non-Pro model. In other words, demand is outstripping supply more for the high end models than the "low end" non-Pro model. Doesn't that imply that there is increased interest in the "higher end" models?
Yet AI says:The increase in lead times for the iPhone 11 suggests demand for the new iPhone models is higher than the supply chain anticipated, according to JP Morgan, with the lead time growth for the value-based model seemingly indicating consumers are not focusing their purchases on the higher-end models as was previously predicted.
So the reason for the increased demand lies elsewhere, not reduced production capacity. Nice try, no cigar.....
AI have reported that the way Apple accounts for services changed at some point in the last two years (maybe in the previous financial year?) and that the cost of services is now part of the services grouping and not tied to the hardware any more. I wouldn't say it's abnormal, but it's not how Apple have done things in the recent past.ScottNY71 said:
Then look at what they wrote: "we do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results."
That callout could be taken as an admission that the accounting treatment will be something that’s not exactly normal, giving credence to and making analysts pay more attention to what the Goldman analyst said, which will make them understand it more before they’re forced to digest it and come out with an opinion on it within a day or two when Apple announces. And the media have even less time because they have to report on it immediately.
What Goldman did, which I think was in partnership with Apple, was a brilliant PR maneuver.
From what I can tell, the GS analyst was essentially saying "people are idiots who don't pay attention, and they'll get spooked" - which, from my point of view, is spot on. His claim of the share price dipping was proven correct, and Apple's rebuttal has hopefully turned this into a short-term blip.
If it was planned by Apple & GS then I agree it was a brilliant manoeuvre. It may also fall under the umbrella of market manipulation although I think as long as any executives from either company avoided trading the stock for the period in question the regulators will treat it as a "no harm, no foul" scenario.