Abalos65
About
- Username
- Abalos65
- Joined
- Visits
- 13
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 100
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 64
Reactions
-
Why Apple's guidance correction is causing less panic versus 2019
This editorial seems to have little to do with the question in the title of this editorial. "They became aware Apple is great". I mean, really, that is all? And no, linking to your own editorials is not a source to substantiate that.
The rest is just mindless fanboy venting on the bad bad media, not remotely related to Apples altered guidance or the reaction on the stock market, as is typical for DED editorials. It could have been copy pasted from any of his editorials. I mean, what has the Galaxy Z Flip to do with this current situation for example? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Oh, and if I had to answer the question in the title; there is less panic because this was expected to happen, is not happening to Apple alone and most importantly is not caused by a lack of demand as was the case last year. That last one is more reason to panic as investor. This current setback in the Chinese market and supply issues is known to be temporary.
And you were wrong about Apple's supply chain being prepared for the coronavirus, not more so than other companies. Are you willing to admit that?
-
Editorial: Why Apple's first port of the new TV app isn't to Android, but to Samsung's ant...
But just below that you mention that this 40% isn't totally relevant, as the official Android TV only has 10% market share, with the majority of this 40% being customized versions of Android (most likely without a central App Store or even the same API's). I agree with that. But than the point of MAU47 still stands, Android TV is third according to market share, so an app for this platform doesn't have the highest priority.corrections said:
-
Editorial: Another F for Alphabet: Google's Android Wear OS still 'half baked' after five ...
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.corrections said:
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.Abalos65 said:While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch.
The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/05/14/editorial-when-apple-is-2-years-behind-you-put-your-things-in-order
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
-
Spotify says Apple a 'monopolist' in escalating war of words
The reason for the complaint is that the only option for Spotify is paying the 30% when new users want to subscribe on iOS while making no reference to the possibility of other places where one could subscribe. So potential new paying users for Spotify on iOS would have to pay $13 to compensate for the 30%, and make no mention on the possibility of signing up on the web. As you said, the IAP subscription is removed, however Spotify is still not allowed to mention where to sign up, people have to figure this out for themselves. This while Apple Music can be bought for $10 per month. So people using predominantly an iOS device as their main computing device are more likely to subscribe to Apple music given the rules Apple has set up.ihatescreennames said:
I didn’t realize Spotify no longer offers in-app subscriptions. I was under the impression that was what their complaint was around and having to give up 30%. If that is no longer the case are they complaining about only those customers who initially signed up through IAP and they continue to pay 30% on?Spotify did offer in-app subscriptions at one point, but charged more to compensate for Apple's take, and ultimately decided to scrap the option. Another complaint developers have had is that they're not allowed to direct people to Web-based purchase options, which means Spotify subscribers have to learn elsewhere about how to unlock a Premium plan.
Also, if they no longer pay that 30% on new subscribers what is their complaint over unfairness re: Apple Music? -
Highly suspect benchmarks stoke rumors of Apple-designed ARM chips for Mac
franco borgo said:
I agree. I know that for Linux, we will probably have it soon after losing intel CPU, but losing Windows compatibility will hurt many people.
Yes, this will be important for certain users. Although Windows 10 can already be run on ARM with x86 emulation for programs not recompiled, maybe it would be possible to bootcamp with this version of Windows 10.
