CloudTalkin

Apple awards iPhone glass maker Corning a further $45 million

May 2021

fred1 said:

How about buying Corning outright?

That would be a terribly terrible idea. Corning's product mix is incongruent with Apple's products. Apple doesn't do manufacturing because it makes no financial sense for them. Manufacturing at the scale we're discussing only makes sense at extremely high volumes. That means manufacturing for as many customers as possible. Apple making glass for Apple wouldn't reach that type of volume. The hypothetical Apple Glass company wouldn't be manufacturing glass for everyone else so their costs would be astronomical... consequently so would yours.

Never say never, but Apple is never getting into manufacturing. There's no business case that makes any sense for them to ever do it. Just like there's no business case for Apple buying Corning. Their current relationship is optimal as is.

More importantly, Samsung has an ownership stake in Corning.

Apple managers were conflicted over App Store ads before launch

CloudTalkin

May 2021

dewme said:

At least we can turn these ads off in Settings

I don't think that's right. Afaik, there is no way to turn off ads. I'm actually 100% sure you can't turn off ads. There are now two types of ad slots in the App Store. Search query ad slot that appears when you search for something. Suggested ad slot appears before you even make a query. You can not turn off either of these ad slots. You're going to get ads. No way around that.

What you can turn off is Target Advertising. Ads based on data mined info. The ads would then no longer be based on your info, but you'd still get ads. Again, no way around that. Separately, go turn of Location based ads. They aren't covered under the rules of targeted advertising.

Apple's Eddy Cue wanted to bring iMessage to Android as early as 2013

CloudTalkin

April 2021

Beats said:

So Apple is obligated to give their software away now?
Someone mentioned car engines. Great analogy. Apple isn’t obligated to support iKnockoffs any more than McDonalds is obligated to offer their hamburgers(for free) at Burger King. These arguments have no logic.

And my goodness these are the absolute worse replies in AI history.

I don’t know where to begin.

InspiredCode said:

I agree with Eddy Cur on this one. The view that Apple VPs didn’t think Apple devices could stand on their own against Android if Apple made cross-platform communication better is pretty paranoid. At least Apple seems to be moving away from this point of view with their services push taking a higher priority. If anything messages could have been a gateway in to a subscription Facebook alternative which is something everyone wants.

Android is a knockoff Apple platform with knockoff hardware to compliment it. Exclusive software and features like privacy are the only way Apple can differentiate now.

I always thought Apple could sell a subscription for knockoff iPhones/knockoff iPads at $.99/month for both FaceTime and iMessage. This would pay development, patent trolls, lawsuits(androids crappy security) etc.

CloudTalkin said:

DangDave said:

Thankfully Apple did not pursue an Android version of iMessage as Apple would then have had to host the chat services and maintain the software compatibility for hundreds of Android versions for multiple cell phone providers and carriers as they came and went. Although it did not incorporate interoperability between carriers or other providers, iMessage was based on the early specifications of RCS (aka chat) that began in 2007 and were adopted by the GSM in 2008. RCS continues to be a mixed bag of success and failures around the world. Last month Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile abandoned their cooperative interoperable RCS effort when they realized that Google has stepped up to host or dominate RCS for the Android crowd.

Apple's iMessage app would not have had to maintain software compatibility with hundreds of Android versions. No app in the Play Store has to do that. Where'd you even get an idea like that? The iMessage app would have been hosted on the Play Store. Any handset manufacturer that uses the Play Store would have had compatibility regardless of their skin of Android. iMessage would have been an app just like any other.

COMPLETE BULL**IT.

One of the biggest complaints about android is having to develop for thousands of knockoff iPhones.

Can someone post the Vine where a developer shows off knockoff iPads/knockoff iPhones all reacting differently to a compass on a flat table?? That was FRUSTRATING!!

I’m gonna stop here because most of the replies don’t make sense. Like the theory that Apple giving away their apps for free would
magically make people buy iPhones. No, iTunes on Windows doesn’t count because it didn’t run on knockoff iPods from Microsoft. Even when Zune came out years later it was somewhat original and not a knockoff. Copying? Yes but not a ripoff like android is.

Breathe dude. It's a forum discussion, not combat. That ↑↑↑ is sorta unhinged.
1. No one is saying Apple is obligated to give away software. You made that up. The article discussed Cue's desire to have iMessage on Android. When you say these arguments have not logic, you're 100% right. The analogies you're referencing have no logic.
2. Your knowledge of Android and Android development is severely outdated. The equally outdated Vine reference reinforces that opinion.

Apple's Eddy Cue wanted to bring iMessage to Android as early as 2013

CloudTalkin

April 2021

DangDave said:

Thankfully Apple did not pursue an Android version of iMessage as Apple would then have had to host the chat services and maintain the software compatibility for hundreds of Android versions for multiple cell phone providers and carriers as they came and went. Although it did not incorporate interoperability between carriers or other providers, iMessage was based on the early specifications of RCS (aka chat) that began in 2007 and were adopted by the GSM in 2008. RCS continues to be a mixed bag of success and failures around the world. Last month Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile abandoned their cooperative interoperable RCS effort when they realized that Google has stepped up to host or dominate RCS for the Android crowd.

Apple's iMessage app would not have had to maintain software compatibility with hundreds of Android versions. No app in the Play Store has to do that. Where'd you even get an idea like that? The iMessage app would have been hosted on the Play Store. Any handset manufacturer that uses the Play Store would have had compatibility regardless of their skin of Android. iMessage would have been an app just like any other.

Apple reiterates it has no plans to merge iPad and Mac

CloudTalkin

April 2021

spheric said:

CloudTalkin said:

I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing.

Typical would imply that it's a regular thing. I recall video on iPod and music subscription services as two cases in the last twenty years. That's pretty much it, though.

And Apple were right about both: video on iPod sucked, and music subscription is a really, really shitty idea. But that ship has sailed.

You're absolutely correct. Typical would imply regularity. Anyone remotely familiar with Apple's history knows exactly what I'm talking about.
The App Store. We don't need 3rd party apps running on iPhones. Devs can write Web 2.0 and Ajax apps. No SDK needed.! - beep bop boop - App Store.
NFC - We don't think the tech solves any problems. We're going to offer Passbook with QR codes and stuff. beep bop boop - NFC on iPhones.
Small tablets - 10" tablet is the minimum for size for great tablet apps. - beep bop boop - iPad Mini
Large phone - You can't get your hand around it. No one's going to buy it - beep bop boop - big ass iPhones
OLED displays - They're awful - beep bop boop - OLED everywhere

There's more, but I'm fairly sure you get the point I was making by now. It's typical of Apple to say no or deny a thing right up until they release their version of the thing.