ArchStanton

Rayz2016 said:

ArchStanton said:

Rayz2016 said:

Hah! I said:

The more I read about this, the more ridiculous it sounds. 
Apple spends the past three years banging on about privacy, then starts scanning your photo library?
I don’t buy it, and no one would buy another iPhone if they thought their lives could be ruined by buggy software. 
The only way I see this being acceptable is if this so-called “client-side tool” would allow parents to ensure their children weren’t sending naked pics of themselves to Republican politicians posing as high-school kids. 

Okay, so this is about the kids, fair enough, but I think what we’re seeing here is the very thin edge of very wide edge. 

Thing edge to a very wide edge? How so?

Yeah, sorry, I meant “very wide wedge”. 

But what is the very wide wedge? What do you suspect this change by Apple potentially leads to?

Rayz2016 said:

Hah! I said:

The more I read about this, the more ridiculous it sounds. 
Apple spends the past three years banging on about privacy, then starts scanning your photo library?
I don’t buy it, and no one would buy another iPhone if they thought their lives could be ruined by buggy software. 
The only way I see this being acceptable is if this so-called “client-side tool” would allow parents to ensure their children weren’t sending naked pics of themselves to Republican politicians posing as high-school kids. 

Okay, so this is about the kids, fair enough, but I think what we’re seeing here is the very thin edge of very wide edge. 

Thing edge to a very wide edge? How so?

elijahg said:

ArchStanton said:

neverindoubt said:

Apparently, there is a limit as to how much cash Apple will incinerate on AppleTV+.

Too bad Apple doesn't parse the services revenue line item. It would be interesting to see how much cash they're burning to produce content on AppleTV+. 
The Hanks/Spielberg WW2 series now is reportedly running up towards 250 million to produce.  They're definitely burning cash on AppleTV+. But they must see this as an eventual solid money maker. Apple doesn't have a habit of funding money losers for extended period of time.

5$ a month, I figure Apple needs around 30 million paying subscribers to hit break even (somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billion per year gross revenue). I have my doubts Apple is at 20 million paying subscribers much less 30 (with the exception of AppleOne -- don't know what a bundle may bring in). Apple claimed they have 700 million paying subscriptions across all their services. I'm guessing Apple Music and iCloud and AppleOne make up the very big majority of this. 

I don't doubt that's why AppleTV+ is in every bundle of AppleOne, they can claim people with AppleOne are subbing AppleTV+ too. I cancelled AppleOne because it didn't suit me - I don't think it's good value with the current selection of services. Mainly because I'd much rather swap AppleTV+ for any other service: more storage, Arcade, or Fitness+ would be preferable. Apparently others would do the same considering the low AppleTV+ uptake. But they're pushing it likely in the hope that people actually watch AppleTV+, or at least they can claim people who sub AppleOne are also subbing AppleTV+.

I don't subscribe to AppleOne either for similar reasons. AppleTV+ isn't something I currently would use (that could change in January). I do pay for things I do use, iCloud and Music, but even 4 dollars more for AppleOne just isn't a good use of funds (I won't use Arcade and AppleTV+). 

I'm hoping more service options come along too. A better mix would be a better use case for me to pay more.  

neverindoubt said:

Apparently, there is a limit as to how much cash Apple will incinerate on AppleTV+.

Too bad Apple doesn't parse the services revenue line item. It would be interesting to see how much cash they're burning to produce content on AppleTV+. 
The Hanks/Spielberg WW2 series now is reportedly running up towards 250 million to produce.  They're definitely burning cash on AppleTV+. But they must see this as an eventual solid money maker. Apple doesn't have a habit of funding money losers for extended period of time.

5$ a month, I figure Apple needs around 30 million paying subscribers to hit break even (somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billion per year gross revenue). I have my doubts Apple is at 20 million paying subscribers much less 30 (with the exception of AppleOne -- don't know what a bundle may bring in). Apple claimed they have 700 million paying subscriptions across all their services. I'm guessing Apple Music and iCloud and AppleOne make up the very big majority of this. 

Japhey said:

entropys said:

At least there is no auto play video in this article.

How are you accessing the site? Web? I use the AI app on iPhone or iPad and I’ve never had auto play videos. I would definitely find them annoying if I did though. 

It is. AI and other sites have to pay for the site so it is understandable some ads must be run. But some sites fill every corner with ads and videos and makes the site not very usable. I don't think that's AI but its web access usually does have a video playing.