nmemac

Apple charge 99 cents a month to upgrade from the default 5GB to 50GB. It's not a lot. But that's maybe the point when the default storage has remained at 5GB since 2011, whilst the actual cost of storage has dropped dramatically in the time. That 5GB has not maintained the pace of their technological development resulting in increased image and video resolution and file sizes. I usually defend Apple in most things, but the second largest company in the world going to the effort to collect a measly 99 cents per month feels like 'penny-pinching'.

eightzero said:

Oh...and notice the disappearing need for local storage. There was a shitstorm when the optical drives went away. I keep one now only for legacy things like DVD movies and music. And now, who needs a huge HDD for local storage? Admitted, the free 5GB on iCloud is BS, but gone are the days when I needed huge storage. A backup? Sure. And there is something to keeping movies local somehow. 

Different users, different needs.

I have two 18TB eternal hard drives for Music, Films and TV shows purchased from iTunes and other sources.

I realise I am probably an outlier on this, but I stopped watching much broadcast TV over a decade ago because I got tired of series being cancelled with no conclusion to a story at the end of a season, often ending with a cliffhanger for the next series that never came. I often waited for the end of a series to buy dvd complete series boxsets if they reached a satisfying conclusion.

Absolutely agree with this article.

I am supposedly being represented by all of these champions of freedom... only problem is, i completely disagree with their actions, so I feel like no-one is actually representing me, a consumer, and someone who happily chose to purchase the phone that I did. There was no-one with a gun to my head.

It's even more galling when seeing these attacks on Apple that none of these people were around to prevent Microsoft 'acquiring' the whole Desktop' metaphor for Windows, or of Google copying IOS, or Samsung copying the physical design of iPhones. Maybe it's been claimed that with hindsight all of these things were obvious - but it doesn't change the fact that no-one had these things on their drawing board until after Apple came along and showed the way.

It's largely accepted that Apple has changed entire industries, and particularly personal computing and mobile phones, but this article rightly highlights how Apple changed the whole software distribution model. As a consumer, I believe largely for the better. I wish all these people would please go back to trying to download software on their Nokia 3320s. Or hell, even their Palm and Blackberry mobiles.

avon b7 said:

You seem to have skipped over this important detail:

"This contract allegedly included anti-competitive clauses that the CNMC says prevented over 90% of existing retailers from selling Apple devices on Amazon".

I didn't skip it, but I do regard it differently from you - my response was that I don't think it is applicable to dictate what stores allow to be sold in their space, and I don't think it is appropriate for governments to dictate what access device manufacturers have to allow (a wider point than the original article, but relevant to the growing wave of government interference).

If a café or restaurant offers Pepsi but not Coke, should they be forced to sell both? If they have some sort of exclusivity contract to only sell Pepsi that gives them a competitive price for that product rather than if they sold both is that wrong? On the first point, no I do not believe they should have to sell both. The second point is, I agree, more of a grey area, but I am sure occurs in many more businesses and retail outlets that escape scrutiny.

It is right that anti-competitive practices are monitored and investigated, but when it occurs it is selective, and sometimes the conclusions are misguided.

I disagree that iPhones and iPads are less attractive without 3rd party app stores, but yes, obviously the experience would be poorer without 3rd party apps - but it is a big difference and a point you missed or sidestepped.

Whether we like it or not, I believe Apple has the right to decide what can and cannot be used on its devices. If we don't like its choices, we are free to use other platforms. The point is they didn't have to allow ANY 3rd party apps on their device. Yes, it's beneficial to them and us that they do, but that does not automatically mean they should be enforced to allow any and all competitors free access.

As to the other directives that you added to the mix - that's a much wider and more complex issue and I would prefer not to divert the topic of this thread further.