mpantone

darkvader said:

The helmet mafia is already out in force.  No surprise there, they have some kind of mental disorder that forces them to stick their nose in somebody else's business.

Glad you're ok.  Wear a helmet if you want to, don't if you don't.  It's entirely up to you.

Unfortunately it's not "do whatever you want to do." The correct approach is to consult the local laws pertaining to electric scooter operation.

Here in the great State of California, the legislators have not ignored the arrival of electric scooters. The operation of these devices is largely covered in the California Vehicle Code (CVC) in Sections §21221, §21228, §21229, §21235, §22411 (and possibly others).

Note that it is possible for local jurisdictions (county, city) to have additional regulations concerning operation. Those can be more restrictive -- but not less restrictive -- than the state laws.

Oftentimes local laws are more restrictive in certain high-pedestrian traffic areas (e.g., downtown, tourist sectors), particularly where children and older citizens may have a higher presence.

Here one recap of electric scooter operation law in California:

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/laws/7-important-e-scooter-laws-you-should-in-california/

Curiously, all electric scooter operators were required by existing CVC law to wear a helmet until 2019 when new electric-scooter-specific laws allowed for helmet-free operation (for adults). So most of the tickets given prior to 2019 were for helmet law violations. Minors are still required to wear helmets here in California.

There has been an uptick in scooter injuries and deaths in San Francisco during the pandemic which will likely lead to more restrictions in the future:

https://sfstandard.com/2023/07/21/electric-scooter-deaths-injuries-increase-since-pandemic/

This might mean a return to mandatory helmet usage so electric scooter operators in California (and elsewhere) really need to keep up to date on current regulations. Ignorance is not a valid excuse, for residents nor visitors like Daniel.

I don't recall having ever seen a single electric scooter operator here in California comply with CVC §21228 (Dismount and walk for left hand turns). Pretty much every rider seems to violate this onerous regulation.

The author did not specify what municipality the accident took place. Anyhow, he is lucky to have escaped more serious injury (or death) this time. Best wishes to Daniel for a speedy recovery.

Stabitha_Christie said:

"bringing Apple just $23 million in its opening weekend"

That is 23 million domestically so you have left out over half of the movie's revenue. Was that done out of Ignorance or is the article intentionally misleading?

In the 14 days the movie has been out it has made almost 90 million dollars. 

No, US domestic box office revenue is a longtime standard film industry metric, going many decades back. In the old days (before digital delivery), a lot of international releases were staggered due to logistics (e.g., mailing out heavy film reels via distributors). Furthermore, the movie industry uses the weekend metric a lot (defined as Friday-Saturday-Sunday) since that's where the bulk of the foot traffic is.

By contrast in 2023 Apple can release their film/TV content simultaneously around the world.

The film industry continues to use this benchmark because it's a pretty good indication of a film's popularity relative to the most important film consumer market in the world: the USA.

Note international releases can still be staggered, just like the old film days. If Studio X releases Film A in five international markets the first weekend while Studio Y releases Film B in 37 international markets that same weekend, the international box office revenue may not be reflective of the film's popularity.

The other major important film industry benchmark is revenue per screen. Some films have more limited distribution but if the theaters are full, that's good for the producer. Many art films have limited releases. 

As a direct-to-consumer streaming service, Apple's revenue cannot be tracked by revenue per (theater) screen.

Film industry analysts look at the two metrics (US domestic box office + revenue per screen) side-by-side for theatrical releases as well as the dropoff after the initial launch weekend.

A good recent example of this is how well Taylor Swift's Eras Tour concert film did. Not only did she dominate at the US domestic box office, she also crushed it in revenue-per-screen. Remember that this is an AMC Theater exclusive for 13 weeks in the US market. Ticket prices were a little higher which drove up the latter metric. Taylor did not release the concert film via a studio, so she pockets the proceeds after paying AMC. (She has her own production company.)

Likewise Apple does not deal with studios or theatre chains. They handle the entire distribution on their own content delivery system (paying any partners of course).

Thus $10 million in box office receipts for A.) an Apple TV exclusive, B.) Taylor Swift's Eras Tour concert film, and C.) the Exorcist film represents three very different distribution strategies with the latter being the most traditional. Apple and Taylor will pocket more proceeds in the end, with the Exorcist producers taking home the least.

It's important to remember concerning this particular film "Killers of the Flower Moon" is that Apple pays a much smaller fee for the streaming rights. It's expensive to release films in theaters which is why some titles on the end went straight to DVD, skipping movie theaters. However the first state of the Hollywood film industry continues to judge movie success by box office (theater) revenue rather than streaming revenue or the old DVD sales.

The longtime Boxofficemojo.com website has tracked box office figures for over twenty years. The site is now owned by Amazon (under their IMDB portfolio on content sites).

gatorguy said:

IMO, the China market is becoming more difficult for Apple. 

China is becoming a more difficult market for most companies based in the West.

That said, none of them can really walk away from China. It represents too much revenue.

PR China is Apple's #1 market by revenue and overtook the USA years ago. Even if India eventually eclipses China as Apple's #1 market (which may take 10+ years), China will still remain an important market for the remainder of our lifetimes.

Markets are rarely an easy road. And not just consumer electronics. And not just in 2023. The quick buck mentality will not turn your business into a global enterprise. Even if there's a (relatively) easy stretch, it never lasts long. There are never infinite periods of growth.

China's economic deceleration has been on display long before the pandemic.

AQAPAR said:

Why doesn't Apple simply up the prices of the applications based on data - and stop all this non sense.  Every Apple hardware is pretty much double or triple that of the competition - do it with the software.  Why is the hardware triple but the software the same price - that's all the Judge will look at.  And make the Operating system upgrade $100 again NOT free.  Ferrari - Bentley - have only increased prices. 

Because Apple does not set the price of software except for their own titles.

It's the individual software publishers who set pricing. If Company A wants to make their calculator app free, Company B wants to charge $1.99 for theirs and Company C wants to charge $9.99, they can all do so. Apple currently gets a 30% cut of whatever price the publisher sets. Same with the in-app purchases.

If Company X wants to charge $0.99 to remove ads from their weather app and Company Y wants to charge $4.99 to remove ads from theirs, they are again both free to do so.

Remember that publishers set app pricing by market. A game publisher is free to charge $29.99 in the US for a game and make it $9.99 (equivalent dollar value) in the local currency in another market (like some South American country), they are free to do so. In fact, they often do so some people try to game the system by changing regions.

The software publishers pick their own pricing based on what they think the marketplace will accept. Does this mean that rich countries' users are subsidizing the purchases of some emerging markets? Yes, it does. And this isn't exclusive to the smartphone software industry. It pretty much happens everywhere.

Moreover software publishers can charge different prices on different platforms. Even in the early days of smartphone apps, quite a few developers explicitly stated that they made more money from iOS app sales versus Android app sales (typically in the 5x to 10x range) even though Android phones were more prevalent in terms of units deployed.

Apple already knows how much money they made from operating system sales. It's a barrier for upgrading and adoption.

Same with cloud services. They learned over time that subscription only MobileMe was a barrier to adoption. So base iCloud functionality is free, you get more with a subscription.

I would be surprised if this was the only anti-counterfeiting measure Apple is using. 

If something is of enough value to add anti-counterfeiting measures, it's probably worth adding more than one method. RFID tags are another well-established method. There are new technologies every single year and I'm sure Apple is researching all of them, probably using 3-4 right now in shipping product.

It's obviously not to their advantage to publicize these methods.

Note that these anti-counterfeiting measures are not limited to the consumer electronics/technology marketplace. Parmesan cheese makers are implementing chip technology as well (in the rind) since their product is one of the most commonly faked premium food products. That's just one example that shows the scope of interest by all sorts of producers in protecting their work.