tenthousandthings

1080p = 1920x1080

foregoneconclusion said:

9secondkox2 said:

The studio display is beautiful to look at. I want that exact aesthetic on my desks. 

But… it’s just a repackaged old screen with a crappy webcam and it’s too small. 

If 5K screen tech is "old", then what does that make 2K and 4K? That's what all the other manufacturers are selling: variations of 2K and 4K screen tech. Nobody is rolling out a 30" 6K monitor with 120 MHz and true HDR for $1599. 

Agree — this isn’t rocket science. 

Rogue01 said:

[…] Remember when everyone was spreading rumors that the new iMac would be 32"? […]

The speculation was for a 32" iMac Pro. But that was killed, along with the rumored 27" iMac Pro, in favor of the Mac Studio + Apple Studio Display, which together are priced similarly to the 2017 iMac Pro, actually quite a bit less, starting at $3600. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that price is almost exactly what I paid for my last 27" iMac.

However, you’re ignoring the other Apple display option available to Mac Studio buyers. The Apple Pro Display XDR. So there’s your 32" iMac Pro, starting at $7000. In stock right now! Moreover, the smart money has Apple updating the Pro Display XDR at the same time as the Mac Pro, with a meaningful drop in price. So maybe that starting price is more like $6000 in the near future…

I ordered online and picked it up in-store (got the last one they had) last Sunday.

This is a replacement for an old 2K Apple Thunderbolt Display. It works well for that. The camera works fine for Zoom/Teams with Center Stage turned on. Without it, it’s unusable. I’d love to see macOS provide real control over the Studio Display camera—surely, if it can do Center Stage, it can also do that?

If you’re used to the 5K iMac experience, this won’t be anything new. Or even a decent 4K. But if you’re coming from (or via), say, a MacBook Air or an older MacBook Pro, you’ll probably find the jump up to Retina 5K quite satisfying. 

cropr said:

tenthousandthings said:

Sameer Samat’s statement indicates Spotify is still paying Google its commission. 

Who knows?  Maybe Google is anticipating the EU Digital Market Act, where  gatekeepers (read Apple and Google) must allow app developer to use external payment system.

I can imagine that Google and Spotify made an agreement as a publicity stunt.  E.g the commission is 2% if the payment happens via Spotify and 5% is the payment happens via Google. 

tenthousandthings said:

So this is all about users choosing to give their personal data to Spotify as well as Google (who already has it). That’s what the Epic lawsuit was always about, though Epic’s demand is more complex because it involves irregular in-app purchases in the mobile gaming market.

Here you have it completely wrong.  If you sign up with Spotify, Spotify collects your personal data (name, password, email, postal address, ...). Because Spotify runs on multiple platforms (iOS, Android, PC, Mac, Linux) with a single subscription per user or family, Spotify needs this information, so the user can reuse his subscription on different platforms.   In that respect, Spotify does not collect more information than Apple.

On top of that Spotify, being a EU company, is bound to the GDPR laws, meaning it is not allowed to use your personal data for anything else then the music streaming service.

The fact that on Android, Google takes care of the payment, does not change the picture.    The protocol between the Android Payment system (Google owned) and the app (Spotify owned) is very similar to the protocol used on iOS.  With the exception of a user identification, no personal data is transferred, so Google does not know what data Spotify has collected and the other way around. 

Apologies, but I’m not sure how I have it wrong. There are users who pay for it through Google and as a result Spotify doesn’t have their info, right? Or is that incorrect?