davidw

About

Username
davidw
Joined
Visits
187
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,771
Badges
1
Posts
2,202

Reactions

2.4KLike45Dislike469Informative

  • EU advocacy group sues Apple because other streaming music services hiked prices

    davidwdavidw
    Doodpants said:
    across04 said:
    This is a frivolous lawsuit.  The EU has just forced apple to allow alternative App Stores.   If you use Apple's APP Store, you must adhere to their rules and fee structure.   If you don't like it, create your own app store.  End of story.
    Apple was only recently forced to allow alternative app stores; the lawsuit is about actions taken prior to that. If Apple didn't have to be forced kicking and screaming to create a level playing field, maybe these streaming services would have gone to alternative app stores instead of raising prices.

    And I bet NONE of these music streaming services stopped offering their free apps in the Google Play Store and the only way to get their apps was on another 3rd party app store, their own app store or by way of side-loading .... on Android.

    The only reason they were (and are) not crying about the Google 15/30% commission is because they do have the choice to offer their apps in other apps stores or open their own app stores or with side loading but choose not to. Why? Could it be because it didn't make economic business sense to do so? Why would this be different on Apple iOS?

    And to be fair, it's only that big crybaby of a CEO of Spotify, that is doing nearly all the crying about how Apple is not providing a level playing field, even though Spotify is by far the most popular music streaming service.

    In fact this crybaby of a CEO even stated that it was the introduction of  Apple Music that made Spotify as popular as it is today.


    >Either way, Ek pointedly noted that Apple Music has been a boon to Spotify, having added new users at a faster clip since it launched back in June. “We keep setting new records week to week,” he said, without specifying any numbers. “It’s getting easier and easier to sign people up.”<

    If one were to look at a graph of Spotify paid subscription numbers, it skyrocketed after the introduction of Apple Music in 2016. How was this possible if Apple iOS was not a level playing field that was heavily in favor of Apple Music?  In fact, after about 8 years, Apple Music currently have about 90M paid subscribers while Spotify have about  250M. (Spotify have over 400M users when including their free ad supported tier.) 90M paid subscribers was the number of paid subscribers Spotify had in 2018. Two years after the introduction of Apple Music (in 2016) and after being in business for over 10 years, with nearly no competition.
     

    Don't believe everything that crybaby CEO of Spotify claims. His sense of entitlement can only be seen as a normal trait, only in the EU.


    https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-an-entitlement-mentality
    watto_cobra

  • EU advocacy group sues Apple because other streaming music services hiked prices

    davidwdavidw
    tht said:
    foregoneconclusion said:
    Until Apple released the iPhone I doubt Spotify even had personal streaming as a viable proposition (if they even existed then). Given Apple have charged right from the start, Spotify could just have said “We don’t want to use your expensive delivery system” and done it themselves. But they didn’t. And now they complain (or at least some people are).
    Spotify was an early adopter of the App Store (2008) and their strategy was to make the free ad-supported version available for download and to have customers pay for the premium version on Spotify’s web site. That approach = 0% commission to Apple and ANY company that wanted to could have followed the same approach. 

    So that’s the reality: streaming services always had a path to entirely avoid the App Store commission.
    Yup. As a reminder, Spotify pays Apple and Google essentially zero dollars. There may have been a period of 6 months that Spotify tried the Apple subscription route, but that was stopped. If this case goes forward, would be interesting to see the discovery on the financials of the other streamers.

    Also a reminder that Apple iOS has about 30% share in the EU, Apple Music is about the number 4 streamer in the EU. Just craziness. All this anti-competition action on the App Store is just going to increase prices on consumers, not decrease them.

    One must also remember that Spotify CEO has stated (in an interview) that a good percentage of Spotify paid subscribers started listening to Spotify using their their free ad supported app. And as Spotify made listening to music on their free tier, more and more annoying, many decided to pay for a subscription. (IIR, the interviewer was asking why Spotify maintains a free ad supported tier, when they derive so little profit from, compared to their paid tier.

    Thanks to Apple App Store policy, Spotify got a massive amount of free advertising on Apple iOS platform, that might eventually lead to Apple iOS users paying for a subscription.

    Not only that, no matter what platform the Spotify subscribers uses to pay for their subscriptions, they are allow access to their subscriptions using Spotify free app on all the other platforms. Here, Spotify is just freeloading off the platforms. Imagine if Spotify (and the other music streaming services) had to pay the platform owners to install an app that all their subscribers can use for free (to access their subscription). Apple, Sony, Microsoft, Google, Nintendo, etc. platforms are not public domains maintained by the government. All these platforms have invested in RD to make listening to music a better experience and attracting consumers to their platform. RD that Spotify is not required to invest in, but yet feel they are entitled to benefit from (for free). Or otherwise, they will sue the platform owners for not playing on a level playing field. All while crying like little kids in a toy store, who don't understand when their parent told them they can't have the toy unless they pay for it first.
    watto_cobra

  • Apple's iPhone water resistance has a big catch, claims new lawsuit

    davidwdavidw
    elijahg said:
    elijahg said:
    mknelson said:

    The logic for the limited warranty is probably something along the lines of "The design was tested for IP##, if there is water ingress under those conditions you must have damaged the seals".
    That is a flawed argument. By that standard, zero warranty claims could ever exist because there would never be a manufacturing defect; every problem is user-created, which is obviously false. A defect in the seal could have existed from the factory, and allow water ingress when used in the conditions it's advertised with. To exclude that is no different to excluding camera problems due to using it in the sun too much, when advertising the phone being used to take photos in the sun.

    My iPhone 13 Pro had dust in the lens, despite being sealed. You're saying that shouldn't have been covered because I must have somehow done something to get dust in the lens?

    Either way in the UK, or the EU, and I would imagine Canada, Apple would have not a leg to stand on. You can't advertise the use of something then claim that using it that way might damage the product and that they won't cover it. That's just ridiculous, and it's fraudulent advertising.
    elijahg said:

    sloth77 said:
    The warranty for Samsung Galaxy phones works the same way. Exposure to water isn't considered normal use under the warranty. In other words, it's not a product that is specifically made to operate in water. 
    AFAIK, all phone manufacturers that advertise water resistance have a warrantee that excludes water damage.

    Counter intuitive perhaps, but it is the way it has always been.

    To be fair, AppleCare+ (unlike the standard warrantee) does have a clause that states repairs will not exceed $79 for water damage.
    Adding an exclusion doesn't mean it's legal. It has yet to be tested in court.
    Guess what - Sony (the first OEM to get their phones IP rated) falsely advertised as their Xperia Z phones as water-proof about a decade ago. And learnt the lesson the hard way in the form of lawsuits when they refused to entertain warranty claims on their phones with water damage. They gave a lesson on how to handle the legal text around IP ratings and what is covered under warranty and what is not covered etc to other OEMs. I am sure Apple would have covered their bases with this one and I don't think Apple would be in trouble over this lawsuit.
    This is different to Sony's claim of waterproof. Apple never advertised as waterproof, but they did advertise that the iPhone has an IP67/68, rating which as I said is an actual standard - higher than the Sony's IP56. To advertise anything with a feature to which people quite reasonably would believe the product should have, and then try and claim otherwise in some fine print you don't even have to review before buying the phone is not going to fly.

    Interestingly the iPhone getting wet ads have actually been pulled from YT, which is odd as Apple doesn't usually pull old ads.
    You're kidding right? You can't be that clueless. Apple pull old ads ALL the time. When the products in the ads are no longer available, Apple will pull those ads. One don't see old Apple ads for the Apple iPhone 12, or the Apple Watch Series 5 or any Intel Macs. Why would you think that Apple would still advertise a product that has been discontinued? Rumor has it that the latest "casualty" will be the iPhone 13. Which is rumored to be discontinued when Apple introduce the new iPhone 16 next week. So those iPhone 13 ads will be pulled soon, if not already.

    Unless you're talking about Apple ads that some You Tuber is showing for nostalgic reasons. Like the 1984 ad or iPod ads or Mac/PC ads. Those ads are not Apple advertising their products on YouTube. 

    ihatescreennameswatto_cobra

  • Apple's iPhone water resistance has a big catch, claims new lawsuit

    davidwdavidw
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    I don’t have time to this myself, but I suspect some enlightenment could be derived by comparing the fine print on this subject for the Apple Watch and the iPhone, if someone wants to do it. 

    The phone claims a level of water resistance. The watch is actually sold as something you can use while swimming. I suspect the difference in warranty language would shed light on what the phone’s warranty limitations are all about. 
    Apple's Watch warranty, even for the Apple Watch Ultra, will not cover water damage. But what about AppleCare+? That covers damage due to "unexpected and unintentional events" which includes accidental contact with liquids, after paying a deductible.  Willfully wearing it in wet conditions may not be covered, so you wouldn't mention you intentionally went swimming with it.  
    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254258623?sortBy=ran

    You know the phrase "talk the talk, but not walk the walk"? 

    Just because it's stated in Apple warranty that water damage is not covered, even for their devices with high water resistance IP rating, it doesn't mean that Apple will not cover any of their devices for water damage, at all.

    Apple stating that water damage is not covered (in their warranty), is Apple way of protecting themselves. Otherwise, they would have to replace devices that were in a steam room for over an hour or used when scuba diving (except for the Ultra Apple Watch) or were already damaged when they got wet or strapped to the propeller of a motor boat. (for us old timers that remember the Timex commercial about a Timex taking a licking and keep on ticking.) Any good lawyer would be able to show that water damage is water damage, regardless of what led to water ending up inside the device or the condition of the device when it got wet.

    On nearly all forums that are discussing Apple non-coverage for water damage on their devices with very high IP rating, there are Apple users that chimes in to claim that Apple had replaced their water damaged Apple device (even when out of warranty). How can that be if Apple will not cover their devices for water damage (as claimed by many here.)? All it takes is one Apple user to have their water damaged Apple device replaced by Apple, to disprove any claim by people here, that Apple warranty will not cover water damage devices. Even though they are advertised with high IP rating and for use around and in water.

    In fact, it seems that there are more Apple users that got their water damaged device (specially their Apple Watch) replaced by Apple, than there are Apple users where Apple did not replace their water damaged device (even when still under warranty). But the ones that didn't get Apple to replace their water damaged device makes more noise about it and gets more attention.

    But because of the way their warranty is worded, it's Apple that gets to determine if the water damage was caused by own fault (a factory defect) or the fault of the user. And more than likely, Apple will replace the water damaged device if they determined it was their fault. And in reality, Apple is not covering the water damage but the factory defect that led to the water damage. If one want to put a negative spin on Apple because their warranty do not cover water damage on their devices with high IP rating and advertised for use around and in water, then one should be complaining about the fact that Apple is not following the guidelines on their own warranty, by actually replacing water damaged devices (even when out of warranty), most likely more often than not.

    If one were to add up all the Apple users that got their water damaged device replaced by Apple and those that didn't, it wouldn't even amount to a hill of beans when compared to how many tens of millions of iPhones and Apple Watches are sold every year. The fact that water damage was once by far the leading cause of mobile device (of all brands) replacement, shows that the higher water resistance IP rating of newer devices (of all brands) is not bogus or misleading. And I bet just as many users accidentally get their devices wet as before. The leading cause for mobile device replacement is now from drops. And that can be attributed to the clam shell design no longer being the most popular, thinner designs and larger screens. 

    Even the one person here that claimed to had actually damaged their iPhone with water, got Apple to replace it. So people claiming that Apple will not cover any of their devices for water damage, just based on what their warranty states ..... are all wet.
    watto_cobra

  • Spotify says Apple is blocking volume controls for connected devices

    davidwdavidw
    ITGUYINSD said:
    apple4thewin said:
    Not Spotify again whining 
    You mean not Apple playing dictator again?  taking away access to functions that were allowed, and for no good reason, is just Apple being a bully.  
    Could the fact that Spotify has more subscribers than Apple Music have something to do with it?

    You are as clueless as Spotify. The volume buttons on the Apple device are mainly use to control the volume on the device own internal speakers or external speakers that are connected using the analog audio jack. Anyone with a clue about maintaining audio quality with a digital audio stream knows that the volume of the audio should be changed after the DAC converts the digital audio to analog. Changing the volume (or any equalization) on the digital stream before it's converted to analog, will degrade the quality of the audio.

    For the volume buttons on the Apple device to change the volume of the audio on a HomePod, the Apple device buttons would need to be (or is) programed to change the volume on the HomePod remotely, after the HomePod converts the digital stream to analog, with its own built in DAC. This would be true with any device with a built in DAC. (Including headphones, earbuds, speakers, stereos, CarPlay, etc..)

    The normal way to control the volume on external speakers that is receiving a digital stream from an Apple device is to use "control center". But only if the external playback device is programed to use it. And it's up to the makers of the external playback device to include the remote volume control, with their software. Not Apple. Otherwise, the volume is controlled using the volume control on the external device (after it's converted to analog). 

    Of course, Spotify digital audio quality is the worse of the major music streamers, that maybe Spotify don't care if it's further degraded by  having its volume changed before it's digitally streamed to another device, that has its own DAC to convert the stream back to analog. So their subscribers won't notice anyway.

    Even back in the days when one uses iTunes on a computer to wirelessly steam their music library to a stereo with Wifi, it's recommended that the voulume control in iTunes be turned all the way up and only the volume control on the stereo should be used to control the audio volume. Unless your computer is connect to your stereo using the analog audio jack(s).
    danoxjahblade