davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 163
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,335
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,053
Reactions
-
UK denies Apple's bid to dismiss App Store lawsuit
avon b7 said:
Yes. Developers knew the price of admission. We all do. The question is if that constitutes abuse of dominant position. That we can't know until the process is over.paisleydisco said:Okay. Now go after supermarkets and retail stores that charge 30% and more for products to be placed in store.Developers knew the price of admission and now are crying. GTFO.Having a "dominate" position has nothing to do with it. It's because Apple have been labeled the BS position of being a "gatekeeper", under the DMA. And many countries are using the DMA as a reference, even if the DMA do not apply their country. And this is what the EU set out to do.The "Microsoft Store have a "dominate"position on the Xbox. The Sony Store have a "dominate" position on the PlayStation. Steam gaming platform is a dominate position on the PC. Google Play Store have a "dominate" position on Android phones. They all charge about the same 30% commission, if a developer want to sell in their stores.Plus how were developers harm? They are allow to set the price of their own apps. This isn't like if Apple were forcing developers to sell their apps at a certain price and then taking 30% of the sale price. The developers should be including cost of the commission in the price of their apps, don't you think? Surely they must factor in cost like, taxes, cost of development tools, rent, electricity, employees wages and their own internet cost, when pricing their apps when trying to make a profit from its sale.If any one can claim to be harm by the commission, it's maybe the consumers that pays for apps. But it can be argued that both developers and consumers have greatly benefited from online store sale of software. No matter the platform. For developers, it has greatly driven down the cost of distributing their software to the consumers. When was the last time a consumer can walk into a retail store and 90% of the software available ........ was free?And In the end, consumers pays for all the cost of producing a product or service , plus the profits made by the who ever sells the product or service. Including the sales tax the government charges.
-
Teenagers still overwhelmingly want iPhone and Apple Watch more than any other brand
tht said:
Spotify was one of the 1st movers in streaming music - that is, they have a strong brand image for streaming music because of that - and they offer a free ad-supported tier. They essentially won the music streaming music war.mikethemartian said:Why does Apple Music lag Spotify?
They essentially lose money on the ad-supported streaming music tier and need to convert as many of those to the subscription tier as much as possible; or, restructure their expenses to be more favorable for the ad-supported tier (read: pay labels and artists less). Best option for them is probably making a deal with Android OEMs to be the default music service. I think their end game for Apple in the EU is to have the EU force Apple to have a default streaming music app screen with Spotify as the first option on the list. Well, what they really want is to be the default music and audio streaming app on iPhones, and maybe the EU will make that happen. Probably not, but they definitely want something like that.
There is still an end game play the Apple, Amazon and Google could do: offer music subscription plans for say $8/mo. Something like that. The shit will hit the fan in the EU when that happens. Well, perhaps the real end game is unlimited AI generated music that is not discernibly different from human generated music. They are all headed there. Not sure what the capital costs are, but they are all trying to do it. Yeah, maybe there should be a Butlerian Jihad?
Actually, I think ad-supported music streaming is profitable for Spotify. It is not nearly as profitable as their paid subscription tier. What makes ad-supported music streaming profitable for is how little Spotify have to pay the music industry in artists royalty. It is a completely different deal than with paid subscription. Their ad-supported tier is the reason why Spotify appears to "pay" the artist less in royalty than Apple. Both Spotify and Apple pay the music industry about the same percentage of their subscription price. Which is about 70%. However Spotify is not paying anywhere near 70% of their ad revenue to the music industry and what the artists makes per (ad supported) stream comes out to be like 1/10 of what they make per paid subscription stream. And this significantly brings down the "average" of how much the artists earn per stream, on Spotify. Google and Amazon also have ad-supported tier and is the main reason they also appear to "pay" the artists less per stream, than Apple. None of the big music streaming services "pays" the artists (for the vast majority of their contents) They all hand over a percentage of the revenue they earn from streaming music to the music industry labels and the music labels distributes the royalties to the artists, using their own methodology.But I agree that Apple "competing" with Spotify on the price of an ad free music streaming subscription. After all, consumers would benefit from a price war. Competition should result in lower prices or better service for the same price, for the consumers. How can the EU complain about that. (Though I bet that crybaby CEO of Spotify would go crying to the EU Commission (with Epic CEO holding his hand) about how he's being bullied by the "Gatekeepers".)Amazon already offer a discount for their ad free music streaming for Prime members and Google also offer their ad free music streaming service for their YouTube Prime Video subscribers, at a steep discount. Maybe it's time for Apple to discount Apple Music for AppleTV + subscribers. Or offer a year of discounted Apple Music on every new iPhone and iPad purchase. Or just lower the price of their Apple Music subscription, to attract more Apple Music subscribers. Apple, Amazon and Google can do what the likes of Walmart, Target and BestBuy can do with music, use it as a loss leader to attract customers to other products or services.Right now, for Spotify, streaming music is also a loss leader, but that's not by choice.
Spotify by now (after nearly 20 years in the business) should realize the truth about their business model. If the only revenue you bring in comes from charging to stream contents you don't own, then prepare to be screwed not by the competitors that are also charging to stream the same contents, but by the owners of the contents. Whereas the music industry are raking in billions of dollars every year from music streaming services paying for their contents, the music streaming services are barely profitable, if at all. I predict that unless Spotify find a way to change their business model, they will end up like the Sam Goody, WhereHouse, Tower Records, Virgin Megastores and other dedicated music stores of yesteryear, going out of business because they can't compete with companies that can use music as a loss leader.
-
Teenagers still overwhelmingly want iPhone and Apple Watch more than any other brand
gatorguy said:
David, by many accounts, Apple's US market share, is very near 65% now. It would not take a lot to push past 70%, if the US teen population every year for a decade is 80% iPhone. They grow up and could well raise Apple's market by another percent or two every year.davidw said:gatorguy said:
When those teenagers become adults are the statistics still holding firm, 85% or thereabouts remaining iPhone users? If so, then within another 5 years, Apple will plainly be in time-to-break-em-up territory with 80% plus market share.charlesn said:
You are absolutely SPOT ON with this assessment. Teens are the demographic most likely to be swayed by the latest trends and gimmicks, both in plentiful supply in the world of Android. That Apple maintains teen loyalty for this length of time with an unabashedly conservative hardware approach that eschews gimmickry in favor a superior user experience is something of a miracle. But there you have it. Year after year after year.mpantone said:Teenagers are a notoriously fickle audience so this longterm and ongoing admiration for the Apple brand over years is actually very enviable. It's not like Apple didn't have competition before (like RIM BlackBerrys, T-Mobile Sidekicks, Windows Mobile) or now (Android).
In the end, it comes down to the overall user experience -- particularly software -- not some weird mobile device hardware specs circle jerk.Statistic don't work that way. Teens are only about 13% of the US population. So if 85% of them are using iPhones and 85% will keep using iPhones when they turn 21, then the market share they add to the US iPhone market share, is still very small. For sure it's a positive gain for iPhone market share over the years but not nearly much as you seem to think. When all the teens now, reaches 21 years of age, they WILL NOT represent 100% of the the US smartphone market. They will still only represent 13% of the US smartphone market. Thus their iPhone 85% iPhone usage when they were teens, will not magically mean iPhone market share in the US will be 85%, not even if 100% of them are still using iPhones 5 years from now.Here's a way to look at it. Since 2014, iPhone usage among teens had never been below 60%. And since 2018, iPhone usage among teens had never been below 80%. So in tens years of at least 60% of teens using iPhones..... why did the overall iPhone market share (in the US) only past the 50% mark several years ago? And if over 80% of the teens been using iPhones for five years now, why isn't Apple market share even close to .......... "plainly be in time-to-break-em-up territory with 80% plus market share."I sure hope the DoJ math skills, aren't as bad as yours.
My math is fine. What may not be is the claim that 80% plus of US teenagers for over a decade have been iPhone users.You are again showing your lack of math skills.First of all. Apple iPhone users market share (in the US) is closer to 58%. Nearly all the sites claiming iPhone market share in the US that is over 60%, are using quarterly sales numbers. Most sites that uses actual iPhone users or iPhone activation numbers, are claiming that iPhone marker share is anywhere from 56% to 60%. Apple quarterly iPhones sale market share, is not the number the DoJ will be using to determine a "monopoly" or "monopoly power". It's the number of actual iPhone owners that matters.Stat has it that iOS have a 59% of the mobile OS market share in the US (as of March 2024). And that 59% includes the iPad. iPad accounts for about 3-5% of iOS users.Here's another math statistic that you are not taking account for. Apple present iPhone market share, be it 58% or 65% as you claim, already includes the 85% iPhone ownership by teens. So if every teen keeps buying iPhones as they grow older, they do not add to the iPhone market share numbers when they were teens. If anything, if only 85% of the teens continue to buy iPhones (as they grow older), this will serve to decrease the iPhone market share number (at the time when they were teens). What significantly adds to the increase of iPhone market share is when there are more mobile users that switched from an Android phone to an iPhone, than switched from an iPhone to an android phone.
BTW- no one is claiming that over 80% of teens been using iPhones for over a decade. The claim that is made in the link is that 80% of teens have been suing an iPhone since 2018. That's over 5 years. And that teen iPhone usage been over 60% for over a decade.
-
Teenagers still overwhelmingly want iPhone and Apple Watch more than any other brand
gatorguy said:
When those teenagers become adults are the statistics still holding firm, 85% or thereabouts remaining iPhone users? If so, then within another 5 years, Apple will plainly be in time-to-break-em-up territory with 80% plus market share.charlesn said:
You are absolutely SPOT ON with this assessment. Teens are the demographic most likely to be swayed by the latest trends and gimmicks, both in plentiful supply in the world of Android. That Apple maintains teen loyalty for this length of time with an unabashedly conservative hardware approach that eschews gimmickry in favor a superior user experience is something of a miracle. But there you have it. Year after year after year.mpantone said:Teenagers are a notoriously fickle audience so this longterm and ongoing admiration for the Apple brand over years is actually very enviable. It's not like Apple didn't have competition before (like RIM BlackBerrys, T-Mobile Sidekicks, Windows Mobile) or now (Android).
In the end, it comes down to the overall user experience -- particularly software -- not some weird mobile device hardware specs circle jerk.Statistic don't work that way. Teens are only about 13% of the US population. So if 85% of them are using iPhones and 85% will keep using iPhones when they turn 21, then the market share they add to the US iPhone market share, is still very small. For sure it's a positive gain for iPhone market share over the years but not nearly much as you seem to think. When all the teens now, reaches 21 years of age, they WILL NOT represent 100% of the the US smartphone market. They will still only represent 13% of the US smartphone market. Thus their iPhone 85% iPhone usage when they were teens, will not magically mean iPhone market share in the US will be 85%, not even if 100% of them are still using iPhones 5 years from now.Here's a way to look at it. Since 2014, iPhone usage among teens had never been below 60%. And since 2018, iPhone usage among teens had never been below 80%. So in tens years of at least 60% of teens using iPhones..... why did the overall iPhone market share (in the US) only past the 50% mark several years ago? And if over 80% of the teens been using iPhones for five years now, why isn't Apple market share even close to .......... "plainly be in time-to-break-em-up territory with 80% plus market share."I sure hope the DoJ math skills, aren't as bad as yours.
-
Tesla wants Apple's help to beat Autopilot death lawsuit
VictorMortimer said:Xed said:
Would you use that simplistic answer also work for automobile? I'm guessing you wouldn't.bobolicious said:"the car maker believes that Autopilot is safe to use, and that it only becomes a danger when drivers are not paying attention to the road"Define 'auto'...?
On the one hand, fuck Tesla and Musk's lies about Autopilot's capabilities, but on the other, autopilot doesn't mean the driver doesn't have to be aware, present, etc. Airplanes have had autopilot for over a century and yet we're still not flying airplanes without pilots in them. Well, except for the drone category and those are controlled by a remote operator. I'm assuming that if a commercial airliner crashed and the NTSB discovered that it was because the pilot was playing games you wouldn't be defending the pilot with a comment like "define 'auto'?"
I love all the automation I have in my car which allow for more relaxed and safer driving, but I understand that I'm still required to have situational awareness with those automated systems in place inside my automobile. Anything less is just asking to be a Darwin Award nominee.Turdla literally sells cars with something that they call "full self driving".Does that imply to you that a human driver still needs to be aware or present?The word "autopilot" isn't confusing to actual pilots, but it can be to the general public. But if Cessna started selling "full self flying", I guarantee you that even a licensed pilot would expect that would be a fully automated aircraft. I also guarantee the FAA wouldn't allow anything named that to be sold if it wasn't capable of full automation.And Tesla owners are not confused by the word "autopilot" (or shouldn't be), when it pertains to the car they own. It doesn't matter if the general public might be confused with the use of word.Now if "autopilot" was a common feature in cars, like cruise control, then the used of the word "autopilot", might be confusing to the general public. Specially if one don't own a car with "autopilot" and were to rent or drive a friend car, that have the "autopilot" feature.But I'm willing to bet that not one Tesla owner is confused with the word "autopilot" and don't know the limitation of "autopilot", when they engaged it while driving their Tesla. I'm sure no where in the Tesla owner manual does it state that the car when on "autopilot", can drive from Point A to Point B without a human in the driver seat. And no Tesla owner should think it can do this. Even if maybe you and me might think a Tesla should be able to do this because that's what "autopilot" means.I'm sure Tesla is not advertising that a driver could eat their burger, soda and fries or take a nap or play a video game, while the Tesla drives itself to where you need to go, with "autopilot" engaged. And yet there seems to be quite a few Tesla owners that think they could. These are the people that we need to be concern about, when it comes to not knowing (or caring) about the limitation of "autopilot" in a car they own and drive. And not the general public, who might be confused with the word "autopilot" when used in both a Tesla and airplane. .
