davidw

About

Username
davidw
Joined
Visits
187
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,748
Badges
1
Posts
2,187

Reactions

2.4KLike29Dislike466Informative

  • Don't expect cheaper iCloud storage as Apple wins another monopoly lawsuit

    davidwdavidw
    DAalseth said:
    It’s not mandatory to purchase iCloud storage. 

    And competitor services exist from Dropbox, Google, Microsoft, etc. 
    The point being that yes you can connect your Mac or iPhone or iPad to these services, but can you set Photos to backup and share through them? I mean natively within the app. I write a lot in Pages. Can you use one of these services as the default saving location so you can share the files between devices as it is with iCloud? I don’t think it is. If it is let me know, I’d love to use some of these less expensive services, but I haven’t found a way. If you can’t then Apple is being a bit heavy handed. 

    Sure you can link to these and other cloud services, but if everything you want to do is kludgy you are limited as to how you can use them, then you really don’t have access. 

    The thing is that Photos (on iOS), Pages and others are Apple free software. Of course they're highly integrated with their iCloud. If you want to use Google Drive or Microsoft One Drive to easily save your data and save on cost, then use their free software. Nothing is stopping you from using Google and Microsoft software, in order to easily save your data on their cloud services. Apple do not have to make their free software easy to use with Google Drive or Microsoft One drive. You don't think Microsoft One Drive is more easy to use with Microsoft software than with Apple or Google software? So long as Apple do not prevent their users from using Google and Microsoft software or prevent Google and Microsoft from using their own cloud services on their software (that runs on Apple devices), Apple is not doing anything wrong or illegal.


    You think its Google that makes it easy to transfer your data from an Android phone to an iPhone? No, Google makes it easy to transfer your data from an iPhone to an Android phone. Apple and Google have no interest in providing free software, that makes it easy to switch to a competitors devices.  I'm sure that if you use Google Doc, you can just as easily save your data on Google Cloud, as you could saving your Pages data in the iCloud. And this also goes for Microsoft software being more highly integrates with their own cloud services. 

    There's a reason why iCloud storage is more expensive than that of Google, Amazon and Microsoft. Apple lease cloud storage from Google and Amazon. Apple have no where near the cloud storage capacity that Google, Amazon and Microsoft has. What cloud servers Apple has is mainly for their own internal business like iTunes Store, App Store, pushing software upgrades and updates on their devices, music and movie streaming, etc. and it's still not enough. Apple rely on Google and Amazon for their customers iCloud storage. No way Apple can compete with Google, Amazon and Microsoft when it comes to profiting from charging for cloud storage.




    williamlondonwatto_cobratiredskills

  • EU's dominant music service wants Apple to be penalized for dominance

    davidwdavidw
    avon b7 said:
    As the headline says, if Spotify is the dominant provider in the EU so it can hardly complain about Apple Music dominance.

    We all have a choice which service we use so there’s no need for any external pressure.   If you want to build your company provide a reason why customers should buy from you.

    It’s just nonsense and noise and just another attempt by companies to blame Apple for their incompetence.
    Is it about dominance or abuse of dominance?

    Does the headline fit in that context? 

    If there is no need for external pressure then why did Apple need anti-steering rules? Why was it found to be not complying with the regulations?

    Better to wait and see if Apple's changes bring it into compliance or not. 

    IMO, they don't but it's not my call. 

    You're right, it's about "abuse" of dominance. But how can Apple be abusing something they don't have? Spotify is the one abusing their dominate position (not only in the EU with 54% market share but Worldwide with 32%)  in order to sway EU politicians into thinking that Apple is not complying with the DMA because Spotify is having a hard time trying to innovate, in order to become profitable. Spotify recently had to rely on raising prices, laying off employees and reducing royalties payout to the artists, in order to report their first annual profit. This after nearly 20 years in the business and being the dominate player for all of those years. (And the first 9 years without having to compete with Apple Music.) This shouldn't be happening because the DMA should be giving EU companies a home court advantage. Not just an attempt to level the playing field.   


    However, from the CEO, perspective, Spotify has been very profitable.


    IMO- Spotify CEO aught to be spending his time and resources on making sure bills like this don't pass, anywhere they do business. Something that will actually negatively affect Spotify bottom line. Otherwise, it's lights out for Spotify and it won't be because of Apple "dominance". It will be because the likes of Apple, Google and Amazon can afford to pay artist $.01 per stream without raising paid subscription prices, as they have others means to subsidize their music streaming services.


    We often hear about Apple DNA


    but if these are any indication of Spotify DNA, any Apple "dominance" is not Spotify's problem.





    Ek and Epic Games CEO Sweeney, are cut from the same cloth in that they are biggest CEO crybabies when it comes to demanding that the government help them compete with companies that actually innovates, without having to innovate.










    ForumPost

  • Phil Schiller recounts concerns over App Store fees for external purchases in hearing

    davidwdavidw
    DAalseth said:
    davidw said:
    DAalseth said:
    When I first heard about Apple getting a cut from sales outside of the AppStore I thought it was wrong and would come back to bite Apple in the ***. 30% to offset the cost of running the store was fine. But once someone loads the app I never agreed with Apple claiming a cut of sales from other people’s stores. That always struck me as abusive.

    If one purchased the digital downloaded version using the  Amazon app, then Apple charged a commission.

     

    And I always thought that was a very bad idea. If I buy a grocery bag from Target, Target doesn’t get a cut if I use it at Fred Meyers. 

    If you buy a grocery bag from anywhere, you own the bag out right. The seller has no say on where or how you can use it. But IP is different. You never own the IP. You are licensed to use it based on the terms of the license. Target don't own any rights to the grocery bag, after you paid for it.

    When you buy a CD, you can not use the CD or any of the songs on it, like you could with the purchase of a grocery bag.The artists of the songs (or copyright owner) deserves to get paid, if you were to make money using their songs. Commercial use of someone else's IP is not covered under "fair use". But you are allowed to sell that original physical CD, even at a profit, under the First Sale Doctrine in Copyright Laws. But you can never use the IP on it to make a profit, without the permission of its owner.

    If Apple (along with Google, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo) did not charge a commission for the purchase of Fortnight Bucks (IAP), when playing Fortnight, using a free app on their devices, then how is Apple suppose to recover the cost of hosting Fortnight on their devices?  Fortnight was one of the most downloaded apps from the Apple App Store and Epic made hundreds of millions of dollars selling Fortnight bucks through that free app. The very bad idea was that of Sweeney, when he violated Apple App Store policies and bypassed Apple commission. Policies he had to agreed to before Fortnight was allowed to be a free app in the Apple App Store. This cost him hundreds of millions of dollars (if not over a billion) by now, by getting kicked out of the Apple App Store. (Not to mention the loss from getting kicked out of the Google Play Store, on Android.)



    muthuk_vanalingamForumPostwatto_cobra

  • Phil Schiller recounts concerns over App Store fees for external purchases in hearing

    davidwdavidw
    DAalseth said:
    When I first heard about Apple getting a cut from sales outside of the AppStore I thought it was wrong and would come back to bite Apple in the ***. 30% to offset the cost of running the store was fine. But once someone loads the app I never agreed with Apple claiming a cut of sales from other people’s stores. That always struck me as abusive.

    The commission (30%) for purchases made outside the Apple App Store, by way of  an app that was free from the Apple App Store, only applies to digital goods purchases that ends up being downloaded into the Apple devices using iOS, iPadOS, tvOS , MacOS or WatchOS. Why should developers get a free ride to profit from Apple IP? The commission do not apply to purchases made through any app where the goods are delivered by other means. If one purchased a physical CD using the Amazon app, no commission. If one purchased the digital downloaded version using the  Amazon app, then Apple charged a commission. Which is why Amazon do not allow the purchase of digital downloaded goods (music, movies, books, software, etc.) using the Amazon App.

    The commission is not just for using the Apple App Store to sell your apps and/or for payment processing. The commission also includes the charge for using Apple IP to profit from. This includes using Apple IP to develop the apps that runs on Apple devices. An Apple Developer account only cost $99 / year (for individual). But Xcode and Swift are free.

    If developers like Sweeney don't want to pay Apple a commission, then he shouldn't be charging Epic game players for the virtual bucks used to buy virtual items that have over a 90% profit margin, when playing games by Epic Games using a free app from the Apple App Store. Problem solve.

    Or Sweeney can email the purchasers of VBucks a code where the purchasers can enter the code in their account to get their VBucks. But Sweeney would rather have the VBucks credited to their purchaser account immediately, using an app on the Apple device the player is using to play the game and that requires using Apple IP.

    Or Sweeney can only sell VBucks (for iOS) on their own website. Which means the game player would need to log on to the internet using a browser to make the purchase. But this reduces impulse and unintentional in-game buying by the game player. And Epic Games have been known to prey on their users (specially kids) with these type of in-game purchases.


     

    thtdewmeForumPostwatto_cobra

  • How Apple Music stands firm amidst Spotify's Premium plan hikes

    davidwdavidw
    AppleZulu said:
    Pema said:
    They could also get tools to edit songs, which for enraging artists and record labels has got to be right up there with how Spotify still pays musicians far less than Apple Music ever has.

    This sentence does not make sense. It is supposed to read emerging artists?
    No, I think “enraging” is correct. I think it would be pretty enraging for any artist who has put their blood, sweat, heart and soul into creating their music only to have Spotify package it with a set of tools to immediately f*¢k it up. That would be like a fine art gallery including a box of crayons, some scissors and a can of krylon with every painting sold. 

    But when you buy a painting, you own it and can do what you what with it. The artist has no right to tell you you can't use crayons to add some colors that you think is missing or to cut it into pieces.

    When you buy a CD or digital downloaded music, you have fair use rights under copyright laws to edit the songs you purchased, so long as you still own the original. You can take the songs on the CD and make changes to it as you wish, so long as its use is covered under fair use. The artist can't stop you. And Macs with OSX included the free software that enable you to edit the songs you purchased (on a CD or downloaded) ........ GarageBand. I'm old enough to remember when the artist were "enraged" when Steve Jobs included features in iTunes that allowed users to .... "Rip, Mix and Burn" ....... to create their own custom CD, using any of the songs in the users iTunes library.  And iTunes included the means to remove the DRM on digital downloaded music purchased on iTunes. Music industry wasn't too happy with that.

    There is also free software in the Apple App Store that will remove the vocals from music.


    But artist being "enraged" because Spotify included tools to edit streamed music is a reminder that when you pay for streamed music, you own nothing and you might not have any fair use rights to make changes to those streams whether in real time or in a saved file to listen to later. Paying for streamed music only entitle you to listen to the streamed music, so long as you continue to pay for it.


    watto_cobra