davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,775
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,204
Reactions
-
Netflix will wait until Hollywood strikes end to hike streaming prices
Only "gross profit" is not an indicator that Netflix have been more profitable every year. oops!StrangeDays said:
Oh yeah? Then how come Netflix has been profitable for at least 13 years, more so every year? Oopsforegoneconclusion said:Once again, the reason prices are always being raised is because streaming isn’t a workable business model.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/gross-profit
Why you carrying their water, bro?
It is only greed that demands ever-increasing profit margins year over year. Why are they entitled to that? Corporate greed for more is what drives inflation (not labor costs).
Me, what I’ve noticed when I look at legacy hit shows like Star Trek: TNG and compare it to streaming shows like Star Trek: SNW, is that the legacy seasons had two and a half times more episodes (26) while focusing on good writing and character development, while the new seasons have 10 episodes that focus on very expensive, cinematic set pieces and effects. That is a choice. Writing has been devalued, which we see again by the studios’ resistance to paying them.
Gross profit is the revenue from selling a product minus the cost of producing the product. It does not take into account the cost of operating the business. Which includes taxes, labor cost, rent, electricity, water, insurance, maintenance, accounting cost, advertising, improvements, etc.. If these cost total more than the gross profit, then company is operating at a loss, regardless of their gross profit.
Try this ....
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/net-profit-margin
Clearly one can see that Netflix net profit did not increase every year. Now revenue has increased every year but increase revenue doesn't always lead to increase profit if cost increased more than revenue.
Plus Netflix net profit margin is not that outrages.
Here's Apple Inc. charts ....
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/profit-margins
Currently, Apple net margin of 25% is nearly twice that of Netflix at 13%, so is Apple twice as greedy as Netflix?
-
Microsoft entered negotiations to sell Bing to Apple in 2020
danvm said:
I don't think Google is worried about Apple developing a search engine,davidw said:danvm said:
I still think defaults still important for Google, considering what they pay to Apple. If not, they would pay nothing to Apple and expect most customers to change to Google Search on their devices.davidw said:>Bing had been the default search engine on Apple products from 2013 to 2017, but Google took over from there. The revenue share deal with Apple eliminated Bing's ability to compete, even when Microsoft made drastic offers.<I don't know where they got that idea from. According to this ....Bing wasn't able to compete with Google even when they were the default search for Apple from 2013 to 2017.The way I look at it, the importance of the "default" position is now way over blown when it comes to market share. If the "default" was that as much of a factor with regards to gaining market share as some are saying, then MS Edge and Bing should have much more than low single digit market share because they are the defaults on about 70% of the World desktop computers.The fact that users can now easily change their "defaults", being the original installed default is no longer as meaningful as it was when MS IE was the default browser on Windows computers (in the mid 90's and early 2000's) and changing the default wasn't always that easy (thanks to MS).But if you read between the lines, Google revenue sharing deal with Apple, which includes Apple having Google as the default search on Safari, was really about discouraging Apple from developing their own search engine. Over 50% of Google search occurs on iOS. This is the reason why Google is willing to share a portion of their iOS search revenue with Apple. It's not about being the default but about their fear that Apple might develop their own search engine for iOS. Thus maybe taking away a significant portion of Google iOS search revenue. More than what Google is paying with their revenue sharing deal.So long as there is no smoking gun that Google offered their revenue deal in exchange for Apple giving up any idea of developing their own search engine or that of Apple threatening to develop their own search engine unless Google pays them so much, there's not much of a case for anti-competition with the deal. There is no proof that Apple can develop a search engine that will compete with Google. Apple search could end up no better than MS Bing. But Google would rather not find out as Apple do have a much more loyal user base than MS.
Apple won't make a Google search rival, says Eddy Cue (appleinsider.com)
And I don't think Google would have issues with the "loyal" Apple user base. If you noticed, Apple loyal users are more focused in hardware (Mac, iPad, Apple Watch, iPhone). But software and services is a different story. Most Apple users have Gmail accounts, and don't use iCloud accounts. MS Office and Google Workspace usage in Apple devices is ahead compared to the Apple suite of apps, even though they are free. And even mobile apps and TV services like Google Maps, Spotify, Netflix and Disney+ are more popular than Apple alternatives. I don't think an Apple search engine will make any difference to Google.Actually, Apple Map is taking a significant amount of market share on iOS, from Google Map. Even though Apple Map might be better with certain features of maps, Google overall is still the better map service. It's hard to find actual market share of Apple Map vs Google Map on iOS (with Apple secrecy policies) but just using napkin math, consensus seems to indicate that Apple Map have about 12% of the overall mapping service market share and it's only on iOS. Since iOS is only about 22% of the mobile OS market, then Apple Map is on about 45% - 50% of the iOS devices (That would also include users that uses both Apple Map and Google map). That is not an insignificant amount of loss revenue for Google with Google Map on iOS. And mainly due to Apple loyal user base choosing to use Apple Map.And the reason why Apple develop their own mapping service was because at the time Google was not supplying iOS Google Map users with the same features that were found on their Android version. Apple was concern that if Google were to never develop Google Map on iOS so that was as good as Google Map on Android, they would lose device sales from mobile users that consider having a good mapping service as an essential feature on their mobile device.Of course this is not proof that Apple would be able to do the same with an Apple search engine, but Google knows that if there was anyone capable of stealing a significant amount of market share from them on iOS, that will hurt their bottom line, Apple would be that one.And consider that Chrome market share on iOS is less than 5%.Here's an anti-trust lawsuit filed last year in the US, against Google and Apple, claiming there was such an agreement. Of course none of the allegations been proven yet and even if they were, it still might not amount to any anti-trust violations. But it's interesting to read the case they have against Google and Apple.
-
Microsoft entered negotiations to sell Bing to Apple in 2020
danvm said:
I still think defaults still important for Google, considering what they pay to Apple. If not, they would pay nothing to Apple and expect most customers to change to Google Search on their devices.davidw said:>Bing had been the default search engine on Apple products from 2013 to 2017, but Google took over from there. The revenue share deal with Apple eliminated Bing's ability to compete, even when Microsoft made drastic offers.<I don't know where they got that idea from. According to this ....Bing wasn't able to compete with Google even when they were the default search for Apple from 2013 to 2017.The way I look at it, the importance of the "default" position is now way over blown when it comes to market share. If the "default" was that as much of a factor with regards to gaining market share as some are saying, then MS Edge and Bing should have much more than low single digit market share because they are the defaults on about 70% of the World desktop computers.The fact that users can now easily change their "defaults", being the original installed default is no longer as meaningful as it was when MS IE was the default browser on Windows computers (in the mid 90's and early 2000's) and changing the default wasn't always that easy (thanks to MS).But if you read between the lines, Google revenue sharing deal with Apple, which includes Apple having Google as the default search on Safari, was really about discouraging Apple from developing their own search engine. Over 50% of Google search occurs on iOS. This is the reason why Google is willing to share a portion of their iOS search revenue with Apple. It's not about being the default but about their fear that Apple might develop their own search engine for iOS. Thus maybe taking away a significant portion of Google iOS search revenue. More than what Google is paying with their revenue sharing deal.So long as there is no smoking gun that Google offered their revenue deal in exchange for Apple giving up any idea of developing their own search engine or that of Apple threatening to develop their own search engine unless Google pays them so much, there's not much of a case for anti-competition with the deal. There is no proof that Apple can develop a search engine that will compete with Google. Apple search could end up no better than MS Bing. But Google would rather not find out as Apple do have a much more loyal user base than MS.
-
Microsoft entered negotiations to sell Bing to Apple in 2020
plalonde said:Eddy should not be happy with this news after his testimonial earlier this week saying the opposite...Apple executive Eddy Cue is expected to testify in court that the company has no plan to make an "Apple Search" engine, because its deal with Google is the best for users.You're not keeping up. That was what some of the media were saying what Eddy Cue was expected to say. This before Eddy Cue actual testimony.This was what he actually said when he took the stand, according to AI .........>Eddy Cue was on the stand on Tuesday, and he said Google was the only option for Apple because it was, and is, the best search engine option. The company also isn't interested in creating its own search engine to compete with Google, which explains why Apple avoided buying Bing.<See any reason why Eddy Cue should be unhappy?
-
Apple AI chief refers to iOS 17 Safari search feature in Google antitrust testimony
The reason why regulators don't step in and levy fines to cable companies for being a "monopoly" is because in most municipalities, they are already regulated. Most cities hand one cable company a monopoly in the area because most cities do not want to have two or more cable companies digging up their streets and erecting their own telephone poles, in order to run their cables to all the houses they serve. It's the same with the garbage company, there's usually only one garbage service that covers the whole city. Otherwise one could be awaken by the sound of garbage trucks picking up trash, several days a week because their neighbors are using different garbage services. These government granted "monopolies" are regulated by the city they serve. They can't raise prices or change the terms of their service contracts, without first getting the approval of the city government.baconstang said:crofford said:
Seriously? Everybody has complained for 50 years about lack of cable choice.slow n easy said:Yeah, this is a totally ridiculous charge. It's not Google's fault that consumers are refusing to change search engines. No one seems to care that in most communities, there is only one choice for Cable TV. Sure, they can switch to Satellite TV or Online Streaming, but if they have their heart set on Cable, there is only one option available. That Versus anyone can switch to any number of search engines they want. I don't get it.Yeah, but the regulators don't jump in and threaten to levy fines...
Of course this was back in the days when cable was just TV and didn't have the competition from satellite TV or TV streaming over the internet. They are probably a lot less regulated now, than before. In my city, the city owns the cable company and its a monopoly. But they still have to get approval from the city council, to raise rates. Which by all account, they never seem to have a problem getting.
The grand daddy of all government granted monopoly was ATT. Back before cellular, the government wanted everyone to be able to afford a telephone and that anyone picking up that telephone, can use it call anyone else in the US. So the quickest way (and probably the only way) to do this was to have one standard and ATT was chosen by the government to be that standard. There were many different telephone companies at the time and their telephone services were not compatible with each other. Otherwise there would be telephone poles by every telephone company all over the US and one might need to pay for services of more than one telephone company, in order to call all their family members and friends. Plus none of them would spend the money to run their lines to small rural communities ,if it wasn't going to be profitable. So in order for ATT to have that "monopoly", they were government regulated and must provide their service to as many consumers as practically possible. For US consumers, ATT lived up to the government promise of providing an affordable telephone service that could communicate with anyone with a telephone, in the US.
