davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,773
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,205
Reactions
-
Epic CEO will fight Apple to the bitter end over App Store control
Don't ever start a business. If you do, hire someone that knows how to run it.jblongz said:II don't agree with the way Epic Games started this, but I do feel their sentiment. Taking 30% of someone's business in order to sell on their platform is like doing the same in order to make a MacOS or Windows 11 app. It does seem unfair.
It's not Apple taking away 30% of someone business, in order to sell on Apple platform. It's the business adding a 30% cost to doing business, with the hope of making more money selling on Apple platform. There's is no 30% added cost to the business if the business don't make a sale. And the sale price should take into account the 30% commission. In other words, the customer pays the cost of the commission, along with all the other expense in creating, marketing and selling the product.
You don't think Walmart is making at least 30% of the retail sale price of an Xbox game? Or a brick and mortar book store is making at least 30% of the cover price of a book?
And also, maybe the cost of adding a 30% cost to your business because of the cost of marketing in a better store, can easily be made up by an increase in sales. What's better for your business, maybe only selling 100 of your product in a small local store most consumers would never shop at but having to pay only a 10% commission on each sale. Or maybe selling 10,000 of your product in a big name international store that many consumers shop at but having to pay a 30% commission? That 30% commission also pays for the access to a lot more customers, that might buy your product. No different than a shopping mall with a lot of foot traffic, charges more in rent, than a mall with much less foot traffic.
Sure you can pay 0% commission by selling your product locally, door to door. But isn't it better to make $1 profit on each sale and having sales of 10,000 in a store with a 30% commission, than to make $3 profit on each sale but only having sales of 1000 selling door to door, with no commission cost? Ever hear of ... it often better to have a small piece of a large pie, than to have a large piece of a small pie?
-
Apple Store crash victims sue Apple over '100% preventable' crash
ronn said:
Do the other stores in the mall have large sheets of glass for entrances? Why does Apple have barriers at many of their other stores? How many instances has Apple had of vehicles used in smash in grabs at their stores over the years? If stores "have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention," why not in the front which is much more vulnerable, especially in this instance with a glass wall? There will be depositions and paperwork looked over with a fine-tooth comb in search of answers to all those questions and more. This is just the beginning of the lawsuits with at least two employees already suing (although they're currently not suing Apple, just the driver and the property owners).dewme said:
I don’t think this is “a look” for Apple in any way. They are following all requirements imposed on them. What about all of the other stores in the mall that have unprotected entrances? Do they also have a bad look? It’s not that I’m against safety barriers at all, having seen the results of a very similar incident fairly recently in my home town, but you can’t single out and slam Apple for not doing something that they and other retailers are not required to do. Just because Apple has a lot of money doesn’t require them to follow a different set of rules or live up to implied expectations. If communities want to prevent these tragedies it’s up them to enact laws and set standards to make it happen. Everyone should have to follow the same set of rules.ronn said:Not a good look for Apple and the property owners since the back of the mall has several barriers and barriers were installed in front of the store after the crash. Will be interesting to see the negotiations and requirements between the mall owners and Apple for the Hingham location. Read elsewhere (can't find now) that the property owners did not want barriers/bollards around store fronts. Apple has several locations with barriers in the form of bollards, planters, fencing, etc.
A recently retired Mass state rep tried for years to mandate protective barriersIn each legislative term since 2013, Carolyn Dykema, a Holliston state representative who left the State Legislature in January, filed a bill that would mandate that barriers be placed between certain parking spaces and retail businesses. Each of her five tries died before reaching a floor vote.
“When you start paying attention, it’s really quite shocking the number of crashes and the frequency of them,” Dykema said when reached by phone on Tuesday.
The reason why stores have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention. The bad guys don’t want to draw attention to their illegal activities which makes the back entrances more vulnerable.
Again, I’m not anti-safety and I recognize that these accidents occur more often than they should, especially in areas with a higher proportion of elderly drivers, some of whom should probably not be driving. But I also believe that we need to take a systems approach to solving the problem. I’ve spent some time working with functional safety for industrial machinery and one thing that strikes me as odd in the commercial sector is the total lack of emergency shutdown mechanisms in automobiles.
I can’t imagine an auto maker putting a big red e-stop button on the dashboard of every new car, mostly because drivers would be unlikely to use it under emergency circumstances, but I do think that auto makers should be involved in helping to solve the unintended acceleration problem from their side as well. They can’t solve it alone, just like retrofitting passive barriers on a massive scale can’t solve the problem alone. Some level of cooperation and shared responsibility needs to be applied, including community based legal mandates, on-vehicle safety systems, applying more scrutiny to age related license renewal, and avoiding driver distraction.The reason why there are safety barriers and bollards behind the stores is because that's where the loading docks are or where deliveries trucks, forklifts and garbage trucks operate. They are there to protect against structural damages caused by vehicles weighing over 5 tons and most likely going less than 5MPH, with many of them backing up. They are not there to protect the customers inside, from a vehicle crashing in at 60MPH.The glass used for the front of the Apple Store is not regular glass. Notice the "hole" the truck left after crashing through it. The "hole" is not much bigger than than the truck itself. This "glass' is like a laminated auto windshield. It did not shatter like glass at all. Most of it stayed intact. Most likely it's close to 2 inches thick. I'm willing to bet that it's going take a lot more than a car jumping the curb at 35MPH, because of the driver accidentally stepping on the gas while parking, to go through this "glass".Most smash and grab uses a hammer on the glass front, not a car. And I'm willing to also bet that even a 10lb sledge hammer will not break through this Apple Store glass for a smash and grab. It will only leave a "hole" the size of the hammer head in the laminated layer of the glass. Cars are usually use for smash and grab only when the store is closed and there are no customers inside and no traffic outside.This Apple store was inside a mall. There is no parking spaces directly in.front of the store. There is over 30ft consisting of a sidewalk, planters, curb and a two lane road, to the nearest parking spot, in front of the store. The speed limit for the road is probably no more the 30MPH but most drivers are only going less than 25MPH. If speeding is a problem on the road, then there would be speed bumps in place. The front of the store looks out to a parking lot with cars driving less than 25MPH, not at the bottom of a freeway off ramp.And just because there are safety barriers and bollards in front of other Apple stores, how do you know that it was Apple that placed them there? Maybe those safety devices were already in place when Apple leased the store? And how do you know the terms of the lease. Maybe with the lease at other stores, Apple is allowed to install such safety devices, while here, the mall did not allow for it. And do you really expect Apple to apply the same standard of theft and loss prevention for stores in nearly crime free areas, as the ones in the middle of SF, Chicago, LA or NYC?So far, not one thing you stated is proof of negligence on Apple part. For sure Apple (with their insurance)will help pay for any actual damages suffered by their employees and customers. But suing Apple for punitive damages will require proof of negligence on Apple part.
-
Netflix lets you kick freeloading users off your streaming account
ITGUYINSD said:
You beat me to it! Whether the freeloader has your password or not, just change your password and voila! -- everyone but you and those you share the new password with are disconnected.dewme said:Silly question, but hasn’t the registered owner of a Netflix account always had the option to change their password and thereby sever “freeloaders” from sharing their account?Nope. Not with Netflix (and probably other subscription services.).Somewhere in the Netflix account setting menu, there is a list of devices that were used to log into your account. The list contains 12 (maybe it's only 8 now) of the most recent devices that was used with your account. This list is what allows you to not have to log in, every time with that device. You just click on the Netflix app and you're in, without ever needing to enter the password.Once you have more devices that is allowed on the list, the device on the bottom of the list gets knocked off and will now require entering the password, to log back in. However, you can remove any device you choose from the list. So in order for the "freeloader" to use your account, once you delete their device from the list, they have to enter a password again. And if you change the password, then they can no longer log in your account automatically. If you don't delete their device from the list, they can continue to use your account with that device, as they are never required to enter the new password with that device.It has always been a two step process to prevent freeloaders from using your account. It wasn't that intuitive back then, but maybe Neflix made it much simpler now.I have purchased many used Wii game consoles, TV boxes and smart BluRay players from the Goodwill, where if I were to click on the Netflix app in the menu, I'm in on the original owner account. To avoid this, one need to reset the device to factory or log out of Netflix inside the app on that device. Or you go to your account and delete the device from the list.
-
Apple kills long-time event archive on YouTube
I know what you are thinking and it's wrong. You are saying that because Apple had already released these videos to the public as a form of promotion and advertising during their WWDC, anyone have the right to use these videos to show to the public again, anytime in the future since Apple have no more use for these videos. Just because Apple might no longer have any use for these videos does not mean that Apple loses any copyright rights they have on these videos. The videos original purpose was to promote their WWDC and Apple copyright rights on them can prevent anyone from using these videos for purposes Apple that never intended them to be used for. If one wants to put these videos on YouTube, to show to the public again, one would still need to get Apple permission to do so. Unless maybe if its to used for what the videos were originally intended for, to promote the WWDC.sdw2001 said:
I hope you realize you’re talking to someone who has an extensive background in copyright. I’m not a lawyer, but I am well-versed. It’s a major part of my profession. The Super Bowl and feature films are completely different animals as compared to an archived product announcement event. The entire purpose of the event is to give a speech with announcements in front of the media. Taking that event that Apple self broadcast and having an archive of it on YouTube is not exactly the same as rebroadcasting the Super Bowl. Apple can send all the legal notices and YouTube requests it wants. What I’m saying is that proving infringement in court on this would be extremely difficult based on the exact nature of the material and circumstances.mfryd said:
The Superbowl is a public event. I think the broadcast networks would disagree with your assessment that copyright does not apply to a video of public event that is broadcast.sdw2001 said:
I am, in fact, claiming it is likely not copyright infringement. These are events that were videoed and broadcast at the time. They were public events. All this guy did was have them archived on YouTube. He could argue it is for journalistic purposes. Now if he was getting ad revenue, that changes things. He’s not reproducing it, just maintaining an archive. YouTube may agree it’s infringement, but that has nothing to do with infringement under the law.mfryd said:
In terms of journalistic purposes, he might be able to get by claiming fair use for small excerpts used as part of a critique. However, if your critique/review includes a copy of the entirety of Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope, I suspect that Disney will disagree with you.
Copyright exists the moment a creative work is fixed in tangible form. If a copyright owner chooses to freely broadcast something, that doesn't place it in the public domain. Consider a folk duo having a free concert in central park, A recording of that concert would be covered by copyright, even though the event was free, and songs from the recording were broadcast over the radio.
The bottom line is that Apple owns the copyright to their recordings and videos. It is a copyright infringement to upload complete recordings to a public web site (including YouTube), without permission from the copyright holder.
The trailers to promote the next "Star Wars" movie, that LucasFilm shows to the public in theaters and other media, is copyrighted and can not be recorded and used on YouTube, without permission. Even if the tuber is a big Star Wars fan and have archived of all the Star Wars movie trailers and make them freely available on their YouTube channel. Just because LucasFilm had already shown the trailers to the public to promote the new Star Wars movie, do not mean that LucasFilm can no longer exercise their copyright rights on them. Even 20 years after the movie the trailer was promoting, was released.
-
Spotify removes audiobook purchases from app after Apple rejection
No, that is not true. It's not Apple that is requiring Kindle book buyers to purchase their Kindle books outside the iOS Kindle App. It's Amazon that is requiring Kindle book buyers on iOS, to purchase their Kindle books outside the iOS Kindle App. Amazon do not want to pay Apple their 30% commission for Kindle book purchases if made inside the iOS Kindle App. So Amazon purposely provides no way for iOS Kindle book readers to buy Kindle books inside their iOS Kindle App. This is also true for the Android Kindle Book App. And also, it's not Google that is requiring Kindle books to be purchased outside the Android Kindle Book App.entropys said:It was the way that Spotify, through some convoluted email process to avoid fees that apple didn’t like. If Spotify had done it the way you describe in the article it might have had more of a chance of being approved. I have to go outside the app on kindle too for content, including audiobooks. audiobook experience on Apple Books is not great.
Apple hasn’t really paid much attention to its Books app, although Books finally got thrown a wee bit of a bone interface wise in ios16. Audiobooks is a key area it is has not been given any love. Basically you have to buy an audiblebook at exorbitant prices (AUD$30 plus) in the Books app.
There are some books available through the podcast app, but it is pretty limited.
Over on kindle, if you buy a kindle book, if an audio version also exists for it you can get it added to the purchase for an extra couple of dollars and you can progress through the book either through reading or listening, the kindle app knows where you are. And there is also the classic audible subscription (Amazon owns audible) but it is not good value of money and an area ripe for classic disruption. I would also note that all Apple Books has over The Kindle App is you can buy books directly in the app, whereas Apple requires the buyer to go outside the app to a browser for kindle. Bad Apple.
I would expect the spotify effort is more like the Apple podcast, but specifically given development attention and promotion to help spotify diversify. Meanwhile, Apple Books in general, and thus audible books as well, has been on the back burner at Apple for sometime. It was clearly burnt badly in that antitrust case, and went into classic avoidance. Meanwhile Amazon won all it desired, ironically reduced competition for kindle.
I still believe the digital book market is ripe for disruption, including audiobooks, and Apple is just about the only company that can do it. Maybe Spotify can do it if Apple isn’t willing to go to the effort.
Amazon also does this with digital downloaded music and movies with their Amazon Shopping App. One can buy the physical CD or BluRay/DVD disc with the Amazon Shopping App because Apple commission do not apply to the purchase of physical items. But purchases that are downloaded on to iOS are subject the Apple commission , so Amazon do not allow for their purchase in the Amazon Shopping App. Bad Amazon.
