davidw

GeorgeBMac said:

maciekskontakt said:

dewme said:

Not surprising, but fortunately it’s very easy for everyone who subscribes to Amazon Prime to do the math and determine whether it’s worth it for them. For a lot of folks the determination can be made based on delivery costs alone. The value of the extra stuff like photos, music, and video only enter the equation if you’re not getting all of the value/ROI from the delivery service. 

I recognize this is a narrowly focused perspective based on personal economics alone. Like any system there are a number of macro level implications and second order effects to a service like this that makes it so incredibly easy have hard goods ordered on a whim delivered extremely quickly to your door with little to no regard to the true cost of the delivery service.

A quick survey of the number of Amazon vehicles on the road and coursing through neighborhoods nearly all of the time, not to mention the vast tracts of land devoted to fulfillment centers and warehouses, some of which are built on the graves of dead malls and retail stores driven out of business because they could not compete against online retail, and the mountains of cardboard waste (hopefully everyone recycles?) paints a truer cost picture that’s a little harder to do the math on. 

The “eye” is back … staring straight at me. Ugh.

Does Apple offer food shopping with any service? Amazon Prime does and that was saver during Covid sickness, isolation and lockdowns. You get your bags of food next to your doors - not just entertainment on your favorite device. You can survive without entertainment - not so without food. Also this is very convenient  in times when we work from home and do not want to leave home for shopping (for many reasons). Add to that, that many devices including Samsung and Apple you can buy from Amazon with overnight (almost) delivery for free (Prime gives you free delivery on most of Amazon sold products and it is delivered even on weekends). So how do you plan to compare only narrow service from Apple with fractional part of Amazon Prime service that offers far more?

Good points!

But unless something has changed food delivery may be a local / regional thing.

Here, Amazon stocks staples like oatmeal and coffee but doesn't have grocery store style food.  And, while Whole Foods advertised delivery, early on it was impossible to get on the schedule  (but that may have improved since then)

I wish they would open that up.  There are a lot of Americans who don't drive -- especially older Americans -- who would find it easier to stay in their homes if their food was delivered.   Prior to the pandemic I delivered Meas-on-wheels -- but, aside from being pricey for somebody living on Social Security, it is of limited benefit -- they still need to go to the store.

There are apps in the Apple App Store and Google Play store for home delivery from local grocery stores like Safeway, Lucky, Trader Joe and Walmart. They are not free delivery but neither is Prime with Whole Foods. Prime Whole Foods delivery use to be free but not anymore. There's now a $9.98 service charge added to home delivery and extra fee for 1 hour delivery service.

I haven't use any of them and don't have a Prime account, so I have no idea of their competitive delivery cost. But all the others do not require paying for a Prime membership, to get home grocery delivery. No one needing home grocery delivery are require to sign up for a Prime membership. Even if Prime delivery cost might be cheaper than the others, groceries a Whole Foods tend to be more expensive. They once earned the nickname of  "Whole Paycheck".  If you are a older American on a fixed income and need your groceries delivered, Whole Foods would not be your first choice of where to shop and there are apps for other supermarkets delivery services, to get your grocery delivered to your door steps. 

brian.on.android said:

waveparticle said:

verne arase said:

Apple is much too successful - we need to stop it now! -- Microsoft

Microsoft is pretty pathetic, and Apple's privacy terms rankle Microsoft's nerves. Too bad Windows doesn't have the same privacy safeguards - with Windows attempting to force everything through Edge.

Microsoft runs their own closed ecosystem with XBox, so it's a lot of Microsoft calling the kettle black.

The real monopoly is in the enterprise software realm where Microsoft keeps boosting prices for their good enough software.

What really pisses off Microsoft is that they don't have access to Apple Silicon ARM processors, so Windows ARM will run faster on Apple hardware than on their OEMs - or indeed on their own surface machines.

Microsoft has a point here. In the 90s it was so successful it almost killed Apple. On the other hand, Steve Jobs resurrected Apple without having to stop Microsoft. 

Worth noting Microsoft invested in Apple in the 90's. Apple may owe Microsoft to a degree.

Microsoft bought $150M worth of AAPL at around $20 a share. They were non-voting shares and if I recall, did not split in 2000 (Microsoft sold them all before the second split in 2005). At the time Apple had no debt and rumored to had had about $1B in cash. Apple did not financially need the $150M investment. 

What Jobs needed was time to get Apple back on track and he did not want to have to the spend the time and resources to fight Microsoft in court over Microsoft stealing QuickTime technology.  A case that Apple was sure to win. So he made an offer to Microsoft to settle by having them invest in AAPL. This ended the lawsuit so Jobs can concentrate on Apple Computer, not the lawsuit. Plus by Microsoft showing confidence to invest $150M in Apple, it gave AAPL investors confidence to not sell and other investors to buy AAPL Thus bolstering AAPL share price until Jobs can release the iMac. Jobs could had ask for $150M in cash and Microsoft would had probably settled. Apple had that strong of a case. But Apple didn't need the money. 

If Microsoft had held on to those shares, they would be worth close to $1.5B today, even without the splits along the way. Instead Microsoft "only" made about $350M profit with their investment. (If they had gotten the splits, their shares would be worth about $170B today.)   

On a side note. Steven Jobs himself boosted his role in saving Apple by claiming Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy when he took over and only had enough cash to last another quarter or two. But he was using a quarter where Apple lost over $600M. Apple was not losing $600M every quarter. That quarter was an anomaly. Apple was only losing about $100M to $200M a quarter at the time. So Apple could have lasted another year or even two, with just cash on hand. $150M wouldn't even cover what Apple was losing in a quarter. So how did Microsoft $150M investment save Apple?  

What's next? Are you going to tell us the fable about how Apple wouldn't be here today, if they hadn't "stolen" PARC technology? 

fastasleep said:

davidw said:

techconc said:

AppleZulu said:

To your point, the Mac platform was never great for gamers, but it was at least tenable for many that were interested in games as a secondary function for their machine.  Apple has a gaming problem on the Mac platform that needs to be addressed. 

Or - now hear me out - they don’t. 

There are a lot of people out there who buy and use computers but yet have zero to very marginal interest in playing video games. For those folks, Apple’s Arcade platform is more than ample to meet their needs. 

As always, Apple does just fine as a business that does not try to be all things to all people. The numbers reported atop this forum thread are example enough of that. 

I get your point that Apple can't be all things to all people.  However, as a platform owner, it is in Apple's best interests to address shortcomings of their platforms.  Apple has never understood the gaming market and likely never will.  In the past, they had 3rd parties that were able to fill the gap.  That doesn't seem to exist anymore.  Further, when Apple is pulling in $30+ billion profit in a quarter, its pretty hard to give them a pass for not setting up a first party game studio at this point.  It's not like the dark days where Apple was on life support and really had to choose how to invest in order to save the company.  Expectations are a bit different now. 

Can you imagine all the crybaby Spotify CEO like game developers, that will be crying that Apple is unfairly competing on their own platform, by promoting their own games? And the EU with knives out, at more opportunities to get in on the action and fining Apple for what they surely would rule as, anti-trust behavior. All the games developers would demand that their games be on Apple's platform, without having to pay Apple a commission on sales.  

Nonsense. All the platforms have first party exclusive games at no detriment to third party developers.

fastasleep said:

davidw said:

techconc said:

AppleZulu said:

To your point, the Mac platform was never great for gamers, but it was at least tenable for many that were interested in games as a secondary function for their machine.  Apple has a gaming problem on the Mac platform that needs to be addressed. 

Or - now hear me out - they don’t. 

There are a lot of people out there who buy and use computers but yet have zero to very marginal interest in playing video games. For those folks, Apple’s Arcade platform is more than ample to meet their needs. 

As always, Apple does just fine as a business that does not try to be all things to all people. The numbers reported atop this forum thread are example enough of that. 

I get your point that Apple can't be all things to all people.  However, as a platform owner, it is in Apple's best interests to address shortcomings of their platforms.  Apple has never understood the gaming market and likely never will.  In the past, they had 3rd parties that were able to fill the gap.  That doesn't seem to exist anymore.  Further, when Apple is pulling in $30+ billion profit in a quarter, its pretty hard to give them a pass for not setting up a first party game studio at this point.  It's not like the dark days where Apple was on life support and really had to choose how to invest in order to save the company.  Expectations are a bit different now. 

Can you imagine all the crybaby Spotify CEO like game developers, that will be crying that Apple is unfairly competing on their own platform, by promoting their own games? And the EU with knives out, at more opportunities to get in on the action and fining Apple for what they surely would rule as, anti-trust behavior. All the games developers would demand that their games be on Apple's platform, without having to pay Apple a commission on sales.  

Nonsense. All the platforms have first party exclusive games at no detriment to third party developers.

Gaming platforms are not considered "core platform services" under EU DMA criteria to be a "gatekeeper", but an OS is. Thus Apple is already designated a "gatekeeper" with their iOS and MacOS platform.  If they use their OS platforms as a gaming platform and promote their own games on it, then the EU would have reasons to look into it as violation of rules set up for to keep "gatekeepers" from unfairly competing.  

Sony is not considered a "gatekeeper" with their PlayStation platform. Microsoft is a "gatekeeper" because of their OS and cloud service, but not because of their Xbox gaming platform. Their Xbox gaming platform is separate from their OS. 

https://www.kirkland.com/publications/kirkland-alert/2020/12/eu-proposes-rules-for-big-tech-gatekeepers

The rules are not final and can be modified or new ones added, as needed, even after the DMA passes. Which will be soon.  

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eu-parliament-gives-green-light-to-digital-markets-act

>Do’s

• Interoperability: Gatekeepers need to allow third parties to interoperate with the gatekeeper’s services (e.g., through allowing third party apps and app stores to be installed)

Don'ts

• No self-preferencing: Gatekeepers cannot give preference to their own products and services in search result rankings <

You don't think Epic will have a better chance of getting their Epic Game Store into iOS, if Apple were to use iOS as a gaming platform?  Spotify is crying about how Apple is competing unfairly because they are using their iOS platform to promote their Apple Music streaming platform. Developers are already crying foul, about how searches in the Apple App Store seems to favor Apple own apps, thus claiming there is a bias in the search result. 

Anilu_777 said:

App clones should be prohibited. Unless there is a huge enhancement to the copy it should not be allowed in the App Store. 

But how is Apple suppose to know a "clone", from an original? Being first to have an app in the Apple App Store is in no way proof that one own the original copyright to that app. In copyright law, it's first to create the original app, not first to get it into an app store.  And it is not up to Apple to determine if a "clone" is different enough to not be considered a copy or a derivative of the original work. 

Plus, in order to file a civil suit to recover damages from an infringer, one must register their copyright. Otherwise, the copyright owner can only prevent an infringer from continuing to use his copyrighted work. Without registering the copyright, there's no easy way for the infringer to know that he was infringing upon someone else's copyrighted work, therefore the court will only award nominal damages.

https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/enforcement/ ;

Apple should only remove a "clone" if the original copyright owner first sues the developer of the "clone" for copyright infringement in a civil court. Suing Apple first, is not the proper or legal way to enforce ones copyright and to recover damages.

But I'm willing to bet that most developers do not register the copyright to their work and their only recourse to recover any money that they think they are entitled to, is to sue Apple. 

Apple should only be liable for any copyright infringement for allowing a "clone" in their Apple App Store, if the original app owner presented Apple with proof that they are the original copyright owner or proof that they are suing the "clone" developer for copyright infringement in a civil court and Apple do not remove the "clone" from the Apple App Store. And the original copyright owner wins their case in court.

What if Apple were to remove all the "clones" of an app because developer of the first such app claims that they own the copyright but later it was found out the developer did not own the original copyright to the app? Do all the "clone" developer get to sue Apple for lost of income?  

cropr said:

retrogusto said:

I feel like there are infinite analogies that show why this whole Epic thing is ridiculous. Here’s one:
The best nightclub in town charges a cover at the door, and the entertainment and overall experience they provide is the best anywhere. They provide complimentary water and soft drinks, included in the price of admission, and sell alcoholic drinks at industry-standard prices. I own a champagne producer, and I determine that customers would buy more of my champagne if the price were lower, but rather than lower my own wholesale price to the club, I try to legally force the club to reduce their markup, arguing that once a customer pays the cover, the club has a monopoly on all products sold there. 

As long as the Apple App Store is the only distribution point of iOS apps, your analogy is incorrect.    Keeping the analogy, this would mean that the night club owner does not allow the champagne producer to sell to other night clubs.    

No, you got it wrong. 

What the night club would not allow is for their customers to walk to the liquor store down the block, buy the same champagne and then bringing it into their club to consume. Thus bypassing the nightclub ability to make money from selling the same champagne inside their nightclub.  

The nightclub is iOS. The cover charge is cost of the iDevice. The bar inside is the App Store. The champagne is the app. There are other nightclubs that the customers can go to. There are other nightclubs and places to buy the same champagne. The champagne vender is the developers and have many other places to sell his product. But once inside the nightclub, the customer have to buy it from the bar inside the nightclub. This is not a secret and the customers knows this when they paid the cover charge to get in. 

It's like a theater that is the only one showing a blockbuster movie. The theater owner do not have to allow a third party concession stand inside the theater, selling snacks to the theater sold out admission paying customers. But some here thinks that the theater have a" monopoly" because the only way for their admission paying customers to buy snacks once inside, is from the theater owned concession stand. So they want the government to step in and force the theater to allow other concession stands inside the theater or allow customers to buy snacks from a concession stand outside of one of the side exits. No ticket paying theater customer expects to be able to buy their snacks (once inside the theater) from a concession stand, other than one that is own and operated by the theater. 

Where these analogies fail is that with the Apple App store in iOS, the sellers still have control of the price of their apps. There is no excuse for a developer to lose money selling apps. Except that the user don't want to pay what the developer wants. Either because there are better apps for the same or at a lower price (competition) or the app is just not what most users need. There is no excuse to lose money selling an app because the developer didn't calculate the commission into the price of the app. The commission is part of the operating expense of running a business. A commission the developers knew they had to pay when they signed the DLPA (Developer License Program Agreement) for iOS.

Epic included the cost of the commission in the IAP cost of buying V-Bucks in Fortnight. How can they not have calculated in the cost of the commission, when they have to pay the same commission to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo? Where they make about 80% of their Fortnite gaming revenue.  And they still sold billions of dollars worth of V-Bucks with Fortnight. Developers like Epic can not complain about how Apple and Google app stores commission harmed their profits, when they pass on that cost to their customers. It just makes them look bad. And for the most part, customers that are not complaining about being charged $20 in V-bucks ($10 in real money) for a virtual cool looking outfit that cost Epic almost nothing to produce.