davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,775
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,204
Reactions
-
UK Parliament calls for 50/50 streaming royalties split between artists and record labels
Did this come as a surprise of sorts or did you just choose to ignore it? ....gatorguy said:It may come as a surprise of sorts, but it looks as tho Apple isn't necessarily on-board with a 50/50 split to ensure the musicians and songwriters are paid better.
Apple says: "It is a narrow-margin business, so it wouldn't actually take that much to upset the so-called apple cart."
"According to the BBC, Spotify pays artists between GBP 0.002 ($0.0028) and GBP 0.0038 ($0.0053) per stream. Apple Music pays about GBP 0.0059 ($0.0082.) YouTube pays even less -- about GBP 0.00052 ($0.00072) per stream."
That being said, none of these streaming services ....... pay per stream. They pay a percentage of the revenue from subscriptions and/or ad revenue on free streaming. If Spotify subscribers on the average stream more music per month than Apple Music subscribers, then it will calculate out that Spotify will pay less per stream than Apple. After all, it is advertised as unlimited streaming per subscription. I doubt very much if streaming music would be as successful as it is today, if paying subscribers were limited to how many streams they are allowed, with their $9.99/M subscription. This so that artists are guarantied to be paid a certain amount, per stream.
Plus, it's up to the publishers, music labels or who ever the streaming services pays for the license to stream music, to split what they receive from the streaming services, with the artist. Why should Apple, Spotify or Google get involve with how their payout for rights to stream music, is split up among those in the music industry?
It would make no difference on how much these streaming services will pay (for the rights to stream music) if the music industry decide to spit it .... 70/30, 50/50 or 30/70. The government isn't asking the music streaming services to split their payout, 50/50, between the artists and labels or publishers. The streaming services do not know what kind of deal the artist made with their music label or publisher, concerning royalties for streaming their music. Nor would they be allow to change those deals, by demanding that artists gets at least 50% of their payout.
-
IAC CEO says Apple is 'worse' than Google, likely the next antitrust target
Maybe because under current anti-trust laws, they would have a hard time proving that Apple has a "monopoly", in any way. But with Google, they do have what can be considered a monopoly or monopolies under current anti-trust laws, with Android, their internet search engine and with online ads. If I recall, the earlier charges were against Google dominate position in internet search and online ad placements. These can be proven to be monopolies with current anti-trust laws. All the government would need to prove is abuse of those monopolies.tmay said:
Apple is already facing Congressional review of its App store, and I actually do agree that Apple should face review, sooner than later. It is going to happen and If there is going to be any mitigation, it should be based solely on a reduction of Apple's cut of app and subscription sales. I have no idea why the AGH's haven't acted on Apple yet, but I'd surmise that Google has been in their sights for much longer than Apple. Give it time, and I'm sure Apple will face the same review.gatorguy said:
You've misconstrued my posts.tmay said:
FFS; enough of the angst about Apple avoiding antitrust action.gatorguy said:
You specifically said:davidw said:
Oh, BTW, the numbers in your link were derided from from the mobile OSes that were used to access web pages that they were tracking. In other words, close to 60% of the people that access their web sites (in the US) were using iOS. Though there is probably a correlation, it's not going to be 1 to 1. The only sure thing these numbers indicate, is that there were more iOS users viewing their web pages, than Android users. That is not how the AG will be determining the market share of iOS users, in the US.gatorguy said:
I just won the bet then, which you would have seen if you looked at the link I gave you earlier. The OS share reported has been relatively consistent for over a year, not rising and falling as new phones are released.davidw said:
Read my link. Those numbers only apply to the US and the UK. Those are not Worldwide numbers. Those numbers are based on "users" in the US, not latest quarterly sales numbers.gatorguy said:
The FUD is all yours DavidW.davidw said:
That's just more FUD. I have no doubt that your numbers are correct but, even with all that, over 90% of the apps on the average Android device was downloaded from the Google Play Store. The number of Android users that only rely on the Google Play Store for their apps outnumbers ALL of the iOS users.gatorguy said:
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?KTR said:
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?gatorguy said:
Works the same way, right?KTR said:SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP
GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
The "size" of a store can be based on square area, number of items for sale, number of items sold, number of customers, number of stores or profitability.
Apple App Store sells more and is more profitable than the Google Play Store. But the Google Play Store has more available apps, have more stores (if we count each Android device as having a store), more customers and 3X the downloads, than the Apple App Store. To claim that the Apple App Store is ....... much larger than Google Play .... is FUD.
https://42matters.com/stats
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/
https://game-insider.com/2020/10/14/google-play-hit-28-3-billion-downloads-in-q3-2020-3x-more-than-app-store/
Plus, using quarter sales figure to determine marketshare for anti-trust purpose is wrong. Those figures can swing more than 5%, either way, from quarter to quarter, depending on who's releasing the next ... must have device. All the quarterly sale marketshare is saying is that in last quarter, there were more consumers buying iOS devices than Android devices.
In order for this figure to be used as an indication of the true marketshare, every iOS users and every Android users must have purchased a new device in the quarter. Just because in the last two quarters, more iPhone users replaced their phones (with newer 5G iPhones) than Android users replacing their devices, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, Apple gained more than 10% marketshare in the US. What they gained was over 10% of the sales in the last 2 quarters. iOS users buying new iOS devices did not increase the percent of consumers using iOS. And Android users that did not buy new devices, did not reduce the percent of consumers using Android.
A better "marker share" indicator is the number of users, in each mobile OS.
https://www.emarketer.com/content/iphones-gaining-us-market-share-losing-uk ;
Based on users, iOS do not "dominate" in the US or UK, as many seems to think, because they are basing it on quarterly sale figures. It's going to take a Hell a lot more than just 2 quarters of 58% of sales, for iOS to be the "dominate" mobile OS in the US.
The percent of iOS vs Android users in the US is closer to 50/50, when one include tablets, (where the iPad rule), into the iPhone numbers.
You make arguments that only have any validity if you include worldwide Android numbers, and you know that. and do it anyway.
In the US the split is not 50/50 according to the stat sources I find. it's closer to 60/40 in favor of iOS. The US market is the only relevant one in an antitrust case brought by US AG's.
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america
https://www.emarketer.com/content/iphones-gaining-us-market-share-losing-uk
I bet you can not provide me a link that shows iOS as the "dominate" mobile OS in the US, that do not rely on the latest quarterly sale numbers.
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america
You're welcome.
By the way, what matter is the UK stats to a US antitrust case brought by the states? You seem to think it's relevant.
You haven't won. But Thanks for playing.
"I bet you can not provide me a link that shows iOS as the "dominate" mobile OS in the US, that do not rely on the latest quarterly sale numbers."
So I gave you one that doesn't rely on sales numbers as you yourself point out now. It's based on mobile OS usage which seems far more reliable as an indicator of active devices but that's a different discussion. What's more pertinent is I won the bet didn't I, even if you can't bring yourself to say so? It didn't rely on device sales which you bet me I couldn't find.
In the U.S., Google has the dominant browser and search engine, with the associated advertising dominance therein, has a notable services footprint on Windows, as well as a large app and services footprint within Apple's ecosystem, and yes, Google Play store dominates 3rd party app stores in the U.S.
Next to Google's rap sheet, Apple's alleged antitrust violations of its App Store pale in comparison, so of course, Google is the focus of initial antitrust actions.
I assure you, Apple will soon get its turn in the barrel.
Patience.
I'm not at all saying that Apple's App Store deserves an antitrust review. IMO it doesn't.
My point was the antitrust lawsuit the AGH's are bringing against Google is illogical if they don't see a problem with Apple's even more restrictive store, and they have not indicated they have one. Therefore neither company should be targeted for the rules they run their stores by. Do you agree?
What I vehemently disagree with is forcing 3rd party stores and payments on Apple as mitigation, since this is a minimally consumer friendly. Exhibit A is how poorly 3rd party app stores actually compete with Google Play Store in the U.S., hence why Google is under review.
Anti-trust violations that was levied by the FTC against Facebook had to be dropped because the FTC did not provide enough evidence that Facebook had a monopoly (in the market cited), under current anti-trust laws.
The government is waiting and hoping for the passage of the new anti-trust laws aimed toward big tech, so that not only would they have an easier time proving a "monopoly" by narrowing down the definition of a "market", they don't even need to prove a "monopoly" to levy anti-trust charges. Just being one of the big techs the new anti-trust laws are aimed toward and making what they consider too much profit, would be enough. Under current anti-trust laws, making too much profit is not an anti-trust matter unless one abuses a monopoly or monopoly power.
Even if Google allows third party stores and side loading, they still have monopoly power with their Google Play Store, with over 90% of the app downloads and it being on over 70% of mobile devices. And they might be abusing that monopoly power. So even under current anti-trust laws, the government might have a case, if they have enough evidence that Google is abusing the monopoly power they have with the Google Play Store.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-saw-samsung-app-store-103312380.html
-
Design failure in Apple's Time Capsule leads to data loss
The "rubber foot" is made of some type of "thermal rubber" that conducts heat and acts to draw heat away, along with the thin metal base. This creates a much larger heat sink. It's like the "rubber" material placed between a CPU and a heat sink. Plus an Airport Extreme and Time Capsule are double insulated because it does not use a ground connection to the outlet. Thus there can not be any metal parts exposed that can be touched, in case of an internal short to the case.MplsP said:the time capsules had notoriously bad thermal management. I had one that would routinely get too hot to touch. When I took it apart, I discovered that, among other things, Apple had covered up the holes in the aluminum base with a rubber foot so air couldn't flow through them. Evidently cooling was still rocket science for Apple at that point.
Where Apple failed was to not put any feet on the bottom, to raise the it a half inch above the surface. Instead of the base resting directly on a flat surface. I place my TC on top of a pill bottle cap in each corner. Thus allowing air flow across the bottom. Or one can place the TC on it's side with the bottom and top exposed to air flow.
That said, I lost the 1TB HD on one of my Airport TC a while back (maybe 5 years ago). It was a Seagate HD and Seagate HD are notorious for high failure rate and the model Seagate HD that failed in the TC was one that was known for high failure. Since i did not buy the TC new, I just replaced it with a WD HD. I never noticed the TC getting "hot". Still working today. The other one that hasn't failed yet been working for over 10 years. But it's only a 500GB HD. I can't say whether there's a design flaw or I just got one with a bad HD.
But luckily, even if the TC could no longer read the HD, when I placed it in an external case, I was able to read it and recover all the data on my Mac. Which were just back ups anyway and I still had the original data. Eventually, the HD failed completely.
-
Google slapped with antitrust lawsuit over app store management
Here's another take on the matter of Google Play Store having competition and Android users having choices of app stores.gatorguy said:
If the AG's were truly concerned wouldn't the wiser move being first address the lack of an alternative app store at all and then procedd from there. I'm certainly not saying Google should be permitted to continue running and offering Google Play as is, and not saying they shouldn't either. The bigger issue would be not offereing any choice at all in a platform app store outside of the official first party one.chadbag said:
I am not saying I support the lawsuit, but non Google stores are so small that there is pretty much only the ones store for most users. The store that comes bundled with their new phone, front and center.gatorguy said:Weird lawsuit. On Android there's the option of side-loading and using alternative app stores like Amazon's. On iOS there is no such option, it is 100% Apple's to control, but the AG's are accusing Google of antitrust violations despite not having control of the app delivery market for the OS??How many (percentage?) A-list developers regularly release on non Google run stores?
I would think it a certainly that if at the end of all this Google Play must open itself to more competition and less control of the financial side then it's a given that Apple must make even more changes. That's why I found it odd they are complaining about Google and not Apple...
... unless the idea is to go after the one with legal question marks around their app store first so there's no question at all about the second even more controlling one. Otherwise the lawsuit seems strange and misdirected. In any event I have little doubt Apple is rooting for Google on this one.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-saw-samsung-app-store-103312380.html
The bigger issue is that Google might be using their market power to place competing app stores at a disadvantage, discouraging large developers from placing their apps in a third party app store and discouraging third parties from opening an app store. This at the expense of more competition and choices for developers and Android users. Even though Google makes a big claim that Android is "open". This would clearly be a violation with anti-trust laws that been around for a century, if true. Microsoft was charged for doing about the same to Dell and other large computer makers.
However, with Apple, new anti-trust laws must be passed in order to assure that Apple actually has a "monopoly" with their App Store, in a "market" that they completely own by the mere fact that iOS is their IP that is only used on their iDevices and it's only 23% of the "market" that should be considered, when addressing any anti-trust violations, under the old laws. Its only under the new laws, if they pass, that Apple has a "monopoly" with their App Store as iOS would be considered a "market" that would fall under anti-trust laws as it's an online platform own by a company with over $600B market cap AND with over 100M MAU (monthly active users).
Remember, under old anti-trust laws, having a monopoly or monopoly power, is not illegal and not subject to regulations, so long as they are not abused. Making too much profit by charging what would be considered industry standard or the rate everyone else is charging, is not considered being anti-competitive. And a "market" does not consist solely of customers that choses to use one company's ecosystem, product or IP. The new laws aimed at big tech, will change all that.
-
Stutter charity calls out Apple for 'stammering' emoji gaffe
Actually, it does translate to that. The "hood" or "bonnet" or "haube" in an automobile refers to the covering over the engine and not the engine compartment. Originally it was the covering that protected the driver from the heat of radiator in front of them.crowley said:The Germans call it a haube (actually motorhaube, but they do insist on compounding everything) which translates to hat or bonnet, but definitely not hood. And since they invented the car, that seals it for me
hood
1. a covering for the head and neck with an opening for the face, typically forming part of a coat or sweatshirt.
2. a thing resembling a hood in shape or use.
In other words .... a "hat".
But Benz first automobile designs had the engine in the back or under the driver seat. There were no "motorhaube" to speak of in Benz first designs of his automobiles.
It was Panhard-Levassor in France, that moved the engine to the front (several years after Benz first automobiles) and thus requiring a covering over the radiator to protect the driver. This covering is what is referred to as the "bonnet", "motohaube" or "hood". And they all translate to about the same thing ..... a "hat".
https://www.thoughtco.com/who-invented-the-car-4059932
>Panhard-Levassor made vehicles with a pedal-operated clutch, a chain transmission leading to a change-speed gearbox, and a front radiator. Levassor was the first designer to move the engine to the front of the car and use a rear-wheel-drive layout. This design was known as the Systeme Panhard and quickly became the standard for all cars because it gave a better balance and improved steering. Panhard and Levassor are also credited with the invention of the modern transmission — installed in their 1895 Panhard.<
So far, this research was much more interesting and educational, than learning about "stutter" and stammer".
