davidw

About

Username
davidw
Joined
Visits
185
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,741
Badges
1
Posts
2,184

Reactions

2.4KLike29Dislike465Informative

  • Spotify says Apple is blocking volume controls for connected devices

    davidwdavidw
    ITGUYINSD said:
    apple4thewin said:
    Not Spotify again whining 
    You mean not Apple playing dictator again?  taking away access to functions that were allowed, and for no good reason, is just Apple being a bully.  
    Could the fact that Spotify has more subscribers than Apple Music have something to do with it?

    You are as clueless as Spotify. The volume buttons on the Apple device are mainly use to control the volume on the device own internal speakers or external speakers that are connected using the analog audio jack. Anyone with a clue about maintaining audio quality with a digital audio stream knows that the volume of the audio should be changed after the DAC converts the digital audio to analog. Changing the volume (or any equalization) on the digital stream before it's converted to analog, will degrade the quality of the audio.

    For the volume buttons on the Apple device to change the volume of the audio on a HomePod, the Apple device buttons would need to be (or is) programed to change the volume on the HomePod remotely, after the HomePod converts the digital stream to analog, with its own built in DAC. This would be true with any device with a built in DAC. (Including headphones, earbuds, speakers, stereos, CarPlay, etc..)

    The normal way to control the volume on external speakers that is receiving a digital stream from an Apple device is to use "control center". But only if the external playback device is programed to use it. And it's up to the makers of the external playback device to include the remote volume control, with their software. Not Apple. Otherwise, the volume is controlled using the volume control on the external device (after it's converted to analog). 

    Of course, Spotify digital audio quality is the worse of the major music streamers, that maybe Spotify don't care if it's further degraded by  having its volume changed before it's digitally streamed to another device, that has its own DAC to convert the stream back to analog. So their subscribers won't notice anyway.

    Even back in the days when one uses iTunes on a computer to wirelessly steam their music library to a stereo with Wifi, it's recommended that the voulume control in iTunes be turned all the way up and only the volume control on the stereo should be used to control the audio volume. Unless your computer is connect to your stereo using the analog audio jack(s).
    danoxjahblade

  • Doctor decries Apple gift card discount 'scam' after failing to understand the terms of th...

    davidwdavidw
    This also happens with ..... buy one, get one free .... deals (here in CA at least). One is charged for the full price of both items and then a 50% discount is applied. The reason why it's done this way is so CA can collect the sales tax (or any other taxes like alcohol, sugar, cigarette, CRV, etc.) on the "free" item.

    Anyone that have done any comparative shopping, knows that ..... buy on get one free ... deals, are a "scam". The "free" one is not actually  "free" in States that charges sales tax (or other taxes) on the item.

    For example ... say that a bottle of wine cost $20 and there's a .... buy one, get one free deal. So it will cost you $20 for the two bottles of wine. But the register rings up $40 for the two bottles and then $20 is deducted for the "free" one. But the sales tax and alcohol tax in based on the $40. BUT if there was a 50% off sale on the same bottle of wine and each bottle of wine is priced at $10, then the register would ring up 2 bottles of wine at $10 each or $20. And any taxes will apply only to $20. (So long as the 50% discount (on each bottle) is accounted, for when entering the price into the register.)

    I'm sure in CA, the politicians will figure out a way (if they haven't already done so) to tax the amount of the discount its residents receives on items that are on sale below MSRP.  As liberal and progressive as CA claims to be, sales tax is the most regressive of all taxes and CA is one of the States with the highest sales tax.







    williamlondonwatto_cobra

  • iCloud storage leads the pack across Apple's entire services ecosystem

    davidwdavidw
    That graphical chart should not be used to compare Apple customers usage of various Apple services. While Apple Care and iCloud storage numbers might be the actual percentage of Apple customers that paid for those services, no way that 42% of Apple customers subscribes to Apple Music (or 32% to Apple TV+). If 42% of Apple's over 1B customers subscribes to Apple Music, Apple Music would have more than 2X the paid subscribers as Spotify.

    I think that the survey actually is saying is that 42% of Apple customers that subscribes to a music streaming service, subscribes to Apple Music. The same with the 32% Apple TV+ number. The 32% should represents 32% of the Apple customers that subscribes to a video streaming service. Not the percentages of all Apple customers. 

    But the article clearly states that 2/3 (64%) of Apple customers pay for iCloud storage and 17% of Apple customers buy iPhone Apple Care, while also stating that 42% of Apple customers subscribes to Apple Music and 32% subscribes to Apple TV+.

    If 42% of Apple customers actually subscribed to Apple Music, the CEO of Spotify would have more reasons to get his panties in a bunch, than Apple App Store anti-steering policies.
    DAalsethdewmewatto_cobramacike

  • Fortnite coming to iPhones in the EU via AltStore

    davidwdavidw
    This same CEO that "couldn't be bought", but is more than willing to buy out others for his Epic Game Store "exclusives". He don't seem to have a problem with making "marketing kickbacks" deals that prevented game developers from selling their games in other PC gaming stores, to developers that are willing to be bought out.

     
    The same "genius" CEO that saw fit to run his company like this .........







    Remember, no one hired Sweeney to be CEO of epic Games. He inherited the job by being its founder and majority share holder. Plus he sold 40% of his company to Tencent, one of China's largest company with a dark side. If he was "hired" to run Epic Games, he would have been fired by now, genius or not. 


    >Amnesty International gave Tencent a score of zero out of 100 for the company's treatment of data. Raising questions about the potential misuse of user information.<

    williamlondonecatswatto_cobra

  • Fortnite coming to iPhones in the EU via AltStore

    davidwdavidw
    nubus said:
    macxpress said:
    I can't wait for this to be a failure so Mr Sweeney can bitch and complain again about how Apple's App Store practices are unfair after he can't even get people to buy his apps and addon's via a 3rd party store. 
    Triple-A gaming on iOS is a failure with Fornite being the exception. The fact that Apple didn't make a quiet "marketing kickback" deal but allowed fragmentation of App Store is on Apple. Will it work? It takes devoted users to make this happen and Fortnite users are devoted.
    A "quiet" "marketing kickback" deal? Nothing is "quiet" with that sleazeball Sweeney. Google tried to make a "marketing kickball" deal with that sleazeball and Sweeney ended up using it against Google in their Google Play Store monopoly lawsuit. Sweeney used that offered deal (and other deals that Google had made other developers) as evidence (to a jury) that Google was being anti-competitive and behaving like an illegal  monopolist with the monopoly power they had with their Google Play Store. Apple did nothing wrong by not making any "quiet" deal with such a sleazeball. It is totally on Sweeney, that Epic Games had loss hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue on both iOS and Android, by violating their respective app store policies and getting the boot. 


    >Google’s dealings with app developers played a prominent role during the trial. In particular, Epic repeatedly pointed to an initiative called “Project Hug” where the company paid major game developers like Activision and Nintendo millions of dollars in incentives to keep their wares in the Play store and persuade them not to create their own rival stores. The stakes were high. Activision alone was reportedly offered $350m. Epic was offered $147m to keep Fortnite on Google Play. Google documents reportedly referred to Epic in this case as a worrisome “contagon” that could cause other developers to defect.

    “None of those circumstances, as I understand it, exists in the Apple case,” said Katherine Van Dyck, senior legal council for the American Economic Liberties Project. “In the Apple case, it’s simply that Apple only has one App Store and won’t allow any others.”<








    nubusdewmeecatswatto_cobra