davidw

About

Username
davidw
Joined
Visits
187
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,770
Badges
1
Posts
2,202

Reactions

2.4KLike45Dislike469Informative

  • Apple Intelligence & iPhone mirroring aren't coming to EU because of the DMA

    davidwdavidw
    gatorguy said:
    LOL. The EU shooting itself in the foot with their nonsense. 
    Am I correct that China accounts for less Apple revenue than the EU? Last report I saw was China @15%.

    Apple seems eager enough to work within Chinese rules, agreeing to roll over on RCS, "that iPhone owners aren't demanding", giving access to Chinese user data to Chinese entities on Chinese-owned and operated servers with the keys to the kingdom in hand, even abandoning privacy (obviously not an Apple "core value"), all market requirements which are far more restrictive than anything the EU has mandated. But the EU is too demanding? 

    That's because China is not forcing Apple to use Google proprietary RCS. (AFAIK) Of course China government is not going to use RCS with E2EE. Notice that even in the US, Apple is not going to be adapting to Google proprietary RCS. Apple is going with the standard RCS and guess what, the mobile telecoms that wants to have RCS on iPhones must also adapt to the standard RCS, even if they were going to use Google proprietary RCS.

    And also notice that the China government, which also controls all the mobile networks in China, mandated that all mobile phones must be capable of receiving and sending RCS messages. AFAIK, China did not mandate that all messaging services must be able to receive and send RCS messages or be interoperable with RCS. So Apple could allow RCS messaging apps on China iPhones to be in compliance or incorporate RCS in iMessage. Like how they incorporate SMM in iMessage now.

    But iMessage itself will still be E2EE. China government still can not intercept and see iMessages in their servers. They don't need to. What China government is able to do is to have all their mobile carriers install apps in all the mobile phones of China citizens, that allows them to see all messaging, after it becomes unencrypted in the users phones. (And probably even before its sent.) They don't need to see the unencrypted messages in their servers. Apple and all the other phone makers, can't do anything about that. And neither can the citizens of China. But if you are a tourist visiting China and use your iPhone to iMessage someone back home, China still can not read that iMessage. 

    On the other hand, the EU is pushing for a ban on E2EE. So to be more like China. Will the EU citizens fight back? Or will they be like China citizens and accept what ever their government decides? 





    BTW- Once again, statistic is not your strong point. Revenue-wise, 15% of China smartphone market is much larger than 20% (or even 25%) of the EU smartphone market. China is a much larger pie to begin with. You need not look any where else but here, to know that China is Apple second largest smartphone market. And I'm sure it means in terms of revenue and not their market share. There are more than a handful of countries where Apple have more percentage of the market share, than the 15% in China.




    >To bring Apple Intelligence to its second-largest smartphone market, Apple is going to have to sign deals with local providers, but so far has had no luck.<



    nubustmaydewmewatto_cobra

  • Man ludicrously blames Apple for his wife catching him communicating with prostitutes

    davidwdavidw
    9secondkox2 said:
    kkqd1337 said:
    I don't understand, I think his complaint to Apple is quite reasonable.

    He deleted a message. The message was not deleted.

    Due to this he incurred significant loss.

    But I agree it is ludicrous to think he will beat Apple's lawyers and T&Cs.
    If your car won’t start or you crash it into a wall, you can’t sue the automaker for your boss penalizing your tardiness or absence. 

    Best way to not get caught doing evil: don’t do evil. 

    If your Tesla while on "Auto-Pilot" crashes into a wall, while you were playing a video game on your iPhone, not only can you sue the auto-maker, you can sue Apple for not preventing you from playing a video game on an iPhone while driving and also the entity responsible for placing a wall where a car can accidentally crash into it. Doesn't mean you will win, but here in the US, you are still allowed to pay a lawyer to sue. 

    No matter how scuzzy the lawsuit, there's always a scuzzier lawyer willing to take the case, if they get paid whether they win or lose.
    ronn9secondkox2killroywilliamlondonJaiOh81kkqd1337Bart Ywatto_cobra

  • Schiller fails to convince skeptical judge over Apple's App Store fees

    davidwdavidw
    omasou said:
    Apple, tell her to pound sand.

    I seriously doubt that she can specify what she thinks is a fair fee. If she can then perhaps she should tell UPS, FedEx and USPS what she thinks is a fair cost for shipping /s
    The USPS package rates are regulated.

    The USPS is a government regulated monopoly. When the government grant a company a "monopoly" they regulate the rates that the company can charge the public. Your first clue should have been the "US" in USPS. Plus the Postmaster General is cabinet position appointed by the POTUS. Even though the USPS is now suppose to be self funding ( it was once funded by taxpayers money.), the USPS is still considered to be a "public service" regulated by the Federal government.



    The original ATT rates were government regulated (and very affordable). ATT was granted a "monopoly" by the US government and thus their rates were regulated by the government. Most public utilities, like gas and electric service companies, rates are government regulated by the PUC because they were handed a "monopoly" in the region they serve. I bet your garbage collection company has to go through your local government to raise rates. That's because they were handed a government "monopoly" in the area they serve. What local citizens wants to hear the sound of  garbage trucks picking up trash in their neighborhood, every morning of the week, because there are 5 local trash companies serving the area?  Local cable companies are often handed local government monopolies because municipalities do not want several cable companies tearing up their streets or putting up their own poles, to run their cables to the homes they serve.




    Bart Yjdwwatto_cobra

  • Large US developers are avoiding third-party App Store alternate payment plans

    davidwdavidw
    Question: why would developers complain about Apple handling the payment processing if they can't negotiate a better rate than 3% themselves? The reality for credit card processing fees is that online transactions are ALWAYS going to have higher cost than physical transactions with a card. That's how the banks have set it up. 

    It's not so much that Apple has "negotiated" a better transaction fee rate with the  CC banks, but that Apple has managed to bring the average cost of an iTunes account transaction to 3% of the purchase amount.

    One must remember that CC is not the only way iTunes accounts are funded or pre-funded. Account holders (like me) use gift cards to keep a balance in their account and thus Apple pays no CC transaction fee on their purchases. Others iTunes account are tied to a debit card. Those iTunes account purchases only cost Apple a small fee that is not based on the amount of the purchase. Other accounts, specially kids accounts that are managed by their parents, are pre-funded with a balance using a CC, PayPal, debit card or even Apple Pay, maybe just once a month or when the balance runs low. Those  accounts do not incur a CC transaction fee for Apple with purchases.

    So it shouldn't be a surprise to any one that it cost Apple only an average of 3% of the purchase amount to handle the payment process. I'll be surprise of it's even that much, (3% of purchase amount) and that Apple is giving the developers a break by giving them more of a discount than it actually cost Apple to handle ITunes payment. If only 3% of their commission was to cover their payment processing cost, then their commission should only be reduced by 3%, if Apple do not incur the cost of payment processing.  Why should Apple have to subsidize developers own payment processing cost? 

    There's another trick that Apple use to save on CC transaction fees. Though it's way more effective with iTunes Music Store purchases. Steve Jobs once told in an interview on how Apple was able to lower their CC transaction fee with iTunes accounts, by only billing the account holder once a month for CC music purchases. Included in every CC purchase transaction fee is also a small "per transaction fee" that is fixed, no matter the amount of the purchase. It's like $.10 per transaction. Now $.10 is not a big deal with a $10 purchase but it's 10% of a $.99 song purchase from the ITunes Music Store. So what Apple would do is wait until the end of the CC billing period of the account holder, to charge their CC for all their music purchased during the month. This way Apple only incur one "per transaction fee" for all the music the account holder purchased that month.

    For instance, if an iTunes Music Store customer purchased ten $.99 songs at five different times during the month, Apple would charge their CC just once for $9.90. So Apple ended up paying just one CC "per transaction fee" of $.10, instead of $.50 for five separate CC purchases. Of course the customer still see five separate purchases in their iTunes account but only one $9.90 charge for iTunes on their CC bill. When the vast majority of 100's of millions of iTunes Music Store customers are just buying one or just a few songs at a time but several times a month, the saving adds up rather quickly.   
    tenthousandthingswatto_cobra

  • Apple blows away Wall Street earnings estimates, even with weak China iPhone sales

    davidwdavidw
    You also have to account for the 3% to 3.5% inflation from Jan, Feb, Mar 2023 to Jan, Feb, Mar 2024 earnings, respectively.
    Inflation of what?  As far as I know Apple hasn’t raised the prices for any of their core products.
    $94.8B in early 2023 is the equivalent of 94.8B(1.03)=$97.6B in early 2024, so the inflation corrected percentage change in revenue is actually ((90.75-97.6)/97.6)*100=-7.0%. You have to at least beat inflation to have a true growth in wealth.

    Not only does it make zero sense to compensate for inflation, when comparing year to year "revenue" numbers, you have it backwards.

    Since there was 3-3.5% inflation from JanFebMar of 2023 to JanFebMar of 2024 (as you stated), shouldn't the 3-3.5% affect the 2024 numbers and not the 2023 numbers?
    So shouldn't you be increasing the 2024 revenue numbers due to any loss "value" of the dollar from inflation, when comparing them to 2023 numbers. The 3-3.5% inflation rate from 2023 to 2024 had zero affect on 2023 dollars. If anything, the 2022 to 2023 inflation rate affected 2023 dollars. 

    So applying the illogical thinking that the inflation rate should be included when comparing year to year revenue numbers, 2024 revenue of $90.75B would actually be $93.5B ($90.75 x 1.03) in 2023, if it weren't for the 3-3.5% inflation that occurred from 2023 to2024.

    And "revenue would not the measurement of "wealth". Profit would be the measurement of  "wealth". In Q2 of 2023 net income was $24.16B, compared to $23.26B in Q2 of 2024. That's a decrease of $.9B from 2023 or 3.7%. So with inflation at 3.5%, could we say that when accounting for inflation, Apple managed to make almost the same profit in Q2 2024 as in Q2 2023. Of course we wouldn't.

    Inflation do not increase the value of yesterdays dollar, it decreases the buying power of today's dollar. A dollar is still a dollar.  
    Anilu_777wonkothesanewilliamlondonronnmike1