zoetmb

AppleZulu said:

This is, of course, just anecdotal evidence. It neither confirms nor refutes the hypothesis proposed that Apple Watch ECGs creating false positives will do more harm to more people than they will do good through true positives, as described in this story.

It’s also true that there doesn’t seem to be the anecdotal evidence turning up that would at least provide some support for that ‘false positives’ hypothesis. You would also imagine that for the ‘false positives’ hypothesis to have much chance to be correct, that there would need to be a pretty significant number of anecdotes turning up of people who experienced some sort of harm or at least temporary anxiety resulting from a false positive reading. This is because the amount of good as described in the story atop this thread is significant: a life saved, or at least a life-changing health crisis averted. To offset that, the harm to an individual with a false positive would either have to be just as significant (unneeded treatment resulting either in death or in a life-changing health crisis), or there would have to be a large number of people experiencing lesser, but still significant harm (e.g., large medical bills, or significant anxiety resulting from false diagnosis of ‘heart problems’).

So far, we’re not seeing those horror stories, and it seems pretty likely we would if there were any. Remember when Apple Watch 0 came out and a handful of people discovered that the pulse reader couldn’t see through dark tattoos? A tiny number of people experienced a problem and you would’ve thought that the Apple Watch was a complete failure and Apple was going to go out of business. Generally when there is even a small problem with an Apple product, there is a disproportionate if temporary uproar about it. 

People don't need an Apple Watch to be paranoid about their health - they can do that all on their own.   And, especially because they're afraid of the unknown costs, even if they have health insurance (co-pays and deductibles), people tend to avoid going to the doctor even when they need to.   One of the biggest problems in American healthcare today is not people overburdening their doctors with psychosomatic illnesses or worried because they read something online or took a test at home -- it's people who don't see a doctor often enough or when something starts to appear to be wrong and then they wind up in the emergency room, which is the most expensive way to deliver medical care.   

I don't have an Apple Watch or any similar device and I don't plan to get one, but from my perspective, I think they'll do far more good than harm (but that's just an opinion).  Time will tell whether that's the case and right now, no one knows either way.   

Having said that, as we age, we do tend to be more paranoid about our health, if only because we see bad things happening to friends and relatives around us as they age.   I was never paranoid about my health, but as I see many friends and relatives wind up with cancer, diabetes, hip replacements, etc., I have to admit that I've become  a lot more paranoid myself (even if I don't actually do anything about it.)

SpamSandwich said:

randominternetperson said:

SpamSandwich said:

It’s a powerful iPad, no doubt. Speaking only for myself, the lack of a headphone jack to accept recording studio standard equipment killed the possibility of me buying one for now. I consider this exclusion a shortsighted decision. Surely no “pros” expected Apple to do that.

I don’t care about Fortnite in the slightest and I’m not going to spend about $2K for a new iPad that’s incompatible with most of my industry standard audio gear.

Apple sometimes leads in the wrong direction on product design, IMO. They’re not perfect and that’s OK.

Serious question here: why can't you just use the Apple lightning headphone adapter?  It is tying up the port or the sound quality or an objection to extra cords?

It was a needless change on Apple’s part (sure they’ll justify it with resons, but those reasons don’t matter to people who place a premium on production speed). It was dumb to eliminate a standard audio port for headphones. My current iPad Pro will accept studio headphones, an adapter for power and a MIDI keyboard or mic without a lot of screwing around. I’m aware my use case isn’t everyone’s. Although I did note with interest similar comments about the elimination of the headphone jack by Alex Lindsay (Pixel Corps) who is even more deeply involved in production. Non-standard equipment changes for no apparent logical reason tends to irritate professionals.

That's all fine, but an analog headphone jack is not pro level either (except for earphones).   True pro analog is balanced +4dbm on an XLR connector.   A line phone jack at -10dbm is probably also acceptable, but not pro.   A headphone jack doesn't cut it for anything but a headphone.   So you really HAVE to take digital audio out of the port and convert it on another device if you want to use the audio for any pro application.   

rcfa said:

The problem has never been that music is too cheap, but that artists don’t get enough of the pie while consumers got raped.

Example: LPs were more expensive to produce, store, transport than CDs. Yet CDs were priced higher than LPs, because “consumers get higher sound quality and convenience (no flipping over of records, cleaning off dust, etc.)
So record companies increased profit margins, artists got the same. When distribution went to download, costs for warehousing, transportation, dealers, etc. disappeared, being replaced by comparatively modest costs for server space. Did prices drop? No! Did artists get paid more? No! So the “record” companies wanted even more profits, but when consumers feeling being ripped off started pirating songs, they were complaining, using the “poor starving artists” as reason why pirating music is evil, all the while they pushed for legislation that made tons of artists work ineligible for royalties, declaring it “work for hire”.

In other words: as much I’m for artists getting paid fairly I am against consumers getting shafted by corporate greed under false pretenses. If this law doesn’t do anything to actually help artists and curb corporate greed, it’s pretty much useless.

The "meme" is that physical music was expensive starting with the era of the CD, but it wasn't.   That was just a message from consumers who thought music should be free and who were too cheap to pay for it.   And it's cheaper now than it's ever been.

The record labels are making far less money than they were during the heyday of physical music, which is why there are only three major record companies left:  Sony, Universal and Warner.  

In 1948, when the LP was introduced, the first LP sold for $4.85, which is over $50 in 2018 dollars.

In the 1960's, 45 RPM singles listed for $1 (albeit for a 2-sided single) and generally sold for 64 to 66 cents.  65 cents in 1963 is $5.36 in current dollars.  For ONE SONG (okay, two songs, but no one wanted the b-side in most cases).  

In December 1953, discounted LP's at Liberty Records in NYC were selling for $3.15.  That's $29.55 in current dollars
In December 1965, on sale LP's at Sam Goody's that listed for $3.79, $4.79 and $5.79 were discounted to $2.17, $2.77 and $3.77.   That's $17.23, $21.99 and $26.76 respectively in current dollars.
In December 1970, E. J. Korvettes was discounting $4.98 to $2.88 (Joe Cocker, Van Morrison), $5.98 to $3.38 (deja vu) and $6.98 to $3.88 (Abbey Road).  That's $18.26, $21.43 and $24.60 in current dollars.

Today, most new CD's retail for $10 to $14 and they tend to have more tracks.  Back catalog CD's are as little as $6  (not that anyone is buying CD's anymore).  That's the cheapest physical music has ever been. 

The record companies aren't the ones who are selling you downloads and streams, so their servers have little to do with it.  Those are third parties like Apple, Pandora and Spotify who must license from the record labels.   And while we don't know how Apple Music is doing because Apple doesn't break out the numbers, we do know that Pandora and Spotify are not profitable.   (Pandora was just sold to Sirius/XM).  

The North American recorded music market was $14.6 billion in 1999.  That's over $22 billion in current dollars.    In 2017, the industry did only $8.7 billion.  It's on track to do about $9.2 billion this year, but in real terms, the industry is only 42% its peak size (and those revenue numbers are based upon list prices, so actual revenue to the industry is much smaller).

And in any case, performing artists, writers and producers deserve to get paid a decent amount of money.   It used to be that successful artists made money from their recorded music and went on the road to support the album.  Today, it's the opposite.  Few are making anything from their recorded music, so their revenue comes from the road and the recorded music backs the tour.   But only the most popular acts can make any money on the road. 

As to whether artists will still get shafted under this new law, I have no idea.  At least they'll get paid for pre-1972 recordings.  Performing artists (and/or their labels) still won't get paid for U.S. over-the-air radio play.   But it's hard to be convincing about corporate greed when music is the least expensive it's ever been (except for the limited edition, very expensive boxed sets sold to collectors, like the forthcoming Beatles White Album deluxe boxed set and others like it).     Streaming now constitutes 77.1% of the North American business, downloads are 12.6% and physical units are 10.3% (all in dollars at list prices).   Only 18.6 million CD's were sold in the first half of the year.   At its peak in (full-year) 2000, it was 942.5 million.   And lest you think that vinyl LP's are the savior of the industry, only 8.1 million were sold in the first half of the year, more than last year, but less than 2015.   The full year will have fewer LP sales than what just two of the best selling albums of all time sold.    

This is a ridiculous case and it should have been thrown out.   Any business has the right to charge a fee for the products that it sells and any business has the right to demand exclusivity when the products are built using their platform and tools.    But let's say the developers win their case and they win the right to sell their apps outside of the App Store.  What do they think is going to happen?  Apple will simply start charging royalties to use their platform and/or development tools that will amount to the same fees, possibly even higher fees.   

I know they believe the 30% is onerous, but if they were selling a physical product to physical retailers or distributors, like Ingram Micro-D, what do they think the wholesale price would be?  It would be 45% to 55% below list.    They would get even less.   And even selling virtually, Amazon wouldn't give them a very good deal either.   The only thing they'd be able to do to their advantage would be to sell the product themselves without giving Apple a cut, but as I wrote above, Apple would simply change the model and charge royalties and development tool fees.  

nunzy said:

Apple is already very connected with Disney. They should buy Disney.

Assuming a 20% premium, Apple could buy Disney for about 21% of Apple's current market cap.   I think Disney is a bargain right now - the stock really hasn't moved in spite of the fact that the amusement parks are doing well and most of Disney's films (except for Solo) have done extraordinarily well and the pending acquisition hasn't seemed to move the stock either   The other soft spot is ESPN, but most of the other TV and cable properties do well.     

But does Apple want to be in the amusement park and cruise ship business?   I suppose they could spin off that business, but the parks are very dependent upon Disney's IP, although I suppose an Apple owned Disney could license that out.    But Murdoch would have to support it because I'm pretty sure he becomes the largest Disney stockholder, although that's also been previously said about Jobs (after selling Pixar) and Lucas (who got half stock and half cash).   If Apple did buy Disney (which includes the Muppets, Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel and now Fox), they'd wind up with a 3000-film library, although more than half of it probably has little value in today's world.