rob55

Xed said:

DnykjpRfC6fnBs said:

williamlondon said:

New trolls on arrival it appears, ffs. Go fuck off!

First post, a negative one, did I take a wrong turn and end up back at MacRumors?

So it would seem. Already seen the haters in MacRumors about the replaceable battery and how some company pulled AirTags off the shelf in Australia I believe because: omg think of the children and how they will all die swallowing replaceable batteries. If Apple doesn’t offer replacement batteries in their AirPods they are out to destroy mother earth and no other earbud maker does, at least not samsung bose and jabra and those companies you never hear accusations on how they are destroying the planet. 

Then Apple comes out with replaceable batteries in their AirTags and here is all of the drama about how Apple is killing children. OMG think of the children. 

A retailer is doing their due diligence before selling a product. That is not a reason to slight a retailer.

Well, if they're trying to adhere to Australia's new button battery legislation (even though it doesn't go into effect until June 2022), then I guess you could commend them.

If, on the other hand, they're just piling on to all the recent Apple bashing, then poopoo on them.

Apple will apparently modify Australian packaging to comply with the new regulations. It still might not be good enough, however, if Australian authorities deem the battery too easily accessible.

rob53 said:

... I also am tired of their regular cost increases. They should be happy with what they’re getting because enforcing their terms would lead to many users dropping down to single use and others totally dropping Netflix. 

This is not unique to Netflix. I have been seeing annual increases with all my services (DirecTV, internet, Netflix, etc.) for a while now. What's crazy is that I've seen my DirecTV bill more than double in the 20+ years I've been subscribing to their service. Specifically, I've seen an average of a $10/month increase over the last 10 years. My question is, at what point (if it hasn't already) does it become unreasonable? I think I'm approaching that point soon, as I certainly will not be ok with another $50 increase if I'm with them for another 5 years.

With regards to the topic, I use my account at my sister's house when I visit every week or so, and generally leave their ATV 4K logged in to my account. I don't think they use it much, except when I'm there, so I'm curious how Netflix might decide to handle this in the future.

mjtomlin said:

There is no argument or example that can demonstrate that Apple's decision to run their platform this way is restricting consumers...

Precisely. I choose to own and use an iPhone specifically because of the way Apple runs their platform.

gc_uk said:

Does it? But Apple customers are excluded from finding out if they want to buy the crop because Apple controls their choices for them.  

I'm going to stop talking in metaphors because you seemed to have missed the humor in my post. If you'll notice, I used the words "some of" not "the" best crop yield in referring to profits generated by Apple's App Store. Considering that it made an estimated $50 billion last year, I would say yes, it does.

As for Apple customers being excluded from finding out if they want to buy certain apps because Apple controls their choices, how do you figure? You can create virtually any app you want, and as long as it meets their developer guidelines, you can offer it on the App Store. Your implication that Apple controls customer choice is patently false. Apple only controls the rules to which all developers must adhere, but that in no way limits choice. The rules aren't that strict. 

The truth is, Epic was making a lot of money via the App Store, so much that Apple's commissions became unpalatable to them (if they ever were). They then decided to break their agreement with Apple by circumventing Apple's payment system. This was a clear breach of the developer agreement, and Epic got punished accordingly. Don't confuse this with Apple controlling choice. Apple was simply reacting to the violation. 

d_2 said:

gc_uk said:

Except in this case the Little Red Hen is willing to provide the garden, and the grain, but can't sell bread to the neighbours because "government regulation" aka "Apple" say they can only grow grain in Apple's garden.

There are plenty of “gardens” for Epic to “grow grain” in - Apple, Google, web, PlayStation, XBox, Nintendo ... and Epic has plenty of $$ to also try and develop and their own “garden”.

But, but, but... Apple's garden has some of the best "crop" yield.