foad
About
- Username
- foad
- Joined
- Visits
- 34
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 231
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 717
Reactions
-
Spotify speaks out against Apple's 30% commission fee -- again
I totally agree. I wonder how the economics will materially change if they don’t have to pay Apple’s fees. The vast majority of their user base isn’t subscribed through the App Store and podcasts aren’t an actual success.genovelle said:
They created the loss-leader streaming model and then sold their souls to China and the record labels. Now they are complaining.foad said:Spotify chose a loss-leading industry and is scapegoating iOS. They pay less to artists, overspent on podcasting, and are using the government to coverup their poor decisions.
-
Spotify speaks out against Apple's 30% commission fee -- again
Spotify chose a loss-leading industry and is scapegoating iOS. They pay less to artists, overspent on podcasting, and are using the government to coverup their poor decisions.
-
Japan law will require Apple to allow alternate iPhone app stores
What if someone I interact with has my confidential information on their phones and now I’m screwed? Others doing knuckleheaded things isn’t isolated to their devices.eriamjh said:Users will happily GIVE questionable apps their private information to run something “forbidden”.I say let them. You can’t protect the idiots from themselves.Just set a flag on their phone that says “this loser installed outside apps” and have any support say “the only fix is to wipe your phone”.
Put it in the T&C next to the human centipede agreement. Done. Hands washed. Move on.
-
Japan law will require Apple to allow alternate iPhone app stores
You joke, but actually, Japan has lost a ton of market and mindshare in the overall tech market at the hands of Apple, Google and Samsung. Sony was once super prominent in the mobile space, and but now they release highly niche phones that are focused heavily on photography and videography. Same goes for their music players. Even the PlayStation business pales in comparison.spheric said:THOSE MEDDLING EU BUREAUCRATS JUST HAVE IT IN FOR US CORPORATIONS!
They can't innovate themselves, so they have to impose draconian and ridiculous…oh wait.
Japan.
Huh.
sorryThese acts have very little to do with doing things that benefit consumers. -
Wedbush calls Cook 'Hall of Fame CEO,' says no layoffs coming
I agree in general. That being said, as someone that works remotely, it’s a balancing act. Sometimes, you can’t have everyone in the same space. A universal policy can’t cover every case.genovelle said:
I think if it wasn’t for their views on remote employees they would have hired far more people like their competitors and then dumped them when things got tight. Physical products designs and deep integration suffer with remote work. It shows over the last 3 years. Apple knows what they are doing.foad said:
It’s a complicated subject. Unions don’t always benefit union members and are ripe for corruption. Having a union doesn’t guarantee better performance for the company or the employee. There are a ton of trade offs. I know plenty of folks that are in various unions and the results greatly vary.robin huber said:Now, if he could just “think different” about unions.One could argue that Apple employees benefit from the stability that Apple is providing with how leadership is running the company, especially in the current economic climate. That was also true during the recession. Apple did better than most. That being said, they have certain blind spots when it comes to remote employees, and a couple other areas. It isn’t black/white. There’s a lot of gray. We are dealing with human beings and human beings don’t always act altruistically.
