jkichline

If you want higher returns, expect higher risks. This is investment 101. Apple isn’t a bank. Deal with it.

Aggregate viewer data is not a breach of privacy. As long as it’s not attached to user information on and is anonymous.

entropys said:

Still at $149? What a joke. How can anyone recommend this to anyone else?
Old hardware rebranded. It’s insulting. Tim Cook talks the talk, but I suspect he doesn’t think much of Apple users.

One would hope the 4K version, which obviously won’t be getting an upgrade or better pricing either in the near future, comes with some serious investment in controllers to go with the Apple Arcade subscription.

Not much joy in your life, what with needing the latest and greatest everything at half the cost, huh?

AppleTV is practically sold at cost now as it is. Not sure what you’re looking for here. Probably by the time these games are available in the fall, you’ll see new hardware. Until then, they work great.

melgross said:

Apple needs to get on the ball with these standards. They’re very shaky about supporting them. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. There’s no evidence that not supporting a standard is giving Apple a boost. It just makes it more difficult for developers to get aboard Apple’s platform.

You know what gets developers to support a platform? Money and ease of use. Willing to bet there will be a ton of heat that comes out of this open source platform and not a lot of light. Apple will lead and others will follow while the geeks are arguing in the corner.

bwik said:

Spotify makes an interesting argument.  If HBO Now was downloaded from Apple (a fairly small service by Apple), does it mean Apple collects 30% of revenue for the first year and 15% thereafter?  If so, that seems excessive, just for providing a download portal to its users.  Apple could then compete with HBO on a lower cost structure and do its own shows, which apparently it is doing.  Netflix, same?  How about Amazon Prime revenue? 

There is precedent to suggest that Apple can't simply charge a 30% toll on all the revenue producing activities that happen across iOS.  Apple has some arguments that it created the platform.  The literature on railroad competition provides many examples of monopolistic pricing that had to be made illegal.  Usually the solution is to remove the barrier to entry, or if that is impractical (as building totally duplicate rail lines is somewhat impractical), to allow multiple carriers (= other App Stores) on the platform.

Spotify may be right that the current status quo on iOS App Store may be illegal.  Just my opinion as a hobbyist on these topics, not a professional.

15% may seem high, until you start accounting for things like credit card processing, building a subscription service with user accounts, customer service staff for processing refunds, the marketing advantage of the App Store “storefront”, handling of international taxes and taxes in general. 15% is a steal. Now 30% a year wouldn’t be of course and Apple charges that once which is fair as a “finders fee”. 15% is the typical affiliate income anyway.

Why doesn’t Spotify make their own smart speaker or media player? My guess is that they will quickly find they can’t compete. Apple
is giving app developers a chance to become something and give them a big opportunity. Apple is not responsible for the viability of your business model. You knew the game and you choose to play.