I respectfully disagree my friend.
When Investors , board, wall street is chasing second order and third order delta increase in a stock enshitification is bound to happen. If there is a board that wants return higher than previous year and when you can't optimize costs by improving tech, You find new avenues like showing 2 ads, showing 3 ads. Increasing subscription price or cheekly modifing terms of service and selling your data to 3rd party data brokers. it has nothing to do with subscription cost.
Apple cerifies/recieves licensencing fee for every thunderbolt cable.
Apple only did move to usb-c when backlash is so high and eu law will certainly pass.
It is good for their pr to advertise that they moved to usbc because they wanted to rather than forced to by a government.Apple still tries/atleast tried to control usbc cable usage for iphones. Cables need to get certified.
Apple supported usbc on mac because it is superior and the impact to their revenue is very low. It is also jump from usb-a to usb -c
Do you have any source that states that Apple was forced? Given that they switched the iPhone to USB-C multiple product iterations before it was required makes it seem to be that they were not forced.
>> Apple is so successful is because they know how to create a great phone experience.
I disagree, may be they were at some time. Now they are successful because the walls of the well are so high. It is insanely difficult for us frogs to jump. Happy that governments are trying to bring those walls down
>> I am happy to pay extra for a lot of your dot points.
Good for you because you trust them. Problem is I am not. I dont trust apple/google to make that decision for me. But they dont give that choice. They are making you sacrificing freedom, choice by masking them self as secure. But underlying motive is profits and control.
I heard a story that apple asked meta for comission on ads , when meta rejected they introduced features to remove access to usage metrics to 3rd party apps. If meta agreed , you might never see the privacy features app introduced.
The security you are thinking is a believable mirage. There are several users who have lost thousands of dollars to scammy appstore in app purchases/subsciptions and apple is doing shit to stop this.
> The security you are thinking is a believable mirage. There are several users who have lost thousands of dollars to scammy appstore in app purchases/subsciptions and apple is doing shit to stop this.
And the plan to make this the consensus view is to ban Apple-style curated app stores. That seems to be cheating. When Apple convinced me their App store model was better than the alternative they had to use, y'know, persuasion.
Nokia sorta died, but at the time back in the 2000s Apple had to get through the entire phone industry to establish the iPhone. If the Europeans had any idea how to manage this sort of ecosystem they'd still be running the show. They had an amazing market position to begin with. They flubbed it because no-one in the entire continent seems to know how to run an app store! Now they're legislating their bad ideas in. It is a very European approach to commercial innovation and success.
yes I agree, but we need to change with the age. in early 2000's it is hard to distribute apps/software, and 30% commission made sense.
now it is not, there are several people/companies who can make the app distribution better, efficient for all consumers. they can bring it down to a fraction (apple itself has by now bought it to a fraction of what it costs in 2000).only reason they are not passed down to consumer is because they made sure there is no competition (by force(google paying samsung to not develop its app store) or by design (Apple limiting 3rd party installs and discouraging webapps) - basically how a monopoly/duopoly behaves). it is bad for us consumers
if apple has developed all the tools libraries itself from scratch , put hardwork and sweat into it, i wont have a issue. we all know thats not the case and how much opensource tools helped.
True. I would like to hijack this thread and wante d to discuss what we want for software that is not present.
For me. All i can think of is ondevice , al/ml ( photo editing, video editing etc ) and not the ones the current companies are trying hard shove down our throats.
May be steve is true. We don't know what we want until some one shows it .
It is not just that. In my case , everyone around me are using iphone . I made the sacrifice to not easily connect with them and use android so that i have freedom ( to install, customise what ever).
Once that freedom aspect is taken away. There is no reason for me to make that sacrifice.
Until EU's cross compatibility between messaging apps is passed, we are forced to be in vendor lockin.
With all the things google is doing for custom os last few years ( play protect, no major updates to asop and bundling updates to closed source google libraries etc). It is not speculation it is predicting with high certainty. Google wants custom os market to die and they are doing it brick by brick.
We should Open our eyes and look at the timeline and realise it is not speculation and actual reality before it will be too late.
Source: i am an owner of device with custom os and i know things i have to do to fix broken apps.
You need to look at history. In early 90s why did Microsoft invest in apple when it is its competitors. Investment doesn't mean they are medling into mozilla business.
For companies like google (present) or Microsoft in 90's.
It is better to have a crippled competitor than no competitor.
No competitor attracts government agencies for monopoly which is worse.
In the 1990s Microsoft “invested” in Apple because Steve Jobs allowed them to save face by giving them the option to settle their part of Apple v San Francisco Canyon Co by calling part of it—$150 M—a stock purchase that only lasted a few years. I do not know how much the total cash settlement from Microsoft was, but industry rumors went up to $1B.
Early pixel models comes with unlimited google photos feature etc. I think maintaining is more of a lost revenue to google than patching cost. If customos devs can do it on donation so can google.
Probably a reason for google to obselete them and a reason for us to keep alive and running it as long as possible.
I still see few custom roms spoofing as early pixel models to enable unlimited google photos.
The problem is not with the ads but all the bad things that come along with it. Collecting unnecessary personal data, targetting, disregard for others privacy and list goes on.
These small bloggers/websites are letting the huge ad corporations take up the butcher job and cry when people use adblock.
Google provides a way to turn off ad personalization and when i turn it off you know what i see. Scam/adult/gambling ads and these small websites/bloggers are ok with showing scams to earn 0.01cents. then where they broke the social contract.
Google/meta with all the policing of billion youtube/fb videos/posts dont have same policing for ads quality. Thats where they broke the social contract.
Yes they need to make money, one alternative, I am ok with companies using my compute to run crypto mining( or scientific worlloadw ) when i use their website instead of ads. Small companies should look out of box for money rather than employing a butcher to make money.
