Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I was way slow on buying airpods because I hated the Apple earbuds and didn’t think I had a need. My wife got me the airpod max a few years back, and that spiraled into eventually buying the airpod pros as well and now those are in my pocket all the time along with my keys wallet phone etc. Great product. There’s something too about the noise cancelling that is extremely calming for me.

I hate carrying things around. Minimal money wallet with an ID, couple of credit cards. Keys. Phone. Like you, AirPod Pros are now in the mix for about 1/2 of my trips away from home.

If I'm grabbing lunch alone somewhere or shopping in Home Depot, why not keep listening to the podcast that I started in my car. It's probably bad for human interaction to wall myself off from others like that but it's also not like I was chatting everyone up before anyway.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I hate carrying things around. Minimal money wallet with an ID, couple of credit cards. Keys. Phone. Like you, AirPod Pros are now in the mix for about 1/2 of my trips away from home.

If I'm grabbing lunch alone somewhere or shopping in Home Depot, why not keep listening to the podcast that I started in my car. It's probably bad for human interaction to wall myself off from others like that but it's also not like I was chatting everyone up before anyway.

There’s something about being out in public but having the sound off that I love. Having to schlep myself all the way cross O’Hare becomes enjoyable if I’m just moving and looking around and there’s nothing but A Tribe Called Quest in my ears.

Posted
3 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Tim Cook has been riding Job’s innovations for his entire CEO tenure. I have spoken. 

Yeah but the following speaks to Cook's tenure.

  • Oct 2011 (Jobs' passing) market cap: ~$375 billion
  • Sept 2024 market cap: $3,390 billion
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Tim Cook has been riding Job’s innovations for his entire CEO tenure. I have spoken. 

I would give Watch and AirPods to Tim and those two products alone could be Fortune 500 companies. Steve left behind a really strong design and user experience culture. But with that said as an employee here, I'm not thrilled with how big this company has gotten. 

Edited by YChang
Posted
8 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Yeah but the following speaks to Cook's tenure.

  • Oct 2011 (Jobs' passing) market cap: ~$375 billion
  • Sept 2024 market cap: $3,390 billion

A trained monkey could manage the revolutionary products created by Jobs leadership that are responsible for almost all of the revenue and profits of this company. Cook has been a bus driver of one of the greatest sets of product innovations in history.

4 minutes ago, YChang said:

I would give Watch and AirPods to Tim and those two products alone could be Fortune 500 companies. Steve left behind a really strong design and user experience culture. But with that said as an employee here, I'm not thrilled with how big this company has gotten. 

Those products are nothing but derivative products that have decimal points of business impact. Nothing burgers that are wholly dependent upon the iPhone for their success.

Let’s see if his almost meaningless tenure turns around with some sort of revolutionary AI product or something else of significance. He still has some time.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Dbeasy said:

A trained monkey could manage the revolutionary products created by Jobs leadership that are responsible for almost all of the revenue and profits of this company. Cook has been a bus driver of one of the greatest sets of product innovations in history.

Those products are nothing but derivative products that have decimal points of business impact. Nothing burgers that are wholly dependent upon the iPhone for their success.

Let’s see if his almost meaningless tenure turns around with some sort of revolutionary AI product or something else of significance. He still has some time.  

 

I mean, he's not gonna be a game changer in that sense like Steve. You're right in that sense, he'll never be that. Maybe his successor will be. But who knows, again this company is so huge now some of that type of innovative culture that comes from such a strong willed founder is probably lost forver.

I do think the direction he's set and guiding the watch and aripods toward in health has really huge impacts that moves it past merely "nothing burgers" as you described it. 😄 Plus come on man, it's all about keeping our customers in the ecosystem! 

Posted
When thinking about Apple and their AirPod Pro 2 hearing test/hearing aid feature, I give them props that they work to release new features for existing products. It would be easy for them to have added this feature plus a tiny hardware improvement and call it AirPod Pro 3. Other companies do this all the time.
Now I wish Apple Intelligence would work on more older iPhone models but I give them the benefit of the doubt that there is a hardware limitation preventing it.

Apple literally does this all the time. I’m actually surprised with as big as the certified hearing aid feature could be that they *didn’t* release this as an air pod pro 3 only release. They probably had their team of actuaries sit down and assess how many customers and potential customers are ultimately affected by having legit hearing aids and realized they can’t bilk a upgrade cycle out of such a small niche.
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Whatever philosophies and processes Apple uses to ensure good user experience, its amazing. 

Decided to get the Apple Card on a whim. No annual fees so why not. 

Application was done through the iPhone Wallet app. Because Apple already has my email and address, all I did was enter birthdate, ssn, and income, and the card was instantly approved — and added to the app to use for Apple Pay. 

Start to finish it took all of 2 minutes from when I got the idea to when I had a new payment acct on the phone ready to go. 

When physical card got home, activation of it only needs an NFC tap of the phone…or instead just hit confirm in the app itself. No calling a number and talking to human or robot. 

No forex fees. Did a few foreign purchases and charge converted to 1% atop of market rate. With a 2% cashback reward, thats a net 1% earned — better than most native cards outside the US. 

The whole app to manage the account is just so much more pleasant than JPMC/AMEX/etc too… they really nailed the design. 



 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

The Apple Card does cash back with no fees?

3% on Apple goods and select affiliated stores (including Exxon, CVS, and Uber)

2% on everything when you use Apple Pay (meaning both tap-terminals in person and also online shopping!)

1% on everything else

Instant feedback in the app on what youve earned which is kinda neat too

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Opposite, GS is moving away from retail banking. They partnered on this Apple Card thing shortly after launching Marcus.  I think theyre deciding the juice is not worth the squeeze. 

Posted
3% on Apple goods and select affiliated stores (including Exxon, CVS, and Uber)
2% on everything when you use Apple Pay (meaning both tap-terminals in person and also online shopping!)
1% on everything else
Instant feedback in the app on what youve earned which is kinda neat too
 

I knew they did some on their stuff. I may have to get one
Posted

My guess is all the benefits will be retained , at least for a while , because Apple would want to maintain those perks and JPM's business can support it.

GS' consumer profitability problem is they have twice the credit loss rate of JPM (unknown how much come from Apple card vs General Motors cards), and very high overhead and operating expenses relative to the revenue due to their smaller scale.  JPM can run the card portfolio more efficiently, and probably better at credit assessment and collections.

Posted

I'm a big fan of the apple card and savings account.  Every once in a while I take the cash back savings, turn it into apple cash on my phone, and eat out "free" for the next week or so.  It's nice having everything (the card, payment, rewards, bill pay) all integrated into your phone.  

  • 1 month later...
Posted

I just got the new Airpods Gen 4 and they are fantastic.  The noise canceling will be game changing for me since I travel so much.  I can't wait to try them on the plane tomorrow.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • 4 months later...
Posted

turbo fucked my iphone 12 doing home maintenance yesterday.  Absolutely, positively had to have a phone for today and the repair shops were all closed yesterday at 5.

 

T mobile store open 'til 6.  Welp...$1200 later, I'm the proud owner of a 16 pro max.  

I hadn't planned on the purchase, but it's a pretty substantial upgrade and I figure the prices are going to jump like a motherfucker very soon, so meh, I'm at peace with it. 

Posted
13 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

turbo fucked my iphone 12 doing home maintenance yesterday.  Absolutely, positively had to have a phone for today and the repair shops were all closed yesterday at 5.

 

T mobile store open 'til 6.  Welp...$1200 later, I'm the proud owner of a 16 pro max.  

I hadn't planned on the purchase, but it's a pretty substantial upgrade and I figure the prices are going to jump like a motherfucker very soon, so meh, I'm at peace with it. 

This is probably too late to help you, but for anyone else, Costco will give you a $100 store credit if you buy it there at the T Mobile kiosk.  Weirdly, they won’t let you pay for the full balance for the phone and it has to be added as a recurring charge to your bill (no interest, mind you).

Posted

The battery in my 13 Mini is garbage at this point. I basically have to charge constantly. Even though it's an old phone I'm thinking about having the battery replaced because I like the small size and Apple's probably not ever gonna make one this small again.

Posted
8 hours ago, LCHorn said:

This is probably too late to help you, but for anyone else, Costco will give you a $100 store credit if you buy it there at the T Mobile kiosk.  Weirdly, they won’t let you pay for the full balance for the phone and it has to be added as a recurring charge to your bill (no interest, mind you).

shit.  I see the tmobile people at costco everytime I go.

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted
On 11/17/2024 at 7:16 PM, Hate said:

I just got the new Airpods Gen 4 and they are fantastic.  The noise canceling will be game changing for me since I travel so much.  I can't wait to try them on the plane tomorrow.

It’s hard to fly without noise cancelling now. It’s such a relief to your senses. 

Posted

Apple is gonna get its peepee whacked pretty hardfor acting in bad faith with the courts. Their business model relies on the revenue stream from the captive transaction processing on their platform, it'll be interesting to see how this shakes out through appeals

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/apple-violated-injunction-antitrust-case-judge-finds/

Although Gonzalez Rogers had rejected the monopoly claims, she ordered Apple to lower the barriers protecting its previously exclusive payment system for in-app digital transactions and allow developers to display links to alternative options. The Supreme Court rejected Apple's appeal in the case in January 2024.

"In stark contrast to Apple's initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option," the judge wrote on Wednesday. She accused Apple's vice-president of finance Alex Roman of "outright" lying under oath.

"Internally, (longtime Apple executive) Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the injunction, but (CEO) Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly," Gonzalez Rogers wrote.

The judge referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate.

Posted
24 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Apple is gonna get its peepee whacked pretty hardfor acting in bad faith with the courts. Their business model relies on the revenue stream from the captive transaction processing on their platform, it'll be interesting to see how this shakes out through appeals

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/apple-violated-injunction-antitrust-case-judge-finds/

Although Gonzalez Rogers had rejected the monopoly claims, she ordered Apple to lower the barriers protecting its previously exclusive payment system for in-app digital transactions and allow developers to display links to alternative options. The Supreme Court rejected Apple's appeal in the case in January 2024.

"In stark contrast to Apple's initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option," the judge wrote on Wednesday. She accused Apple's vice-president of finance Alex Roman of "outright" lying under oath.

"Internally, (longtime Apple executive) Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the injunction, but (CEO) Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly," Gonzalez Rogers wrote.

The judge referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate.

From what I've read though, Apple has a pretty good appeal case, as Gonzalez Rogers seemed to overeact (due to the disrespect she thought Apple showed to the process) and didn't properly value the IP as she took it to $0. Thoughts there?

Posted
2 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

From what I've read though, Apple has a pretty good appeal case, as Gonzalez Rogers seemed to overeact (due to the disrespect she thought Apple showed to the process) and didn't properly value the IP as she took it to $0. Thoughts there?

I mean, she's got em on paper saying they don't intend to abide the court order. That's pretty black and white, or at least it used to be

Posted

The contempt issue is separable from the validity of the injunction.  Until and unless the injunction is stayed or reversed/dissolved, Apple is liable in contempt for violating it.

Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The contempt issue is separable from the validity of the injunction.  Until and unless the injunction is stayed or reversed/dissolved, Apple is liable in contempt for violating it.

 

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

I mean, she's got em on paper saying they don't intend to abide the court order. That's pretty black and white, or at least it used to be

Right. The appeal is more based on the valuation, or what is a reasonable %, that Apple can charge for their IP/product they’ve created in the App Store and ecosystem. The judge got mad at the flaunting of her rule and essentially zero’ed it out, but realistically there is a value there that needs to be accounted for, and will be appealed to be higher than 0% (free) and lower than 30%. 

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Right. The appeal is more based on the valuation, or what is a reasonable %, that Apple can charge for their IP/product they’ve created in the App Store and ecosystem. The judge got mad at the flaunting of her rule ad essentially zero’ed it out, but realistically there is a value there that needs to be accounted for, and will be appealed to be higher than 0% (free) and lower than 30%. 

Realistically speaking though - what is the value that Apple is bringing to customers by forcing payments to go through their payment system instead of directly to the vendor they're dealing with? They seek rents on all digital good sold, even if they're not the ones paying for the bandwidth. An old example was how you couldn't buy a Netflix membership on your iPhone, but you could sign into an existing membership. Apple supplies ZERO utility to Netflix customers, aside from happening to be the device you're using to access a 3rd party service.

In this particular lawsuit and legal action, Apple LIED ON THE WITNESS STAND IN COURT about their policies in place and the court was able to identify and record the internal policy Apple had through contemporaneous business doucmentation. From the CBS news article that I guess you didn't read:

"In stark contrast to Apple's initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option," the judge wrote on Wednesday. She accused Apple's vice-president of finance Alex Roman of "outright" lying under oath.

 

Since the injuction in 2021, only thirty four of Apple's 136,000 developers have even APPLIED to be able to process their own payments. The judge agreed that contemporaneous business documents show definitively that Apple actively worked to prevent developers from directing customers to their own websites or payment platforms.

edit: if you lie to the court, you're gonna incur some adverse consequences and punitive response from the court. I don't see how they're gonna be able to make an argument and be taken seriously when they've already perjured themselves as a corporate entity

Edited by Captainant
Posted
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Realistically speaking though - what is the value that Apple is bringing to customers by forcing payments to go through their payment system instead of directly to the vendor they're dealing with? They seek rents on all digital good sold, even if they're not the ones paying for the bandwidth. An old example was how you couldn't buy a Netflix membership on your iPhone, but you could sign into an existing membership. Apple supplies ZERO utility to Netflix customers, aside from happening to be the device you're using to access a 3rd party service.

In this particular lawsuit and legal action, Apple LIED ON THE WITNESS STAND IN COURT about their policies in place and the court was able to identify and record the internal policy Apple had through contemporaneous business doucmentation. From the CBS news article that I guess you didn't read:

"In stark contrast to Apple's initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option," the judge wrote on Wednesday. She accused Apple's vice-president of finance Alex Roman of "outright" lying under oath.

 

Since the injuction in 2021, only thirty four of Apple's 136,000 developers have even APPLIED to be able to process their own payments. The judge agreed that contemporaneous business documents show definitively that Apple actively worked to prevent developers from directing customers to their own websites or payment platforms.

edit: if you lie to the court, you're gonna incur some adverse consequences and punitive response from the court. I don't see how they're gonna be able to make an argument and be taken seriously when they've already perjured themselves as a corporate entity

Apple’s intellectual property evaluation appears to have been a sham; that doesn’t mean that its intellectual property isn’t valuable, and that Judge Gonzales Rogers isn’t taking it (takings clause, below)(...Apple should have put forward an honest evaluation of its intellectual property value and used that to build a new commission number, instead of backing into a number that justified 27% which everyone agrees is the contempt and willful disregard of a judge's order (and there is a paper trail for that and perjury I believe).

At the same time, most suspect it will fall to the Appeals Court — and perhaps the Supreme Court — to decide if a federal judge, using a state law, can compel permanent commercial access to proprietary infrastructure — backed by intellectual property — without paying for it, simply because the company acted duplicitously. Apple’s rate may be anticompetitive; it may also be the case that setting it to zero is equally illegal. And that is the crux of the argument and where many think the Judge overrotated on her ruling because she was irate about being disrespected.

Links abound around the fact there are a number of pertinent Supreme Court precedents that have bearing on this argument:

  • The controlling precedent for the Takings Clause is Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City; this, in contrast to the bright line precedent of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, considers cases where the taking is only partial, not total. In this case, Apple still owns its IP, and can still monetize it through things like the developer fee, in-app purchases, etc.; however, Apple will argue that (1) the economic impact, (2) interference with investment-backed expectations, and (3) character of the government action will render this partial taking of the right to monetize IP used for web-based transactions illegal.
  • Horne v. Department of Agriculture
  • Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. held that forced disclosure of trade secrets (in this case, for regulatory approval) is a taking; this makes clear that the takings clause applies to something that is intangible and proprietary like intellectual property.
  • Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid held that compelled access — even if it doesn’t result in compelled divesture — constitutes taking. In this case, just because Apple’s intellectual property is non-rivalrous doesn’t mean the company isn’t harmed by being forced to grant access to it.

And this of course is all based on the "Takings Clause" of the 5th ammendment:

Quote

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

At the same time, most suspect it will fall to the Appeals Court — and perhaps the Supreme Court — to decide if a federal judge, using a state law, can compel permanent commercial access to proprietary infrastructure — backed by intellectual property — without paying for it, simply because the company acted duplicitously. Apple’s rate may be anticompetitive; it may also be the case that setting it to zero is equally illegal. And that is the crux of the argument and where many think the Judge overrotated on her ruling because she was irate about being disrespected.

Apple had policies such that they would not approve updates for an app if it included any messaging informing users they could go to a different platform to make a purchase. This isn't about their appstore rake at time of app purchase and download. This is about how they're actively preventing developers from even communicating to their customers that they can pay for digital content in a different way if they choose to. Mind you, that digital content isn't even served by Apple's servers. That cost to service the digital content is covered by the developers, not Apple.

So WHAT is that "proprietary infrastructure"? Once an app package is downloaded from the app store, it's not an Apple-owned device spending the computing cycles - it's a personally owned device. Is apple entitled to a peice of EVERYTHING that occurs on an iPhone because the iPhone itself is "propriety infrastructure - backed by intellectual property"? It certainly doesn't work that way in literally any other personal computing paradigm.

 

I think you're jumping past this pesky little technical detail, because moots Apple's whole claim.

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...