41–50 of 182 posts
I wonder if now is a good time to short some Netflix stock.
If they do bundle it with News/Music, now that would be interesting.
if Apple combines Music, News and TV subscriptions into one payment that's competitive with sum of those subscriptions it's huge! I would probably drop Spotify and get Apple Music if I can save me money and give me more access to content. Uh, if it works with their Family Sharing plans it would be golden!
I think that’s the key to this thing’s success. There’s no way enough people are going to pay $120 per year for newspaper/magazine articles to make it worthwhile for publishers or for users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spotify is in a much worse competitive position than Netflix. Nothing separates Spotify from Apple Music. Any competitor can license music from all of the music providers. There is no reason for most people to keep both Spotify and Apple Music. Netflix has spent years negotiating TV rights to third party content and releasing its own. Apple has a long way to go.
> Any competitor can license music from all of the music providers. There is no reason for most people to keep both Spotify and Apple Music. Android is 81% of the US market. Unless Apple Music comes to android, I don't see Spotify being threatened.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.andr...
Android may be “81%” of the market but then you have to subtract China and you have to take into account where the paying customers are.
Apple has more than half the number of paying customers with a much smaller phone market share (https://www.cultofmac.com/605166/spotify-now-has-96-million-...)
It’s well known that Android users don’t spend nearly as much as iOS users.
> Apple News: This service will combine stories from newspapers, websites, and magazines into a new tab in the Apple News app on iPhones, iPads, and Macs. I still don’t understand how this is any different from what’s happening in the Apple News app right now, other than it will cost $10 per month starting on Monday and is now free. Also, the Texture app requires that you _download_ issues of magazines, whereas magaz…
Access to paywalled content for a single fee.
> But there’s always the possibility that Apple starts with an “all you can eat monthly magazines” tier, then adds a pricier “all you can eat monthly magazines plus daily paywalled news” tier. This could give newspapers a way to make more money from the service — a reported sticking point to participation from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sounds terrible for short indie games and good for long grindy games. What would be a good system to determine a fair amount between games when a user is paying a fixed amount per month for all games? You could ask for ratings (e.g. overall, originality) but these will be a lot more nuanced than time spent. You could ask users what split between games they think is fair (feels like a lot to ask especially if you're…
> What would be a good system to determine a fair amount Maybe something more like other content services - ensure there are multiple competitive fixed-rate game services that take risks and auction/bid on getting a specific game for a season at a time. It could include both an upfront payment and a performance payment.
I continue to wonder why they don't have or push iPhone as a Services ( The iPhone Upgrade Programme ) and continue to rely on mostly Carriers for Financing. By offering iPhone up to a 4 years terms and bundled with AppleCare+ Thief and Loss and iCloud Backup. With Optional Apple Music, Apple News Magazine, Apple TV and Apple Game. All paid via an Apple Branded Credit Card within Apple Pay backed by Goldman Sachs. Yo…
> The company would collect these monthly fees, then divide up the revenue between developers based on how much time users spend playing their games Sounds terrible for short indie games and good for long grindy games. That's not a future I want for my gaming. Not that I am an apple customer in the first place but hopefully this won't affect what is delivered on the other platforms.
> Sounds terrible for short indie games and good for long grindy games. Short and long are terms that make sense for games that have a natural start and end. Not every game has that story-likeness, so even a simple game that can keep people's attention (or get a lot of little slices) could do well.
The only one I've gotten into of that nature is the binding of isaac which would undoubtedly do well under this scheme. But we need the story driven games too and they are going to have a hard time under these conditions.
I continue to wonder why they don't have or push iPhone as a Services ( The iPhone Upgrade Programme ) and continue to rely on mostly Carriers for Financing. By offering iPhone up to a 4 years terms and bundled with AppleCare+ Thief and Loss and iCloud Backup. With Optional Apple Music, Apple News Magazine, Apple TV and Apple Game. All paid via an Apple Branded Credit Card within Apple Pay backed by Goldman Sachs. Yo…
> The company would collect these monthly fees, then divide up the revenue between developers based on how much time users spend playing their games Sounds terrible for short indie games and good for long grindy games. That's not a future I want for my gaming. Not that I am an apple customer in the first place but hopefully this won't affect what is delivered on the other platforms.
Well technically it takes less time and tesources to develop a short indie game vs a long game, so it’s reasonable that they will get more money. Also If a long game is boring nobody will play it longer than it’s worth
That is a trade off against being boring, but having developers optimize games to explicitly be as time consuming as possible and just not-boring enough that you don't quit them in disgust is not really a helpful incentive.