51–60 of 182 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC It includes access to paywalled articles, at a substantial discount to buying a subscription to each paywall separately.
It does but not the post or the times so pretty bad deal for us news.
Brilliant and the only thing left, short of another iPhone reinvention miracle (not likely for a while.) Many of us have 10 year old PCs that do 100% of the things we need, smartphones are going that way too. So milk the ecosystem.
So rent seeking is brilliant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
AFAIK Texture was doing quite well.
> The skeptical publishers point to the original Texture—it didn't work--as proof the concept is shaky. The publishers say the revenue was meager, and the app itself sputtered through several incarnations before being sold off to Apple.
> 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. 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…
Generate a pie chart based on playtimes, and then let the user adjust it to match their subjective experience. Pre-bias the pie slices by multiplying the default percentage cut by their rating of the game if they've given one.
> This service will combine stories from newspapers, websites, and magazines into a new tab in the Apple News app on iPhones, iPads, and Macs. > Apple plans to charge about $10 a month. Is it just me, or is there no way this could possibly be worth it? Hacker News and Reddit already combine stories from newspapers and websites, and they do it for free. I have a hard time believing that a managed source selected from…
I am taking a different track towards digital minimalism: I don’t count time spend reading eBooks and listening to audio books. But I am monitoring and reducing empty non-productive time on my devices.
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…
Any such program would instantly be set upon with demands for a low income version which in effect would be subsidized by those paying an elevate price. All the while the carriers and other phone makers would be off the hook and show no interest in following suit with similar programs
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK Texture was doing quite well.
I’d be curious where you got that information. Everything I’ve read has sounded simliar to this: https://adage.com/article/digital/greedy-apple-half-publishi... > The skeptical publishers point to the original Texture—it didn't work--as proof the concept is shaky. The publishers say the revenue was meager, and the app itself sputtered through several incarnations before being sold off to Apple.
In 2016 it was doing quite well (remember this is publishing money and not tech VC money. Success in publishing does not look the same in dollars as success does in SV tech): https://nypost.com/2016/06/21/the-netflix-of-magazines-is-ab...
Apple bought Texture this time last year and then it spread they had planned their own news platform. It's no surprise they were scaling back Texture as a company.
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…
> You could ask users what split between games they think is fair (feels like a lot to ask especially if you're playing a lot of games). Generate a pie chart based on playtimes, and then let the user adjust it to match their subjective experience. Pre-bias the pie slices by multiplying the default percentage cut by their rating of the game if they've given one.