by MacNN Staff
Now AAPL Stock: The symbol you provided ("AAPL") doesn't appear to be registered
Cirrus creates Lightning-headphone dev kit
Apple supplier Cirrus Logic has introduced a MFi-compliant new development kit for companies interested in using Cirrus' chips to create Lightning-based headphones, which -- regardless of whether rumors about Apple dropping the analog headphone jack in its iPhone this fall -- can offer advantages to music-loving iOS device users. The kit mentions some of the advantages of an all-digital headset or headphone connector, including higher-bitrate support, a more customizable experience, and support for power and data transfer into headphone hardware. Several companies already make Lightning headphones, and Apple has supported the concept since June 2014. http://bit.ly/29giiZj
Apple Store app offers Procreate Pocket
The Apple Store app for iPhone, which periodically rewards users with free app gifts, is now offering the iPhone "Pocket" version of drawing app Procreate for those who have the free Apple Store app until July 28. Users who have redeemed the offer by navigating to the "Stores" tab of the app and swiping past the "iPhone Upgrade Program" banner to the "Procreate" banner have noted that only the limited Pocket (iPhone) version of the app is available free, even if the Apple Store app is installed and the offer redeemed on an iPad. The Pocket version currently sells for $3 on the iOS App Store. [32.4MB]
Porsche adds CarPlay to 2017 Panamera
Porsche has added a fifth model of vehicle to its CarPlay-supported lineup, announcing that the 2017 Panamera -- which will arrive in the US in January -- will include Apple's infotainment technology, and be seen on a giant 12.3-inch touchscreen as part of an all-new Porsche Communication Management system. The luxury sedan starts at $99,900 for the 4S model, and scales up to the Panamera Turbo, which sells for $146,900. Other vehicles that currently support CarPlay include the 2016 911 and the 2017 models of Macan, 718 Boxster, and 718 Cayman. The company did not mention support for Google's corresponding Android Auto in its announcement. http://bit.ly/295ZQ94
Apple employees testing wheelchair features
New features included in the forthcoming watchOS 3 are being tested by Apple retail store employees, including a new activity-tracking feature that has been designed with wheelchair users in mind. The move is slightly unusual in that, while retail employees have previously been used to test pre-release versions of OS X and iOS, this marks the first time they've been included in the otherwise developer-only watchOS betas. The company is said to have gone to great lengths to modify the activity tracker for wheelchair users, including changing the "time to stand" notification to "time to roll" and including two wheelchair-centric workout apps. http://bit.ly/2955JDa
SanDisk reveals two 256GB microSDXC cards
SanDisk has introduced two 256GB microSDXC cards. Arriving in August for $150, the Ultra microSDXC UHS-I Premium Edition card offers transfer speeds of up to 95MB/s for reading data. The Extreme microSDXC UHS-I card can read at a fast 100MB/s and write at up to 90MB/s, and will be shipping sometime in the fourth quarter for $200. http://bit.ly/294Q1If
Apple's third-quarter results due July 26
Apple has advised it will be issuing its third-quarter results on July 26, with a conference call to answer investor and analyst queries about the earnings set to take place later that day. The stream of the call will go live at 2pm PT (5pm ET) via Apple's investor site, with the results themselves expected to be released roughly 30 minutes before the call commences. Apple's guidance for the quarter put revenue at between $41 billion and $43 billion. http://apple.co/1oi1Pbm
Twitter stickers slowly roll out to users
Twitter has introduced "stickers," allowing users to add extra graphical elements to their photos before uploading them to the micro-blogging service. A library of hundreds of accessories, props, and emoji will be available to use as stickers, which can be resized, rotated, and placed anywhere on the photograph. Images with stickers will also become searchable with viewers able to select a sticker to see how others use the same graphic in their own posts. Twitter advises stickers will be rolling out to users over the next few weeks, and will work on both the mobile apps and through the browser. http://bit.ly/29bbwUE
Inkling Grizzled Veteran Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Glad to see Spotify raising its voice on this one. The Amazon-inspired, Obama-administration-led attack on Apple for ebook price fixing was ridiculous. Companies with a zero percent marketshare can't fix prices. But Apple's attempt to charge a 30% fee on what amounts to a 3% credit card transaction has long been worthy of serious federal action.
DiabloConQueso Grizzled Veteran Joined: Jun 11, 2008
You're off your rocker.
Apple provides a suite of services much greater than simply something that "amounts to a 3% credit card transaction."
They provide free bandwidth and a robust distribution channel.
They provide millions or billions of consumers, money in hand, ready to purchase products on a storefront that's provided for a mere $100 per year. Anyone who has ever started a business knows that getting eyeballs on your product and cultivating an audience is a gigantic endeavor. Some companies spend up to half their revenue doing that and that alone.
If you think Apple is nothing more than a credit card transaction service with regards to the App Store, you've got your head firmly planted up... in the clouds.
Spotify basically wants to pay Apple $100 per year to list their app on Apple's App Store, and then circumvent the subscription process so that Spotify keeps 100% of the revenue, even though they're using Apple's bandwidth, storefront, and leveraging Apple's captive app audience.
Spotify is asking for this to be completely and unfairly biased in their favor. I'd tell them to go pound sand if it were up to me.
jmonty12 Junior Member Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Fight the good fight, Spotify. Your phone is your computer in your pocket. No one would accept these kinds of rules if Microsoft tried to enforce them on Windows. More and more people are using tablets instead of computers. How ironic that Apple has become the very company they warned about in 1984.
DiabloConQueso Grizzled Veteran Joined: Jun 11, 2008
Uhhh... Microsoft takes a 30% cut, too, of apps sold through their app store, so I'm not sure what your point is. Microsoft's app store is also "curated" in a similar fashion to how Apple's app store is "curated" (meaning apps are reviewed and must be approved for sale through the storefront).
Microsoft is enforcing virtually the exact, same rules that Apple is enforcing, and to very similar degrees and percentages.
DiabloConQueso Grizzled Veteran Joined: Jun 11, 2008
And the reason Apple forbids subscriptions outside of the App Store subscription model is this:
1) Developer makes an app, wants to sell it and make money off of it.
2) Developer decides that instead of selling it on the App Store and having Apple take their fair 30% cut, the developer will release the app on the App Store for free so Apple gets nothing (30% of $0.00 is $0.00).
3) Developer then implements a "subscription" type service within the app, where the user can sign up for the subscription and unlock additional features inside the app -- except the subscription is funneled through a service of the developer's choice, instead of the App Store subscription service.
4) Now, said developer is collecting money from their app and the subscription, of which Apple sees $0.00 (because the developer circumvented the App Store subscription service).
5) Apple is now stuck using their own bandwidth to distribute the app to users, as well as having the App Store storefront available for people to search for and download the app. All while the developer pays Apple virtually $0.00 for those services (well, $100 per year, basically).
I'm not seeing how anyone could think that's fair. That's like wanting to put your product in a grocery store, but refusing to pay a dime toward the shelf space the product will take up, refusing to pay a dime toward the labor needed to stock and re-stock the items, and refusing to pay a percentage of sales to the store. The store is basically hosting the product for free and seeing absolutely no revenue going into their pockets at all.
If you think that's fair, let's do this: let me use your home internet bandwidth to run my online store for my product and pay you no money for that service at all. Still sound fair?
Charles Martin Mac Elite Joined: Aug 04, 2001
DCQ, right as rain yet again!
iBricking.com Banned Joined: Dec 18, 2007
You can install the apk on android and go. Apple is good as it is.
WalterC Fresh-Faced Recruit Joined: Jul 11, 2008
Seems to me that a manufacturer can do whatever it choses regarding it's products, absent intended fraud, danger, etc.
besson3c Clinically Insane Joined: Mar 03, 2001
Originally Posted by DiabloConQueso
And the reason Apple forbids subscriptions outside of the App Store subscription model is this:
1) Developer makes an app, wants to sell it and make money off of it.
2) Developer decides that instead of selling it on the App Store and having Apple take their fair 30% cut, the developer will release the app on the App Store for free so Apple gets nothing (30% of $0.00 is $0.00).
3) Developer then implements a "subscription" type service within the app, where the user can sign up for the subscription and unlock additional features inside the app -- except the subscription is funneled through a service of the developer's choice, instead of the App Store subscription service.
4) Now, said developer is collecting money from their app and the subscription, of which Apple sees $0.00 (because the developer circumvented the App Store subscription service).
5) Apple is now stuck using their own bandwidth to distribute the app to users, as well as having the App Store storefront available for people to search for and download the app. All while the developer pays Apple virtually $0.00 for those services (well, $100 per year, basically).
I'm not seeing how anyone could think that's fair. That's like wanting to put your product in a grocery store, but refusing to pay a dime toward the shelf space the product will take up, refusing to pay a dime toward the labor needed to stock and re-stock the items, and refusing to pay a percentage of sales to the store. The store is basically hosting the product for free and seeing absolutely no revenue going into their pockets at all.
If you think that's fair, let's do this: let me use your home internet bandwidth to run my online store for my product and pay you no money for that service at all. Still sound fair?
You are right here, and I would add that given the cost of credit card chargebacks/fraud there are other hidden fees to credit card service, but I think your argument is a little one-sided.
Apple benefits from apps being on their store too in ways that are not shared. Apps on their store promote their platform and enhance their platform security. Having a prominent app like Spotify in their store also makes people more likely to buy an Apple device.
It would seem to me that what would be fair is some sort of negotiable and more flexible plan that recognizes that both parties benefit, and in turn consumers benefit. Perhaps an in-app subscription service would work with a standardized referral bonus for Apple, or perhaps Apple's subscription service would work if it was flexible enough to integrate into the Spotify ecosystem as desired, and they didn't completely eat Spotify's lunch as far as the fees go?
DiabloConQueso Grizzled Veteran Joined: Jun 11, 2008
Perhaps. As it stands now, though, Spotify wants it to be completely and unfairly biased in their favor -- a standpoint I just don't understand. Spotify knows well about server fees and the cost of running an infrastructure that serves thousands upon thousands upon thousands of customers a day, so expecting Apple to host their app for free and then circumvent any kind of payment to Apple is just Spotify being downright ridiculous.
Perhaps a compromise would work for both Apple and Spotify, but Spotify's not going to get there by refusing Apple any cut of any revenue from helping them distribute and promote their app.
Perhaps this is just business as usual for companies as large as Spotify: demand ridiculous stuff, then slowly back off to a more acceptable agreement.
Apple's fine without Spotify, anyway, though -- they have their own very popular music streaming service (and it's good -- not awesome, but very good) that generates revenue. Yes, Spotify might be a draw for some users, but I'm certain that Apple wouldn't hurt or see any kind of mass exodus from their user base if Spotify wasn't available. Look at all the years that Spotify *wasn't* available on the App Store.