Apple Plus – brand versus subscription | Hacker News Reader

Apple Plus – brand versus subscription

ben-evans.com

116 pointsgraeme90 comments

> More interesting: Apple’s evolving brand promise. The old Apple promise was that you don't have to worry if the tech works. The new promise is you don't have to worry if the tech is scamming you. Everything Apple showed was about curation, safety and trust. No tracking, no scammy ads, no loot boxes, no weird credit card charges. And Oprah.

This is an extremely good point. I'm a technical person, I love open technologies, but I've invested in Apple devices because right now we have no choice but to put trust in one major tech company or another, and Apple is the only one I have an iota of trust in not to screw me over. They're smartly capitalizing on a culture shift of tech-skepticism, and I'm not ashamed to say that that sales pitch works on me. Their competitors would be wise to take notice.

Unfortunately, they're playing both sides of the game.

If Apple would let you use their products anonymously, that would be a clear indicator they were on the side of privacy.

a couple pointed questions:

- do you know what apps on your iphone are doing? can you find out?

- do you know who they contact?

- do you know what technologies they are using? deep linking? ibeacons?

- can you firewall your apps?

Nobody can totally prevent third-party apps from recording your interactions with them, though Apple has made some effort (https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/07/apple-glassbox-apps/). Apple also strongly enforces that third-party apps have to gracefully degrade when individual permissions are denied. So that a delivery app, for example, can't strong-arm you into enabling location services by refusing to work otherwise.

All of Apple's first-party services give detailed breakdowns of what information Apple receives before it does so. Other than privately-stored iCloud data, they send virtually zero non-anonymized data to Apple. And as much as possible - especially with things like Maps - they keep data local to your device.

So no, I don't always know who third-party apps are contacting, because nobody can. But I do know (and have control over) every interaction they have with the rest of my device and data. For first-party apps, I do know everyone they contact and with what information, and it's kept to a reasonable minimum.

> because nobody can

On my apple desktop, little snitch does tell me this information.

I think it would be totally reasonable to give interested users visibility and/or control over this sort of thing on their phone.

As mentioned in another comment, any number of VPN services can accomplish this (though of course VPNs, like any software that records and modifies your traffic, pose a security risk themselves).

Security researcher Will Strafach is launching an iOS VPN service called Guardian Mobile Firewall that proposes to allow users to audit all the third-party services that apps connect to. I haven't gotten into the beta yet, so I don't really know how it works, but the screenshots Strafach has been sharing on Twitter look comprehensive.

> So that a delivery app, for example, can't strong-arm you into enabling location services by refusing to work otherwise

I can confirm this. I work for a top 10 consumer focused app (< #10 on the App store) and Apple did exactly this - ask us to enable users to use the app even without giving location permissions. There have been multiple push backs from Apple similar to this regarding user privacy and security and none from Google. And this isn't a vague generalization - Google has never asked us about this stuff, ever. It just isn't a priority. And so, as you might expect, I tend to trust and use the Apple platform for a lot of my personal stuff.

You asked a bunch of questions no consumer at scale cares about or understands.

Those are not sellable perks to anyone but people on hacker news. Let’s hope those terms never show up on Apple marketing pushes.

My questions are not posed to consumers, they are posed to folks here on hacker news.

Your suggestion implied that consumers aren’t getting true value because the lack of ability for the user to do this laundry list of technical offerings.

Don’t move the goal post.

I believe knowing what your app is doing and who it is contacting is important and of value.

For instance, the amazon kindle app contacts facebook. Would it be of value for consumers to know their phone is doing this?

It's tragic how much of afar fry the effects of capitalism are from their ideals. In a 'pro business' world, business would constantly sub contract out to each other; think like these scooter companies being used to make deliveries. But the reality is resource management is just so much more effective in-house. Like you state, it becomes increasingly difficult for third parties to operate. It's almost as if centralization is a natural result of industry.

I led the build of an SVOD service at a large media company that was also mentioned in this article. Negotiating with Apple at the time to get our service approved, and then negotiating with them further on integration with the TV app, it was clear their ambition was be a media company by the concessions they wanted. This was years ago, mind you.

Which leads me to the other part of Apple's brand: they will make your life hell if you play in a space they deem important to their survival. Any developer on the app store knows this.

We're entering a world where it will be very, very difficult to survive as a third party in an ecosystem, and the argument will be "our brand." For any success you have, 30% of your gross revenue is going to help finance a potential future competitor. We have to double down on mobile web in the next decade if we want any semblance of competition in media.

If Netflix doesn't like being dependent on Apple, they should have built the rails. They chose not to, and that's probably the correct move, but I don't see why they'd complain about the 30%. They could have not spun-out Roku and not have to pay for distribution to anyone! They obviously knew that being everywhere would maximize profits in the long run. But it goes hand-in-hand that now they've eliminated the capital expenses of developing a platform, they'd be paying others for distribution.

I mean that's what net neutrality was always about really, not being responsible for the rails but also regulating them to maximize the advantage to themselves (a standard commoditize your complements play). They dropped their net neutrality advocacy after they got big enough and wanted to partner with cable companies and wireless carriers for distribution, which they gladly pay for.

This is why we have antitrust law. Google has been fined for pushing their own services on Android, because they have multiple times the market share of Apple. I'm sure if Apple went far enough they would get dealt with too.

This is a very one sided story. We have an existence proof of there being literally dozens of video on demand apps on iOS and tvOS - many of which don’t allow people to subscribe within the app.

There are also a half dozen streaming music services.

This is very similar to how hard it was to compete against Microsoft when developing for Windows.

Regarding stickiness. Apple introduced the following:

* News+

* Apple card

* Apple Arcade

* And they already have Apple music

Am leaving TV out of this list for now. Most people may not want a particular service. But it’s highly likely a good chunk of apple customers will want at least one or two of them.

And then that becomes a factor at switching time. For instance, I’ve considered Android in the past. What has always stopped me are two thoughts: ‘What about privacy?” and “what about imessage?”

Note that these don’t need to be sticking points for you. I’m saying they’re sticking pointed for many. Now, apple is adding three new service sticking points, to add to their music sticking point.

People will think things like “I really like reading Apple News everyday/I like getting the WSJ”. “Those games are so fun for my kids” “Ugh, I’d have to get a new credit card if I switch phones?’

Apple already has a strong ecosystem effect, especially in the US. These will add to it. The apple watch and airpods are another stickiness factor that’s growing rapidly as well.

I left off TV: I’m not sure how it adds to stickiness. Apple is making it widely available on third party devices. So you can still get a show you want even with no apple hardware. Will there be some tie in to apple hardware announced when the service launches? Or some kind of bundle price that itself adds stickiness? Unclear, the strategy behind the TV service is still a bit opaque.

Personally, I’m excited for Apple Arcade. Don’t know how the games will be yet, but it has potential and will be a nice complement to having a nintendo switch. News in Canada is....ok, though it’s unclear to me how much I’m getting with paid vs the free version and I may not keep it. Depends how much value I get from the wsj.

>Regarding stickiness. Apple introduced the following:

I don't think any of those things are all that sticky. I think it's more about leveraging their client base to push into what are essentially commodity industries. Like the credit card. Apple's offering is more or less the same as everyone else's. They will still get some % of iPhone users because it's the most convenient option. Even a few % translates into millions of users and 10s-100s of millions of annual profit. Amazon is a few years ahead of Apple in doing the same thing.

They have a gigantic second mover advantage in any sort of app or online service. Whatever they make can be the default option and they have a built in 30/15% price advantage from the app store fees.

>I left off TV: I’m not sure how it adds to stickiness

I think this is the best example to illustrate my point. Video streaming is not really a commodity. It's a balkanized landscape of minor fiefdoms controlling content. There's a handful of big movie studios, a bunch of TV producers, all of the different sports league, and other live events. It's not like music where Apple can produce a Spotify competitor with relatively little effort. Competing with Netflix means producing originals and doing a better job of buying content. It's much much harder.

Yes, they’re also revenue plays for apple. But that doesn’t mean they don’t add to stickiness. That’s a big purpose of prime after all: prime generates revenue, but it keeps people on amazon. The credit card cuts amazon’s transaction fees, but it keeps people on prime and shopping on amazon.

No single point of apple’s offering is all that important for stickiness, but I think it will add nicely to their ecosystem effect.

>Apple already has a strong ecosystem effect, especially in the US

I don't believe it's as strong as Apple would have people believe. It may be that I fail to understand Apples US reach, but I don't see that owning an iPhone makes customers stay with in the Apple ecosystem. I would be surprised if even 25% of Apples iPhone customers have an existing subscription to an Apple service.

The new products/service also seems like a failure to plan for beyond the US marked. Neither of the four service seem like something that would be enticing to customers in other countries. To me it seems like Apple has come to the end of the road, there are no new device or service, to they attempt to make a little profit in four niche markets.

>It may be that I fail to understand Apples US reach, but I don't see that owning an iPhone makes customers stay with in the Apple ecosystem. I would be surprised if even 25% of Apples iPhone customers have an existing subscription to an Apple service.

Here’s a short list of some of the things that may keep someone on apple. Most people don’t use most of them. But even having 1-2 may keep someone.

* apple watch

* apple health data

* iCloud photo libraries (sharing with family etc)

* imessage

* certain apps only on ios/mac

* privacy

* apple music

* itunes music library

* now, apple news, apple arcade, apple card

* airdrop

* airpods

* integration between iphone, ipad, apple watch, mac, etc

Apple has about 50% us market share, so a lot of those involve social or family ties. Outside the us these are less important: most people in Europe use whatsapp for example, negating imessage.

But the point is, for each of those bullets, there’s somechunk of people who are deeply invested in it. It csn be a bit hard to imagine on the outside, because most non-apple services are cross platform. But imagine if you couldn’t use gmail, youtube, netflix etc when switching from android to iphone. It would make you think a lot harder about the choice. These aren’t great examples because they’re more important than the apple services, it’s just to illustrate the idea: if you leave the apple ecosystem, there will be things important to you that you can no longer do.

More prosaic android examples would be things such as homescreen customization, better notification management, etc. anyone switching from android has to give those up, and they help prevent switching from android to apple.

Not that it negates your point but their share is 45% and projected to remain stable or decline over the next few years.

(http://fortune.com/2019/02/21/apple-iphone-sales-2018/ New phone sales are even weaker than overall share.)

Apple Watch keeps me on iPhone big time but attraction to alternatives increases. IMesseage is essentially dead in Germany, the music app is a usability mess and apple maps unusable... I dont even want to start on siri, the appstore-app or apple tv Its hard to watch a renowned company like apple to fail on quality so badly...

It would probably be useful to think of the announcement as a start to these offerings, not their final form. Of course they’re tailored to the US, the US is the single largest market in the world and one Apple understands fundamentally.

Personally I'm very excited about News+. When News launched I was hoping it would become something like News+ eventually. I think this could be what saves good journalism, I like to get news from a spread of publications especially with different biases and the existing subscription contracts would make this impossibly expensive.

What disappoints me about Apple News+ is the lack of good UI for long reads, which must surely be the point of including things like the New Yorker. You can save articles, but there's no good UI to queue up what to read and then read them later. I use Pocket for this sort of thing -- seems like a missed opportunity.

(Right now you can't even remove magazines after adding them. Really feels like a beta product.)

What does News+ provide you with, which News did not?

Full access to the nations leading magazines. New Yorker, The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, etc. I don’t care about those, personally, but they’re some of the best long form writing around.

All of these magazines are on the free version of Apple News, but I haven’t done a deep-dive into how much of their content is available, so I get it if the “full access” part is important to you. I do wonder how important this is to most people though.

I wonder too. The only reason I think this has any chance in hell of working is that I didn’t think anybody would ever use the non-plus version of News. But they do.

>I think this could be what saves good journalism,

What killed Good Journalism was the lack of revenue. And I don't see News+ would save it.

You’re joking, right? The whole point of News+ is to share the subscription revenue with publishers.

Apple takes 50% cut.

It’s not clear that’s a better deal for news sources than just monetizing their own paywalls.

NY Times and Washington Post certainly think they can do better on their own.

This. I don't have an answer to what could save quality Journalism. But $5 spread between hundreds of publication from Gossip Magazines to Fashion and Entertainments don't sounds too reassuring.

As a point of comparison, the music subscription services are spreading $7/month between thousands of different artists. That seems to be working extremely well. We’re something like ten years into music subscriptions, right? It seems possible to me that ten years of getting people used to paying for news subscriptions could leave journalism in a similar place as the music industry.

There is a long tail in Music where Music produced today will still get revenue 10 to 30 years down the road. Compared to News which requires constant updating. And most musician or artist have other source of income mainly from live performing and tours. There is also the return of Vinyl which I think will only continue to grow.

There are no such revenue stream from the News Subscription.

We should find out in a few years time.

Napkin math:

If 1 million people sign up to AN+ at $10 per month, that’s $10 million per month brought in, or $120 million per year. Apple takes $60 million of that, and 300 publishers divvy up the other $60 million, which if distributed equally would be $200K per year, per magaizine. Apple has stated that payment will correspond with performance, which Apple defines as “time spent,” which will probably heavily skew to the publications being featured on the front page of AN+. Publications that don’t use the enhanced format (which is roughly half of them, currently) will likely never appear on the front page, which means they’ll earn nada, and the revenue will be lopsided to the publications Apple promotes.

Everything hinges on how Apple defines “Time Spent” and how much that correlates with promotion on AN+’s front home screen.

I don’t have the time to go look at financial statements of music labels vs publishers, but my guess is that the written word is much cheaper to produce. After all, the talent is much cheaper. Are there magazine or newspaper writers making more than $250k/year? Probably not. But there are tons of musical acts with multi-million dollar deals. Also, while there are songs and albums that make money for a long time, the labels need fresh content in the same way that publishers need fresh content.

But, look, I’m not saying this is a home run. All I’m saying is that it’s not clear to me that this is doomed to failure. Might work, might not. We shall see.

So there's the solution, journalists need to start going on tour to perform their journalism live and sell merch.

I disagree with those being sticky. I have a fleet of Apple devices and iMessage and FaceTime are absolutely sticky but they just don’t compare to what Apple introduced at the recent event, which I think was all pretty weak.

I was interested in News, because of the WSJ, but it’s not even the full Journal.

I’m still amazed Apple is not doing anything about robocalls. This is an area where software can improve the situation, and I do believe this is related to privacy.

And instead we get the latest iOS with...more Animoji.

Agree. The only thing that could be very sticky for me would be Apple Card, I don't mind losing one or two percentage of rebate for the Financial Monitoring, ease of use, and my personal Data.

>I was interested in News, because of the WSJ, but it’s not even the full Journal.

There was a lot of back and forth on this, but I think it is the full journal. Is there a section that’s supposed to be excluded? You can go to an article, hit share, and open it in apple news to test.

I didn’t mean these things will be as sticky as imessage and face time. Just that they are factors that expand the ecosystem for some users. Apple news has been very popular in the US, so news+ will probably be a no brainer for some people. If done well, games will be sticky for a ton of people, and so on.

The question isn’t “would I use that?” It’s whether others would.

Yep I’m definitely considering others, not only myself, as best as I can. But I don’t see these things being attractive to even non-technical users. Or not enough of reasons to keep them on the Apple ecosystem. It seems like basically up-sells to me to increase revenue off the existing customer base because they know they cannot keep increasing iPhone sales YoY.

I do think News is probably the best bet. It’s something I’ve wanted for a while because not many people are going to pay 5-10/month for numerous news sources that are often regurgitating the same news. But I doubt it would keep me on Apple. And isn’t this something that could eventually easily be replicated by others?

Regular apple news has been wildly popular though....even without the paid version it’s a sticking point for people whp use it frequently.

I’m not in the US, so I won’t have the card, but that got the most interest post event by far. As for games, if they’re good I think it will be huge with families. Parents will buy for their kids. And if some good games are exclusive it will be a sticking point for sure. I’m almost certainly signing up. I only game with a nintendo switch currently, but the Apple games look similar: fun, lightweight indie games I can play in spare time.

The next iPhone will be a wireless charging mat in of itself. Why release AirPower when you can rest your AirPods or watch or a friends phone on yours to get a charge.

Maybe other manufacturers will follow suit but none have AirPods or a watch like Apple does. Probably in a few years you’ll charge your Apple glasses wirelessly using your iPhone too.

For me this new feature is even stickier as it’s innovative even if they sorta copied Samsung’s Wireless PowerShare that’s in the S10.

It's worth mentioning that Apple Music is available on Android, and there's no reason to doubt the TV offering will be as well. News+ and Arcade are perhaps less likely, but the fact that Music is available on Android at all suggests that Apple are looking to make money from their services rather than use them as a lock-in tool.

I think this was actually a surprisingly weak showcase from Apple. Something in the TV space with a bit of bite at Netflix would have shown confidence in themselves, a new avenue for creativity that consumers are so engrossed with (i.e new Netflix shows and films are in themselves, events. People talk about the newest Netflix show like a new product release).

Instead they showed a credit card, that look's nice, but I fail to see how Ben think's that reduces churn (credit cards aren't sticky, incentives are - no one will buy a new phone because they're middle of the road rewards are there) and then a subscription that would have been a footnote in a Google or Samsung keynote. Those subscriptions for news (and even more so for Games) are non-events. They are so boring, so anti-sticky that they made me think this whole thing was actually a failure - and Apple shouldn't have made a song and dance of it and just talked about during the iPhone keynote.

The card is probably a good idea. No fee, simplicity, and convenience are good for the consumer. Only selling to Apple product users means a certain band of wealth and thereby lower default rates are implicitly targeted. It’s a good deal for both, especially for consumers who wouldn’t normally spend enough to earn something noteworthy or even positive against the card fee on better cards. News is also a pretty good deal if you like news... but yes, both are really boring. It seems like something interesting to apple investors, but not consumers.

The games platform sounds both boring AND unlikely to do well

> The card is probably a good idea. No fee, simplicity, and convenience are good for the consumer. Only selling to Apple product users means a certain band of wealth and thereby lower default rates are implicitly targeted.

The strategy may work in the US where the payments ecosystem is incredibly dated and backwards, but Apple Card is very much a me-too offering in nearly every other developed economy.

They have around 100 million iPhone users in the US, so that seems like a very reasonable market to target, even if no one outside the US ever uses it.

>The games platform sounds both boring AND unlikely to do well

I'm not sure, the whole in-app purchase thing is a bit of a mess. I could imagine parents subscribing just to keep their kids out of that cesspit.

> I could imagine parents subscribing just to keep their kids out of that cesspit.

I can see parents resenting subscribing just to keep their kids out of that cesspit.

Apple hasn’t cared about games for a long time, and it hasn’t really started caring now.

For example, virtual slot machines, which make up something like 9% of the top grossing charts, are the biggest IAP offenders. They’re bad for gaming, they’re like the virus of the industry. If Apple wanted to, it could just remove them from the store in an afternoon.

The platforms that don’t run virtual slot machines tend to host the biggest achievements in gaming critically and financially. That would appear to be, in a narrow and uninteresting way, the Epic Games Launcher, or the PlayStation store hosting GTA. How does Apple have the store for devices as powerful as and more numerous than the Switch, and yet can’t host more than a few critical and financial successes a year?

It’s the culture, duh. It’s not the business model. That’s why subscriptions are kind of stupid.

I’m definitely one of them, I refuse to play any IAP games as I view them as a Trojan virus social engineering experiment (masquerading as a game) designed to trick you into maximizing their IAP revenue.

An IAP-free game subscription is exactly what I’m looking for and the only thing I’ll be letting my kids play when they come of age.

Is it confirmed that Apple will forbid in app purchases? Because otherwise I wouldn’t see any reason to expect this.

Yes

You just contradicted yourself. “Stickiness” by definition is not about people getting “new” phones it’s about people staying in the ecosystem and spending more. The whole idea behind services is to get people spending more money in the ecosystem since they aren’t buying new phones as frequently.

The credit card is basically useless without the phone. If you track your spending with the phone, you’re less likely to leave and you get simple cash back with it that goes into your Apple Pay account.

Subscriptions for games are really a big deal. The whole ecosystem for games is slimy with ads and in app purchases of gems and loot boxes. Games that are bundle with the subscription are curated. If you have kids, signing up for a games subscription and handing them a new $329 iPad or hand me down iPhone is a no brainer. AppleTV+ won’t be a big deal, but get a subscription to Disney+ when it comes out and you have the perfect item to keep them busy.

I would get Apple News just for one of two magazines that I care about.

I’m not sure how I feel with an entire generation of kids mindlessly glued to their devices. When I go to restaurants, I genuinely praise every parent that doesn’t have their kids glued to their ipads/phones (which is rare)

You mean like generations past who had iPods, Walkmen, Gameboys and portable DVD players?

People have been complaining about kids and their electronics since the Atari 2600.

Did time begin in 1980?

Previously our parents debated if it was ok for kids to read books at the table.

I bet Aristotle complained about kid’s focus of attention these days.

Society is always panicking about something. Before that it was rock n roll and birth control.

The subscription based services (News, Games) are an important step forward but don't do enough to change things meaningfully for game developers and news publishers. On the plus side Apple relieves the burden of managing an ad ecosystem and the slimy feeling of selling out customers' attention to the highest bidder.

On the minus side the publishers and developers are still compensated by the amount of time users spend in their articles/games so the incentive is still to develop addictive and time hogging services or click bait. To be fair this is a difficult problem as there's not an objective measure for quality that compensation could be based on. Perhaps more thought could have gone into this though.

We don’t know how the game publishers are compensated. We do know that Apple is paying some game developers up front and funding games. That reduces the risk of an indy developer a lot.

Even if the game is addictive, at least it isn’t tracking you or trying to take advantage of you financially.

Do we know that? That seems astounding to me. This is a difficult industry with high risk where they’re primarily just competing with their own free apps for what will probably be cannibalizing user time.

There is a reason none of the big companies are on board. It takes a lot for an indy developer to break through the noise.

https://venturebeat.com/2019/03/25/apple-will-fund-exclusive...

The apple card is sticky because earning 2% cash back with it requires the use of Apple Pay.

I think this is an interesting double strategy with the card: apple now will have a small army of customers asking stores “do you support apple pay? Do you support apple pay?” This will drive adoption.

(For those who haven’t been to the US: unlike the rest of the developed work, contactless payment isn’t universal in America. Many places still require you to swipe and sign. Even chip readers are somewhat new. So this card is a way of pushing merchants to modernize their systems and support contactless. Users get 1% for card use but 2% for apple pay)

Edit: why is this getting downvoted? It seems obviously correct. Apple has been struggling to push us apple pay acceptance for years.

> Users get 1% for card use but 2% for apple pay

2% cash back on cards is quite common. Especially if you earn enough to be deeply invested in the Apple ecosystem.

For sure. It’s not an amazing card from a cashback perspective. But, many people will get this card regardless (for convenience, for the privscy, for the analytics, etc).

And they will have an incentive to ask stores about apple pay: double cashback. That’s my point. Apple will be passively mobilizing these people to spread contactless acceptance.

It seems that the credit card was designed to tie into Apple's existing payments systems to both reduce processing fees that Apple pays and to be sticky.

The card pays cash back daily as dollars that are immediately available for use with Apple Pay. Apple can then prompt you to pay for Apps, Apple Music, and Apple hardware using these funds. That makes the stuff you buy from Apple feel "free" (you're paying for it with magic cash-back dollars). It also means that processing your payment just requires changing a number in an Apple database, not routing money through the credit card processing network.

I'm sure I've gotten some of the details wrong. The top comment here goes into a lot more (somewhat speculative) detail: https://www.quora.com/What-is-Apple-Card-the-new-credit-card...

Those subscriptions would have been footnotes in a Google event; that's why Apple is different. When Google enters a market with a new product, most of the time it's a half-assed play by some middle manager to get a promotion. When Apple does something, they put Force behind it to make it successful. Generally.

Google Play Music wasn't a thing Google cared about, really. Same with Youtube Music. Neither of them achieved much success. Apple Music now has more US subscribers than Spotify. They care about it because they make it their business to care about it. Customers see that. They give Apple money. Its that simple.

Apple could never compete with Netflix without a serious rethink of their brand values. To have truly good TV people need to be able to tell stories about awful things as well as good things.

You'll never get something like The Wire coming out of Apple because it makes the current execs feel uneasy. You will however get safe milquetoast things like Carpool Karaoke.

Hmm. Re: "Apple’s evolving brand promise. The old Apple promise was that you don't have to worry if the tech works. The new promise is you don't have to worry if the tech is scamming you. Everything Apple showed was about curation, safety and trust. No tracking, no scammy ads, no loot boxes, no weird credit card charges."

The evolving brand promise thing seems right to me as a general principle, but it doesn't seem either new or particularly applicable to these services. Apple has always had a major competitive advantage in being relatively free of scams and attacks---much less malware than windows, zero OEM-installed garbage compared to windows or android, SIP and App Store curation, etc. etc. But I'm not sure how that point applies to the rollout of services that are competing with established and legitimate players. Nobody's going to choose Apple over Netflix or Steam or the like on the theory that Netflix/Steam is "scammy."

> Nobody's going to choose Apple over Netflix or Steam or the like on the theory that Netflix/Steam is "scammy."

No.

In the same way people won't be choosing Netflix over HBO because HBO is scammy.

The whole article doesn't make any sense.

When you buy a computer or a phone, you buy just one and that's it, having more than a computer or phone doesn't make much sense as it's worse than having only one. So Apple needs to make a decidedly (for the costumer) better product.

While in art/entertainment, there's no "better", people consume the content they want, and can have more than one subscription.

You can have Netflix and Apple and HBO and many others, or none at all.

The only thing Apple needs is to produce content good enough that people are willing to spend the mensality.

It seems really weird to me that with services their new “thing”, why they won’t allow me to back up my computer to iCloud. Not iCloud Drive, I mean a time machine backup in the cloud that I could restore an entire computer from with migration assistant.

Maybe they can’t figure out a way for it to be cost effective? It just seems word to me you can do this with your iphone but not a computer.

macOS apps’ local data is synchronized and can be versioned in iCloud containers. Plus Documents and Desktop are synchronized as legacy dumping grounds for files. Actual app installations are not backed up on either system, though iOS does reinstall on restore. It isn’t necessary to backup the entire drive.

Considering Apple’s pricing structure for storage I’d advise to use other providers for this. Arq with your storage provider of choice is my backup solution for off-site.

While I agree that's the new brand message, I don't think that necessarily means that Apple's TV content is only going to be family oriented. Some of the clips they showed in the video don't look like it would be appropriate for kids.

They were negotiating to get a violent TV show according to CNBC [1]. And Apple's iTunes store has already sold movies and TV shows that were for mature audiences, so I doubt they're going to place any restrictions on what kind of content they're going to buy.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/06/apple-pursuing-violent-israe...

I was surprised to even spot someone smoking a cigarette!

I sometimes feel like Government should mandate that subscription expenses be reported and advertised in strictly annual costs.

I've meet too many people who feel like paying $100 for a service annually is too much, but $10 a month is acceptable. These subscription fees add up, often without users ever realizing.

Google should just kill the YouTube app for iOS and see how long this exclusive bullshit lasts.

I don't think YouTube can survive that.

I expect it would be chaos, not to mention could massively backfire, but would definitely be interesting to watch what would happen if Google coordinated with Netflix to disable both on Apple devices.

you do realize they will lose half of their userbase by doing that? Google depends on iphone users a lot, both for their search and youtube, iphone users are more likely to purchase something as well after watching google ads = more money for google

So Google is both going to continue paying Apple a reported $12 billion a year to be the default search engine on iOS and lose more than half of its audience in the US and lose most of its more affluent audience?

YouTube app is nice but so is the web site.

There would be no real benefit to Google in doing that, only downsides. Developing the YouTube app cost very little, in the grand scheme of things, and non of Apples offerings are really a threat to YouTube or even YouTube Music.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com