Wow man I'm really feeling that. I also have a great 16" and I'm experiencing similar issues with it.
The new M1 MacBook Air is already as fast as my machine and costs less than half. It's bonkers.
I use two external monitors however and the Air doesn't support that, so that's one thing keeping me away from the new M1.
I imagine the new 16" MacBook Pros will support more than one external monitor, and I don't think I'd be able to stop myself from getting one.
Have done the same in December 2019.
I'm telling myself I really need 2 external monitors, as that's what I use at home. The M1 machines only support one external monitor (even in clamshell). Not a lot of people seem to be mentioning this.
I firmly believe that it's downright impossible to give a great experience with the same UI using touch/keyboard+mouse. You're just bound to have ugly tradeoffs in usability xor visuals.
It also seems to me like an ergonomic nightmare. I'm curious to hear if people who use their iPads like laptops (with a keyboard and trackpad) feel like they want to reach for the screen. I'd imagine it's a last resort.
I often use an iPad in a keyboard case and I have a BT mouse. I constantly switch control methods depending on the situation. Sometimes you want precision and use the keyboard or mouse. Other times you want more interaction and will use the touch screen. Scrolling is often easier using touch. If I had a touchpad, the mix might shift a little but not drastically. I also like to switch up controls as a hedge against RSI.
Touch is not an ergonomic nightmare and it is not the last resort. It’s just an option where appropriate.
I'm also seeing significant stuttering on Twitter on Big Sur on Safari 14.0.1. Chrome scrolls smoothly in comparison. Same deal on Reddit.
Then again it was still the case before Big Sur and Safari 14, so I can't call it a regression.
They also doubled (!!!) the SSD speeds, at least according to their slides. Presumably swapping will be much more seamless, so I'm not sure low RAM would be a huge issue for most day to day tasks.
It will still be a problem. The difference in access time between RAM and SSDs is still order of magnitude faster for RAM (10s of micro-seconds vs 10s of nano-seconds). So even if they doubles speeds random access of small data chunks will still choke your performance.
What makes you so sure these savings weren't passed on to the consumer?
I wouldn't be surprised if the addition of 5G alone ate into those savings, and they kept the prices largely the same in spite of it. At least it seems that way to me, given the fact that many Android phone manufacturers have a considerably more expensive 5G version of their phones.
Exactly. An all but confined Qualcomm X55 Modem, 5G patents, Same iPhone 11 Pro Max OLED ( although likely reduced normal brightness due to yield ), mmWave Antenna included in US version ( That was really a surprise ). Every single one of them cost more than reduction of Charger and Headphone cost.
Apart from the Camera ( Arguably the two sense are even better ) Your $799 iPhone 12 is better than last years's iPhone 11 Pro costing $999.
- "Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.”
- "While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free."
- "The Court further recognizes that during these coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) times, virtual escapes may assist in connecting people and providing a space that is otherwise unavailable. However, the showing is not sufficient to conclude that these considerations outweigh the general public interest in requiring private parties to adhere to their contractual agreements or in resolving business disputes through normal, albeit expedited, proceedings."
- "With respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, the calculus changes. The record shows potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally, including on both third-party developers and gamers. The public context in which this injury arises differs significantly: not only has the underlying agreement not been breached, but the economy is in dire need of increasing avenues for creativity and innovation, not eliminating them. Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders."
> the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative
It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust issue, which is that Apple (and Google) essentially has the power to make or break any arbitrary business that relies on their platform. They base it on vague and loosely enforced rules, which means companies never know if tomorrow is the end. Having a locked platform in itself isn't an issue. Having an expensive locked platform isn't an issue either.
Having an oligopoly of locked platforms (that are important enough that companies can't ignore) with rules that can change or be selectively enforced and have the power to destroy your business model overnight, is a big problem.
Reducing the cut to 0% still wouldn't change that.
Nobody is forcing Epic to use Apple's platform though. It never used to be the case, that every device you own must be able to play every game you want. You can already play Fortnite on your PC. Apple cannot stop you from owning a PC, so Apple cannot stop you from playing Fortnite. Yes, Apple is a gatekeeper for its platform. But we've known this forever. Sony is a gatekeeper for the playstation, and Microsoft is a gatekeeper for the Xbox. If developers want the lowest friction possible when releasing games, use a platform where you can release your own store (which Epic already has).
At some point the platform has to be considered common infrastructure, similar to power transmission lines, the railroad or the Windows OS. Just because you happened to build a successful platform should not imply that you can hold everyone hostage - that is why antitrust is a thing.
There are open platforms, and due to convenience of distribution developers have reluctantly chosen these platforms over open ones. Now while I am not defending Apple's position here, developers who have chosen to distribute only on such platforms for the past few decades are partly to blame too.
The success of Apple (etc.) are due to choices that developers have made, closing themselves in and then citing anti-trust when they themselves locked the doors and gave away the keys.
While this is even more true for consoles, the difference is in a specific purpose vs a general purpose.
General purpose platforms that become overly closed have roundly been rejected or been forced to open up: Carterfone, AOL, Windows, carrier locked phones, etc.. even iOS itself didn't allow apps at first and now does.
Closed platforms for a specific purpose like consoles, kindles, rokus, etc.. do a bit better because they are 1) more likely to have competitors, and 2) have more limited impact from being specific purpose platforms, though are still capable of maintaining monopolies/duopolies.
The phone market is a iOS/Android duopoly, and both are being forced to open up more. Hardly surprising.
Exactly. Developers loved the gravy train while it lasted. 30% cut for being put into the hands of millions of people instantly was pocket change in the 2010s. Now that the market is saturated and developers have tougher competition, they're turning on Apple. Take your money, smile that it happened, and go work on open platforms from now on.
What if the phone is in the hands of millions of people in the first place because it is full of apps? Didn’t the Mac cede it’s place in PC history because Windows had more software?
I am on board with the internet being common infrastructure, since you cannot own your own fibre cable that goes to the ISP (at least not easily and cheaply).
With hardware it is different. Nobody forced you to buy an iPhone. Nobody forced you to buy an Android, Windows, Nokia, whatever phone. Same with laptops. If you want an open platform, buy one. If you want an open OS, install one. Don't buy an iPhone, complain about the platform not being open enough for you, and then demand that all platforms be made common infrastructure so that you're absolved of making decisions about the hardware you use.
Internet Explorer was already ubiquitous at that point. The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released. The iPhone become so widely used because of the popularity of the App Store. The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it. It's only now that people are turning around and complaining that a platform that was never open to begin with, is not open enough.
Taking a 30% cut from app store sales isn't anti-competitive though. If anything, it allows other platforms to compete on price. Which is exactly what Android does. Developers can't whinge if people still buy iPhones despite the restrictions on what you can and can't do on it.
The Microsoft case is completely different, in that it favored IE over other browsers based on the APIs the software was allowed access to. Apple allows all apps to access the iOS APIs and uses those same APIs to develop its own apps. Taking a 30% cut of software that Apple distributes on your behalf might be steep, but is certainly not anti-competitive. If you think it costs too much, don't pay it! Nobody is forcing you to distribute software for the iPhone. If you're lamenting that people are stupid enough to buy hardware they don't have full control over, then that speaks more of human stupidity and the fact that convenience will always win.
> Taking a 30% cut from app store sales isn't anti-competitive though
That is not what the court case is asserting is anti-competitive.
The anti-competitive action is that Apple prevents competing app stores on the platform. Preventing competitors from competing is explicitly the definition of anti-competitive. High prices can be a consequence of anti-competitive behavior but is not really the main issue. The main issue has to do with.... reducing competition by stopping competitors, which Apple definitely does.
Apple doesn't even pretend to claim that it is not preventing competitors, honestly. The question is whether Apple is large enough that anti-competition laws apply to them. (Which they obviously are, given that they now have 52.4% of the phone duopoly, as of last month)
> it allows other platforms to compete on price
No, actually. Competing app stores cannot be put on the iPhone, due to Apple's actions. These competing app stores cannot compete for iPhone users.
> it favored IE
Apple favors its own app store, over competitors, in that it literally prevents other app stores from competing at all on the iPhone.
> Apple allows all apps
No, it does not allow other app stores, no.
> If you think it costs too much, don't pay it!
You should read the lawsuit. The anti-competitive behavior is not the price. This instead had to do with Apple preventing competing app stores.
Also, that is a bad argument, because "just dont use it" is not a valid defense when a company is engaging in anti-competitive practices.
> Nobody is forcing you to distribute software for the iPhone
Another bad argument. This would not at all be valid if Microsoft used it as an argument regarding software installed on the PC. That argument would be invalid, if microsoft prevented competitors from being installed on PC.
> If you're lamenting
No, I am saying that anti-competitive practices should be stopped.
The ability to buy other hardware devices to avoid one company's control is not a real solution. Besides that, all the major vendors are trying to push you to buy things in their controlled gardens/app stores. Instead of buying more devices (practical maybe for rich computer programmers) how about we just prevent vendor purchase lock-in. I should be able to run or buy or sell to end-users whatever software I want on my devices.
Why doesn't Windows take 30% whenever you try to play a game there?
I don't know about legality, but philosophically it's offensive to me that Apple and Google get to be landlords leeching off app developers. I paid for my phone. It should run the software I want it to, and if I want to buy an app for it I shouldn't need to pay Apple for the privilege.
I'm sure they take a cut if you use the Microsoft Store.
You know why Windows runs code not from the Microsoft Store. It's legacy. There wasn't always a Microsoft Store, running executable straight from floppy, CD-ROM or the Internet was the norm. Changing it now would be changing the product people already bought and break workflows.
iPhone never had that legacy. From day 0 it only ran Apple code. Then it ran 3rd party code via the App Store. There was no such legacy. But there are older products with such a legacy. Didn't your old Nintendo have precisely the same rules from day 0 and so do modern consoles?
iOS + Android is at least as big of a deal as Windows was back in the IE vs Netscape days. The bar for antitrust isn't "you literally cannot live without the thing".
Even if you make a case that for Epic it doesn't matter that much, the Hey mail case was another big one: if you try to make a new email service and ignore Apple/Google, you're dead on arrival. That's a problem.
I wish there was a law saying something like "If you sell a machine that claims to do X, it does X, no exceptions."
This "We'll let you develop software for OUR X out of the goodness of our heart as long as you promise not to do Y and pay us Z" BS really gets under my skin.
lol I have a feeling everyone here will hate me for saying that though.
> It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust issue
The merits of the antitrust part are not supposed to be handled in a TRO. Its purpose is to maintain the status quo and limit possibly irreparable damages while the complex issues are debated in court. Here the 30% cut is important because it's a matter of deciding what a reasonable number would be.
In the case most favorable to Epic, it could be reduced to a lower value after a lengthy court process, but it would not necessarily change the nature of the market / economy. In other antitrust cases, you could have situations where the continued infringement by a near monopolistic entity would indeed qualify for a restraining order as the final judgment would arrive after the smaller competitor would be long dead.
> In the case most favorable to Epic, it could be reduced to a lower value
No.
The most favourable outcome would be allowing Epic and others who already have their own sales and payment channels to use them alongside the app store payment system.
I think that's the main reason this lawsuit exists. I don't think Epic or Spotify really want to creat their own iOS app store.
Epic (Tim Sweeney) explicitly says that if not for App Store policies, they would launch an alternate App Store on iOS in the set of emails to Tim Cook that Apple submitted to the court:
> 2. A competing Epic Games Store app available through the iOS App Store and through direct installation
that has equal access to underlying operating system features for software installation and update as
the iOS App Store itself has, including the ability to install and update software as seamlessly as the iOS
App Store experience. [1]
> The updated ADA includes the new Microsoft Store fee structure that delivers up to 95 percent of the revenue back to consumer app developers. To ensure you receive the full 95 percent revenue, be sure to instrument your referring traffic URLs with a CID.
Consider Spotify vs Apple music. If Spotify has to charge X + 30% to subscriber's on iPhone in order to make X then they absolutely can't compete on price if Apple simply charges X.
You're just making things up. Apple has explicit exceptions for multi platform subscriptions. The only condition they require is that developers should not cripple the iOS app by removing the ability to create an account from within the app (which means your app essentially has to offer in app purchases as a valid way of obtaining a subscription).
If users want they can create an account on Mac (or even on iOS Safari) and set up a subscription with lower fees outside the app and then use it inside the app.
People can easily use the Netflix accounts they created on their Mac on iOS with no extra charge.
What's not allowed is making an iOS app where you are shown a login screen but no way of creating an account from within inside the app, which forces you to use a separate platform to create the account. The idea is that an iPhone or iPad should be a standalone device and not require the help of another platform or device to do basic things like create an account.
Can you create a netflix account within the app on iOS? I thought they specifically had an exception for "reader apps" (and Netflix somehow fell in that category).
It's not relevant. The cut taken is not the point. It's that the app store is the only avenue onto an iOS device. EVERY OTHER meaningful computing platform (that is, not solely a gaming device) has multiple avenues to acquire and install software. Not iOS, and that's the issue.
I don't know why I keep expecting users here to understand this. It's not going to happen.
What about Chrome OS? Only some chromebooks have unlocked bootloaders, otherwise there is no way to install new software besides web apps or browser extensions.
Maybe you just play some games and never were a developer but 30% sounds like a huge fee when you literally have no other way to sell than to use dominating platforms of iOS, Android and Steam.
It was only natural that some successful company would start the fight on behalf of everyone else thinking the cut is too high.
For users, it could mean the reduction of price but users are just too satisfied, they don't care what the developers think but be pets on the platforms.
Companies are free to set their own prices. Setting a price that matches your competitor's price is a standard business practice and is not considered price fixing as long as there was no coordination with the competitor.
In other words:
1. If Apple went and talked to Google and Microsoft and they all agreed to set the price to 30%, that would be price fixing.
2. If Apple looked at Microsoft and saw that they had set their price to 30% and decided they wanted to do that too, that is not price fixing.
Android is better, but far from acceptable. Alternative app stores cannot install and update apps in the background. Without root that is – which Google also fights against.
How is that far from acceptable? It's perfectly fine. This battle is not about who has the nicest store. It's about who has the right to a store at all.
Fair point. To be candid, every time I've discussed this, Apple fans quickly jump on the "but what about Google!!!" train, and it distracts from the original point, so I just got used to putting them together, because it's not important (for this specific topic).
"Epic brings ten claims for violations of Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition. Based on a review of the current limited record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that Epic has met the high burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, especially in the antitrust context. However, the Court also concludes that serious questions do exist. Indeed, the Court related this action to the Cameron action because there are overlapping questions of facts and law, including substantively similar claims based on the same Apple App Store policies: namely, the 30% fee that Apple takes from developers through each application sale and IAP in the application."
The judge also commented the case is not a slam dunk for either side.
I expect the case is going to hinge on whether or not Epic can successfully convince the judge that the market of "iOS App Distribution" is in fact a valid antitrust market. This is not something that can simply be assumed, as US courts have generally been reluctant to allow antitrust markets to be defined in the context of a single brand's product unless specific circumstances are met. If Epic can't establish "iOS App Distribution" as the relevant market then the court will instead look at Apple's market power in the overall smartphone market, which will make Epic's case more difficult as Apple lacks monopoly power in that market.
>"Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.”
To add more color to this, the court refused an injunction to force Apple to enable Fortnite with the Epic payment processing. Epic can remove that and be admitted back to the App store. If Apple refuses at that point Epic would likely win an injunction to force them.
The record already reflects (now) that Apple retaliated against Epic in blocking Unreal Engine. (Granted, the court did not use the word "retaliate" because it was a TRO, not a ruling on the facts; but the implication is clear.) Besides fear of sanctions, why wouldn't they retaliate again, and now harder given that the first attempt at retaliation may be thwarted?
The so-called block of unreal engine came along with a letter asking Epic to put fortnite back in compliance before it would happen.
There’s no indication that apple intended a purely retaliatory action, it was obviously pressure for Epic to come back into compliance with the App Store terms, which is what apple wants - for Epic to follow the same rules as everyone else. Apple makes money with Fortnite on the App Store and getting that 30% cut.
