6 ms·
Apple Balks at Higher Web-Access Fees After $1B Video Bet
- 5_minutes 9y agoIt's a bit late, mr Cook. But better late then never.
- SkyMarshal 9y agoNot necessarily, here's a good comment on how and why the fight is not yet lost: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6x0bdy/985_of_unique_net_neutrality_comments_oppose_ajit/dmcoqey/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6x0bdy/985_of_uni...
- leggomylibro 9y agoOh, sure Apple. NOW it's bad for incumbent players to have an advantage. smh
- larkost 9y agoApple has the money to effectively be an incumbent for this purpose. So their statement is anything but self serving.
- leggomylibro 9y agoMy point is sort of that they have historically been an incumbent, which prevented them from speaking out about this sort of thing. Now that they are trying to break into a new market and stand to lose a lot of money from higher barriers to entry, of course they come out against them. It's extremely self-serving.
- IBM 9y agoApple has been selling music and video on iTunes for 14 years. Spending $1B on content doesn't change anything for them.
- curt15 9y agoBut even incumbent status wouldn't help a pure content provider if the sole ISP of a region decides to slow down or artificially data-cap traffic from that provider while transmitting its own content at full speed.
- jpao79 9y agoMaybe they should buy Sprint and DIY it. Maybe deliver a cache of video content at night using multicast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Broadcast_Multicast_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Broadcast_Multicast...
- muddi900 9y agoSo Sprint would only work on iPhones?
- jpao79 9y agoYes, in some ways I see this as being more synergistic than self driving cars. With respect to video delivery, it'd be like Amazon and AT&T's Whispernet but applied to video instead of ebooks https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/customerdocumentation/Wireless,+Whispernet+and+Whispersync+on+Kindle+2nd+Generation.pdf https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/customerdocumentation/Wir...
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoSeriously? Where have they been these past months? Why could they not have spoken up sooner? Anyway, let's hope it's not too late.
- X86BSD 9y agoLook at how long they tolerated Flash. Just like Justice, the wheels at Apple turn slowly.
- freebs 9y agoApple could, you know, spend some cash and help Google build more ISPs. I doubt they have the courage though.
- IBM 9y agoYeah how's that working out for Google?
- Grazester 9y agoWell that's why it was suggested Google needed help.
- IBM 9y agoTwo turkeys don't make an eagle and Apple trying to roll out fiber would be throwing good money after bad. Apple is a global company, being a regional ISP doesn't move the needle for them.
- Grazester 9y agoMaybe it would not be just Apple but a consortium of companies. Google, Apple, Netflix, Amazon and Facebook(since they are launching their video platform now). If net neutrality falls through I willing to bet there would be a great incentive for figuring their ISP thing. It would be in their interest after all.
- X86BSD 9y agoThis will fail. On an EPIC scale. Google, google, failed with fiber. They are enormous and have mountains of cash to burn and still when they hit the cities to deploy, slammed into the granite wall of monopoly telco and cable co regulations preventing competition with right of ways etc that said telcos and cable co's put in place over the last 50 years. The only hope I see for last mile is wireless. It's cheaper, you don't have to dig anything up, and do not have to wait for the telco's or cable co's to fix infrastructure, or grant you access to said infrastructure. Are there hurdles with wireless, of course. But it is clearly the only option for building out last mile to the home in almost every city in america. On a cost basis, on a time basis, on any basis. The wireless technology just needs to be improved. Being able to serve more people per POP, better protocols to reduce collisions, etc.
- ricardobeat 9y agoWhoa, long time since I've seen such a clearly misleading / politically charged headline on mainstream media. TL;DR Apple comes out for net neutrality.
- zzalpha 9y agoHey, at least they put the ad hominem right in the headline!
- alansammarone 9y agoOut of all the internet giants, at least to me, Apple has time and time again demonstrated to be reasonably ethical. Their position on encryption, net neutrality (granted, a bit late), gay marriage, their willingness to fight political positions which they disagree with... It could certainly be improved in many ways, but it's still one of the few companies I somewhat trust. Their innovative character is also something I really like (again, granted, it used to be much more so in the past). I used to feel this way about Google too. Given the current events, I don't anymore, and I'm seriously considering DuckDuckGo.
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y agoI’ve been using DuckDuckGo for a few years and can recommend it. Try it. There is no reason to wait. If you are not happy with a search result, prepend !g to your search query and DDG redirects you to Google search.
- juice_bus 9y agoSwitched to DDG a few weeks ago and can count on one hand the amount of times I've needed to !g
- eridius 9y agoI switched to DDG a while ago and while I do occasionally add !g to my query, I can count on one hand the number of times that it's actually helped. Usually if DDG doesn't give me good results, Google doesn't either.
- eikenberry 9y agoFYI you can append the bangs (!g) to the query line as well as prepend.
- ivm 9y agoI wanted to switch but DDG is noticeably slow in South America compared to Google. Meanwhile I've been using private windows for all searches for over 3 years already. Hopefully it helps a bit with the bubble issue.
- eridius 9y agoThis headline seems to be a bit of a non-sequitor. What does Apple spending $1B on original content have to do with net neutrality? What matters is how much online streaming Apple does, and given that they've operated the iTunes Music/Movie/TV store for 14 years, streaming everyone else's content, I don't think funding original content of their own is really going to change how much streaming they do, it's just going to change who owns the content that is streamed.
- chalkandpaste 9y agoSo, Apple, the richest company on earth, wants to use more bandwidth without paying more, even though bandwidth is a scarce resource and other people have invested millions to providing the infrastructure to transmit data?
- syrrim 9y agoIt would be nice if Bloomberg would explain how this worked. Net Neutrality concerns itself with ISPs charging websites for the traffic of their customers, rather than the customers themselves. Apple therefore doesn't plan on using the bandwidth itself - Apple's users will. If those users want faster speed, then they should of course have the option to pay for it. Net neutrality makes sure that the cost of bandwidth is put directly on users, rather than hiding it by charging Apple.
- chipotle_coyote 9y agoI thought we were by and large for net neutrality, which by definition means "the same internet for everyone, even the richest company on Earth." Is this no longer true? Did I miss an update at the last meeting?
- Veratyr 9y agoApple's objection isn't to paying for bandwidth, it's to fast lanes: "Paid fast lanes could replace today’s content-neutral transmission of internet traffic with differential treatment of content based on an online provider’s ability or willingness to pay." This isn't a "boo-hoo we don't want to pay any more" argument, it's a net neutrality argument.