Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
The first post of this thread is a WikiPost and can be edited by anyone with the appropiate permissions. Your edits will be public.

dk001

macrumors demi-god
Oct 3, 2014
11,123
15,472
Sage, Lightning, and Mountains


Not only that. It’s literally impossible to set up and use an iOS/iPadOS and the popular Apple AirPods without being prompted multiple times - in the Setting and Music apps to sign up for an Apple Music trial. While at the same time Apple prohibits Spotify from even referring to their web site for offers and promotions in the Spotify app.

So bloody true!!
Get a new device and for the next few months you are constantly reminded you have 3mos free Arcade! 4mos free ATV! 3mos free AM! And since you might have multiple devices under the same Apple ID, it isn’t limited to just the new device.
Let me say no, not right now, or later and quit bugging me.

PITA!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro

AppliedMicro

macrumors 68030
Aug 17, 2008
2,821
3,689
Apple hypocritically uses in-app subscription for Apple Music sign-ups on Android
To be fair, commissions on Google Play are only 15% “or lower on such subscriptions.

Who knows what special deal Google gave Apple, considering that Spotify pay only 0 to 4%?
That said when Google fought to keep that arrangement secret because it “could damage negotiations with other app developers who might want more generous rates”, maybe they were thinking of Apple Music?

More hypocritically though, Apple even offers prospective customers to “sideload” the Apple Music app from their own website:

“If you don't have Google Play in your country or region, you can download the Apple Music app from Apple.“

They also helpfully explain how to trust apps from unknown sources (developers) for installatio:

”Install the Apple Music app
  1. Swipe down from the top of your phone's Home screen to open the notification drawer.
  2. Tap applemusic.apk. If you see "Install Blocked", tap Settings, then select the box next to "Unknown Sources".”
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/109340
 
Last edited:

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,432
1,152
London
It is a principle of marketing and behavioral economics that people don’t want more than two or three choices in any category of product they wish to purchase. It is also of the case that people want to make decisions only once. This is why In most markets, there are only two or three big players.

In general, people don’t want innovation. They don’t want change. They want consistency.

You can dislike what the science says. Making choices is causes mental fatigue. Marketing research has established scientifically that people faced with too much choice are far less likely to buy. Behavioral marketing has established that three choices appears to be optimal.

That's why Amazon doesn't dominate online e-commerce, right?

Do you have 9 or 10 large supermarket chains and drug store chains all competing for business in your area? You likely have 2 or 3 major chains and 2 or 3 "independents". In any developed market segment, the chances are that there will be only 2 or 3 major competitors.

You can't overlook the fact that in many markets, winner takes all. Once someone pulls ahead, not only do they start to look like the safe / default choice, they also gain greater economies of scale, have more money for advertising, and so on, further cementing their lead. None of which has much to do with people wanting fewer choices.

This applies more to retailers than products. There's little to choose between online retailers, so you may as well just go with the cheapest (aside from those that look sketchy). I mostly use Amazon because in my experience, they're either the cheapest, or close enough (plus as a Prime subscriber, I’ve paid for shipping upfront).

It can admittedly be a pain when there are too many products in a category, but that's what reviews are for. When I built my PC, I didn't spend months choosing the bits. I just looked at a few guides to the best value components at the time, then bought the lot on Amazon. I only needed one motherboard, but the keen competition between manufacturers gave me value for money, and the choice ensured I got the features I wanted.
 
Last edited:

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,432
1,152
London
More hypocritically though, Apple even offers prospective customers to “sideload” the Apple Music app from their own website:

“If you don't have Google Play in your country or region, you can download the Apple Music app from Apple.“

They also helpfully explain how to trust apps from unknown sources (developers) for installation:

”Install the Apple Music app
  1. Swipe down from the top of your phone's Home screen to open the notification drawer.
  2. Tap applemusic.apk. If you see "Install Blocked", tap Settings, then select the box next to "Unknown Sources".”

That's hilarious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001

vantelimus

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2013
308
510
Color me confused.

1. Most people buy based on marketed ads. TV, Cable, Internet, Magazines, Mail, etc…
2. Amazon dominates due to its commerce handling model. For sellers, there is Amazon and thousands of other third parties that utilize Amazon.
3. I wish! If Kroger Co. buys Albertsons, we will have one major grocer. Currently we have two. Several locations but all are owned by Kroger or Albertsons. Everything else was bought out by these two over the years.
You are confused. Study marketing and behavioral economics and you’ll see where your mistake is.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dk001

vantelimus

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2013
308
510
You can't overlook the fact that in many markets, winner takes all. Once someone pulls ahead, not only do they start to look like the safe / default choice, they also gain greater economies of scale, have more money for advertising, and so on, further cementing their lead. None of which has much to do with people wanting fewer choices.
If, as you say, people want the safe or default choice, then, by definition, they don’t want lots of choices. They want one choice, the safe choice. In any case, you are making my point.

Further, winners don’t develop in a vacuum. If people value choice so highly, there would not be just a small number of winners. The market would continually demand new products to compete with whomever is on top.

This also applies to retailers more than products. There's little to choose between online retailers, so you might as well just go with the cheapest (aside from those that look sketchy). I use mostly use Amazon because in my experience, they're either the cheapest, or close enough (plus as a Prime subscriber, I’ve paid for shipping upfront).

In can admittedly be a pain when there are too many products in a category, but that's what reviews are for. When I built my PC, I didn't spend months choosing the bits. I basically looked at a few guides on the best value components at the time, then bought the lot on Amazon. I only needed one motherboard, but the keen competition between manufacturers gave me value for money, and the choice ensured I got the features I wanted.
The behavioral economics experiments have been done. It shows that when there are more choices, people buy less often. It also shows that people want to make one choice not many choices. That’s why people don’t consider whether they feel like a Coke or a Pepsi or 25 competing soft drinks every time they want a cola. There aren’t 25 competing colas for a reason. People develop a preference and stick with it so they don’t have to make the choice every time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kitKAC

treacher

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2024
186
317
I agree that a smaller pool of choices is ideal for everyone, and most people would be overwhelmed otherwise.
 
Last edited:

vantelimus

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2013
308
510
Uh, yeah there are. Grocery stores are the worst place in the world when it comes to choice anxiety. Which of these 150 brands of cereal do I want? God, sometimes I just walk out. Clothing might be right up there too. To bring it closer to home, app stores also breed this exact same type of choice misery. Which of these 40 calculator apps is the best one?
A couple of points, the first is that grocery stores do want to limit the number of choices they give you in any category because behavioral economics has shown that more choices mean fewer purchases.

Since some people are having a hard time believing me on this, you can check out this article:

Second, I think you are confusing brand with product. You'll find a small number of brands in any given segment, usually General Mills, Kellogg, Post, and the store brand. For organic/natural/sugar-free or smaller niche segments, you may find another specialty brand or two, but you might not find as many big brands in that niche. In any event, there aren't 150 different sugared corn-flake products to choose from. I'd be surprised if you could name three without doing a web search or going to the grocery store to look at the shelf.

The reason you want to walk out is that people really don't want that many choices, let alone making that choice every time they walk down the cereal aisle. This was one of my main points. Decision making is mentally fatiguing. People don't want to do it. That's why most people walk into the store and pick up their favorite cereal without having to make a decision. The experimental science confirms this.

App stores make the point even better. Do you really want a choice between 40 calculators? No. You want to look at maybe three and use some simple criteria to make your choice.

I feel like you're conflating the provider with the provisions. People seem to want to keep providers to a minimum, but they sure want access to a cornucopia of provisions.
Supermarkets don't want to put 150 indy cola makers on their shelf for two reasons:

1) As the research shows, given too many choices, people will just not buy. Supermarkets don't want to waste the shelf space.

2) The vast majority of people have already made their choice between Coke and Pepsi and are not looking for choice. They made their selection. They don't want to try 150 indy colas. They want to search for Coke or Pepsi and grab it without making a decision.

The few people who want choice and will try every cola available really are very few.

Having said that, me personally, I like to be able to choose from a pool of more than 1 phone or 1 computer. That was too suffocating. "Well... I could get the MacBook Pro, or the MacBook Pro."
Behavioral marketing pretty much shows that three choices is optimal. Apple tries to give you a choice in their products of a consumer version and a pro version by varying screen sizes and processor speeds. They do this because research shows people want a small number of choices. The research also shows that due to cognitive biases you can steer people to a particular choice based on the way you construct your offerings.

BTW, this stuff was taught at Ivy League (and equivalent) business schools twenty years ago when it was just making its way from psychology departments into business departments. It is taught in every business school today.
 
Last edited:

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,432
1,152
London
Further, winners don’t develop in a vacuum. If people value choice so highly, there would not be just a small number of winners. The market would continually demand new products to compete with whomever is on top.

But the market does constantly demand new products to compete with whoever’s on top! Brands may be pretty established at particular price points, but each year there are new products competing with each other / the existing leader to be the best. Though when it comes to tech, newer does generally = better. Mature markets, like breakfast cereal and cola, are a different story.

And brands don’t stay on top forever. Once dominant brands can fall by the wayside, and lesser brands can rise to the top. In the 90’s, Microsoft seemed unassailable and Apple was a basket case. You have to keep winning to stay on top.
 

vantelimus

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2013
308
510
Hell no! I’m an engineer. I worked with folks from Marketing for a couple of years on an project and thought they had all the cans but the plastic holder thingy was missing.
I was in Engineering, from IC to CTO and CEO, for 30 years before I went back to school to get an Ivy League MBA. I may be full of $#!+, but it is well-founded $#!+.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001

vantelimus

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2013
308
510
But the market does constantly demand new products to compete with whoever’s on top! Brands may be pretty established at particular price points, but each year there are new products competing with each other / the existing leader to be the best. Though when it comes to tech, newer does generally = better. Mature markets, like breakfast cereal and cola, are a different story.

And brands don’t stay on top forever. Once dominant brands can fall by the wayside, and lesser brands can rise to the top. In the 90’s, Microsoft seemed unassailable and Apple was a basket case. You have to keep winning to stay on top.
No. The market doesn’t demand new products. Capitalists create new products to co-opt demand for current products and take their profits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kitKAC

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,432
1,152
London
No. The market doesn’t demand new products. Capitalists create new products to co-opt demand for current products and take their profits.

OK, but they’re often pushing at an open door. You’re on a forum for people that eagerly anticipate and speculate on new products from Apple (and yes, sometimes demand them). And presumably you’d rather be using a iPhone than a flint axe.

Not everything is a runaway success of course. The Vision Pro is an attempt by Apple to create a new market, to (ultimately) replace the smartphone before it becomes an unexciting mature product. But that doesn’t mean it will necessarily capture the public’s imagination. Time will tell.
 

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,432
1,152
London
We are the exception. The market is the mainstream consumer, not tech-savvy early adopters who geek out over things like pixels per inch or frames per second.

Fair enough. If Apple added no new features to iOS for the next decade, I wouldn't give a toss. I'd actually like them to adopt a two year cadence with both iOS and macOS, and just prioritise fixing bugs and improving performance. A lot of stuff in modern OS's is just change for the sake of it - as you describe, Capitalists pushing new products in an attempt to co-opt demand from existing ones.

I agree that most people don't buy into a new product category until it's clear it has a future, the early kinks have been worked out, and the price has dropped. That's common sense really, unless you're blinded by enthusiasm, or just rich enough to throw caution to the wind. And once a product is more or less feature-complete, there's little incentive to upgrade. Hence manufacturer enthusiasm for hard-to-replace batteries, non-expandable storage, and expensive screen repairs. Probably glass chassis too.
 
Last edited:

dk001

macrumors demi-god
Oct 3, 2014
11,123
15,472
Sage, Lightning, and Mountains
Fair enough. If Apple added no new features to iOS for the next decade, I wouldn't give a toss. I'd actually like them to adopt a two year cadence with both iOS and macOS, and just prioritise fixing bugs and improving performance. A lot of stuff in modern OS's is just change for the sake of it - as you describe, Capitalists pushing new products in an attempt to co-opt demand from existing ones.

I agree that most people don't buy into a new product category until it's clear it has a future, the early kinks have been worked out, and the price has dropped. That's common sense really, unless you're blinded by enthusiasm, or just rich enough to throw caution to the wind. And once a product is more or less feature-complete, there's little incentive to upgrade. Hence manufacturer enthusiasm for hard-to-replace batteries, non-expandable storage, and expensive screen repairs. Probably glass chassis too.

When you take a step back and look at the number of new features that Apple rolled over the last few years, how many do you really use? So many appear to be features just for the sake of enticing new sales (or repeat sales).
 
  • Like
Reactions: vantelimus

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,432
1,152
London
When you take a step back and look at the number of new features that Apple rolled over the last few years, how many do you really use? So many appear to be features just for the sake of enticing new sales (or repeat sales).

AirDrop was pretty cool, but it's been a minute since that was new!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001

vantelimus

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2013
308
510
When you take a step back and look at the number of new features that Apple rolled over the last few years, how many do you really use? So many appear to be features just for the sake of enticing new sales (or repeat sales).
And that’s what you would expect as the product matures. We’ve gone from upgrading our phones every year to upgrading them every 2 to 3 years. It is taking longer and longer for enough incremental improvements to accumulate and inspire us to replace our old phones. Apple needs the AVP or some other new consumer product to continue its revenue growth. I just hate it when they make changes that don’t actually improve the product but seem more likely to be someone’s “innovation” to fuel their promotion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mode11 and dk001

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,432
1,152
London
Looks like things may be pond hopping….


Many commenters on this thread saw the EU legislation as sour grapes; just a way for Europe to get commercial advantage over an American company (despite the lack of a European platform...). I wondered how their argument might shift in the event of US legislation; guess we'll see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,432
1,152
London
And now Apple are allowing the retro game emulators that apparently weren’t a legitimate use case a few week’s ago.

Though I’ll wait to see what the restrictions are before popping the champagne.
 
Last edited:

vantelimus

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2013
308
510
Rumor is that Apple abandoned the Apple Car because the EU was set to rule upon its release that Apple uses anti-competitive practices by not allowing their car to come configured with EU-produced engines from BMW, Alfa, Pugeot, Mercedes, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: madeirabhoy

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,432
1,152
London
Rumor is that Apple abandoned the Apple Car because the EU was set to rule upon its release that Apple uses anti-competitive practices by not allowing their car to come configured with EU-produced engines from BMW, Alfa, Pugeot, Mercedes, etc.

Yeah, just like they do with Tesla. Oh wait, I'm talking nonsense.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.