#Echo66: why Exynos, not Snapdragon, and Disney's unique path

A funny thing happened in China. The app of the coffee chain Luckin Coffee became the leader in terms of downloads. You might think that this is either a very good or very trendy coffee shop. But the reason for the popularity is different.

A little about Luckin Coffee. This is a Chinese competitor to Starbucks that offers to download the application and order coffee to be delivered to your home or office. You can also pick up coffee yourself at retail outlets. Luckin Coffee launched in 2017 and hit hard, spending three times as much on development as it earned. The partnership with the Internet giant Tencent, which brought the brand online, also helped. The popularity was also facilitated by the fact that prices at Luckin Coffee were 2 times lower than at Starbucks.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

Luckin Coffee has an interesting business style. For example, there are no cashiers. You can only pay through the app. And the format of consumption does not imply the option of sitting in a coffee shop for a long time. The principle of "grab and run on business" applies here. According to experts, the quality of coffee is average, but worthy. The Chinese like it: fast, cheap, convenient.

Last year, the company was listed on the stock exchange, and in early April it became known that the financial statements turned out to be fake and the company's sales were not as rosy as investors were told. And rumors about a possible bankruptcy appeared on the Internet, which worked better than any advertising campaign. The Chinese began to massively download the application, as each new user is entitled to a free cup of coffee. Even those who are not too fond of coffee pump. Logic: well, it's a pity if the company goes bankrupt and something free is lost.

There is no morality in the story. I just couldn't figure out why the free stuff was so appealing. For some reason, it is believed that if it's free, then you should definitely take it, even if you don't need it. From a relatively recent, on a trip, I extremely puzzled the seller when I took 2 scoops of ice cream, and asked not to put the third (gift!) He was not even too lazy and opened Google translator, thinking that I did not understand what kind of happiness fell on me.

What do you think about freebies? For example, here you can take a smartphone for free, which costs 20 thousand. You already have a good phone, and so do your friends and relatives. Will you refuse, saying that you do not need it, or will you take it just in case?

Why Samsung will never abandon Exynos

Every year, Samsung introduces two versions of its flagships. Some work on Samsung's own developments - Exynos chipsets, and some - on solutions from Qualcomm. Usually Qualcomm versions are sold in the US and China, and Exynos in Europe, Latin America and Asia.

Samsung chipset versus Qualcomm chipset fight has been going on for a long time now, when supporters of Qualcomm chipsets attack Samsung with a call to stop releasing their flagships on Exynos, which, according to legend, heat up more and consume battery more aggressively. Although wrestling is the wrong definition. There is more of a siege, since Exynos has no fans. There are those who don't like Exynos and those who don't. For years now, Samsung has been repeating like a mantra that there is no difference between chipsets.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

The year before last, the S9 on the Exynos 9810 was heavily criticized. Samsung managed to make a powerful chipset that can go up to 2.7 GHz, which, however, in real-life scenarios, drained the battery at an impressive rate. It was a software problem, as the processor "overclocked" where it could not. The Galaxy S10 had a similar picture.

Now we are witnessing a new round of the siege. After the release of the Galaxy S20 series, the Internet was flooded with comparisons of models based on Exynos 990 and Snapdragon 865. And there is a reason for this - unexpectedly, smartphones first came out on Snapdragon in the home market of Samsung. And even 5G modems were used from Qualcomm. Along the way, the story was embellished with details that the decision had been made because Exynos chipsets "did not live up to expectations" and Exynos engineers were humiliated by this outcome Phone, the shareholders also harshly asked for this at the next meeting. According to the same rumors, this was a surprise decision for all Samsung employees.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

And, apparently, the situation has reached such an intensity that Samsung, usually silent on the topic of chipsets, has commented, stating that in real life, both chipsets give the user the same experience. Possibly.

Why are the results of synthetic tests so important to users? The answer is simple. We are talking about flagships, that is, devices of the maximum price, which at the current stage of development of smartphones are clearly overestimated in terms of price / quality ratio. Such devices are bought in order to get the very best, without compromise. And the situation is somewhat similar to elite sports or Formula 1, when the gap between the cars at the finish line is hundredths, or even thousandths of a second.

Samsung, however, cannot abandon Exynos. Exynos is needed in order, firstly, to competently negotiate with Qualcomm, which, if Samsung is left without its own developments, will be able to dictate its will. And so Samsung manages to maneuver competently, negotiating for itself the best conditions for working in the US market, which occupies an honorable first place in the company's portfolio. Secondly, Exynos chipsets, as an in-house development, are an additional opportunity to recoup R&D costs in markets where users are less obsessed with technical specifications, and the press is not as harsh and corrosive as in the US.

Three Strategies for the Streaming Market

This topic was prompted by the events of last week - Apple entered into a rather unexpected agreement with Amazon. In Russia, Amazon is better known as an online retailer, but for Americans it is also one of the main streaming services, competing on equal terms with Netflix.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

All streaming services are fighting hard against Apple and Google, as the latter strive to charge up to 30% per transaction for access to their platform. That is why, for example, Netflix opens the page in the browser for any interaction with the account, and not in the application - the company does not want to pay. So on Android. In the case of iOS, where Apple forbids such tricks, you need to open the browser yourself and go to the site.

Apple has a powerful Apple TV platform that includes a set-top box, an app for iPhone, iPad, macOS, and a subscription streaming service. Being inside this system is not only the display on the title screen, but also search results, as well as support for Siri queries, that is, the user can ask: “Siri, what to watch?”. And if a third-party video service is inside the system, then Siri can offer something from its range, but for this you will have to share money with Apple.

Amazon was able to negotiate with Apple in such a way that now Amazon content is integrated into the Apple ecosystem, but it will not pay. Rather, something will pay, but definitely not 30%. So far, Amazon has only managed to negotiate videos for books in the Kindle app.

The situation is winning for both companies. Apple has been able to offer its users more entertainment content options, improving their lives. Amazon, like any other business, loves Apple customers very much, as these are well-trained users who pay for content, and do not rummage through the garbage dumps of torrents (by the way, appreciate the clear balance in the proposal: some will be offended that they were called trained, others will be offended by garbage torrents).

However, this partnership situation is not possible with Netflix. The reason is that Apple competes with Netflix, while Amazon does not. The essence of Amazon's business is the resale of goods. And the same is true for video content. While Netflix invests heavily in creating its own unique content, Amazon is more involved in distribution. Amazon both sells individual films and series of third-party and its own production (you can, for example, buy one episode or the entire season at once), and resell packages of other streaming services (HBO, Showtime, etc.) in the Amazon Channels product. Thus, having agreed with Amazon, Apple, as it were, virtually agreed with everyone at once. Along the way, Apple has significantly colored its application, as the company currently lacks its own content to satisfy customers.

This situation is interesting from the point of view that all companies, in fact, can be divided into those who create something and those who are engaged in distribution, that is, aggregators. Netflix is ​​one of the first, and has been unprofitable for many years.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

There is a profit, but the cash flow is negative, as Netflix is ​​spent on making films and series. In turn, Amazon produces its own content on a much smaller scale and is profitable. And here the question arises which way is more correct. Every year, Netflix invests more and more, driving itself into big minuses. And a reasonable, but banal conclusion arises, applicable, it seems, to any sphere of life: balance and moderation are important in everything. And Amazon's path is more strategic.

There is one more curious moment. For Amazon, video streaming is a by-product. A kind of additional bonus for customers. For Netflix, this is the core business. And here it is interesting to see how Disney works, which recently debuted with The Mandalorian with its own streaming service. Disney has its own approach to business, introduced back in 1957 and drawn by Walt Disney himself. Look at the diagram below. Film production is in the center, but note that the arrows to additional businesses go in both directions (clicking on the image will open in a new window). Disney achieves synergy from all types of businesses.Films and cartoons should stimulate trips to Disneyland, which, in turn, due to interesting attractions, should make you want to watch or watch cartoons, buy a record (there were records in 1957!) With thematic music, buy books, comics, toys with your favorite characters . Also, Disneyland should help promote themed shows on television, that is, sell commercial breaks. Of course, today this scheme would be much more extensive and with a large number of arrows. But there would be no cardinal differences.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

Disney's approach is unique and no one else can replicate it at the moment. The company works closely with its customers, monetizing them as much as possible. By the way, Disney's approach cannot even be called diversification in the literal sense, since all directions have the same foundation.

And sadly, Netflix is ​​in the most vulnerable position, while Disney and Amazon will be profitable, happy and plump.

Instead of a conclusion: insurance against coronavirus

Alfa-Bank sent an offer to insure against coronavirus. For 2, 5 or 10 thousand rubles, you can receive a payment of 20, 50 or 100 thousand rubles. And in case of death they will give a whole million! Terribly beneficial! But remember, it is necessary to die from coronavirus and pneumonia with a doctor's opinion. If you get sick with the coronavirus, but die from something else, you won't shoot. So I recommend pre-training before concluding!

#Echo66: why Exynos, not Snapdragon, and Disney's unique path

A funny thing happened in China. The app of the coffee chain Luckin Coffee became the leader in terms of downloads. You might think that this is either a very good or very trendy coffee shop. But the reason for the popularity is different.

A little about Luckin Coffee. This is a Chinese competitor to Starbucks that offers to download the application and order coffee to be delivered to your home or office. You can also pick up coffee on your own at retail outlets. Luckin Coffee launched in 2017 and hit hard, spending three times as much on development as it earned. The partnership with the Internet giant Tencent, which brought the brand online, also helped. The popularity was also facilitated by the fact that prices at Luckin Coffee were 2 times lower than at Starbucks.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

Luckin Coffee has an interesting business style. For example, there are no cashiers. You can only pay through the app. And the format of consumption does not imply the option of sitting in a coffee shop for a long time. The principle of "grab and run on business" applies here. As experts say, the quality of coffee is average, but worthy. The Chinese like it: fast, cheap, convenient.

Last year, the company was listed on the stock exchange, and in early April it became known that the financial statements turned out to be fake and the company's sales were not as rosy as investors were told. And rumors about a possible bankruptcy appeared on the Internet, which worked better than any advertising campaign. The Chinese began to massively download the application, as each new user is entitled to a free cup of coffee. Even those who are not too fond of coffee pump. Logic: well, it's a pity if the company goes bankrupt and something free is lost.

There is no morality in the story. I just couldn't figure out why the free stuff was so appealing. For some reason, it is believed that if it's free, then you should definitely take it, even if you don't need it. From a relatively recent, on a trip, I extremely puzzled the seller when I took 2 scoops of ice cream, and asked not to put the third (gift!) He was not even too lazy and opened Google translator, thinking that I did not understand what kind of happiness fell on me.

What do you think about freebies? For example, here you can take a smartphone for free, which costs 20 thousand. You already have a good phone, and so do your friends and relatives. Will you refuse, saying that you do not need it, or will you take it just in case?

Why Samsung will never abandon Exynos

Every year, Samsung introduces two versions of its flagships. Some work on Samsung's own developments - Exynos chipsets, and some - on solutions from Qualcomm. Usually Qualcomm versions are sold in the US and China, and Exynos in Europe, Latin America and Asia.

Samsung chipset versus Qualcomm chipset fight has been going on for a long time, with Qualcomm chipset proponents attacking Samsung to stop releasing their Exynos flagships, which are believed to run hotter and consume more aggressive battery. Although wrestling is the wrong definition. There is more of a siege, since Exynos has no fans. There are those who don't like Exynos and those who don't. For years now, Samsung has been repeating like a mantra that there is no difference between chipsets.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

The year before last, the S9 on the Exynos 9810 was heavily criticized. Samsung managed to make a powerful chipset that can go up to 2.7 GHz, which, however, in real-life scenarios, drained the battery at an impressive rate. It was a software problem, as the processor "overclocked" where it could not. The Galaxy S10 had a similar picture.

Now we are witnessing a new round of the siege. After the release of the Galaxy S20 series, the Internet was flooded with comparisons of models based on Exynos 990 and Snapdragon 865. And there is a reason for this - unexpectedly, smartphones first came out on Snapdragon in the home market of Samsung. And even 5G modems were used from Qualcomm. Along the way, the story was embellished with details that the decision had been made because Exynos chipsets "did not live up to expectations" and Exynos engineers were humiliated by this outcome Phone, the shareholders also harshly asked for this at the next meeting. According to the same rumors, this was a surprise decision for all Samsung employees.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

And, apparently, the situation has reached such an intensity that Samsung, usually silent on the topic of chipsets, has commented, stating that in real life, both chipsets give the user the same experience. Possibly.

Why are the results of synthetic tests so important to users? The answer is simple. We are talking about flagships, that is, devices of the maximum price, which at the current stage of development of smartphones are clearly overestimated in terms of price / quality ratio. Such devices are bought in order to get the very best, without compromise. And the situation is somewhat similar to elite sports or Formula 1, when the gap between the cars at the finish line is hundredths, or even thousandths of a second.

Samsung, however, cannot abandon Exynos. Exynos is needed in order, firstly, to competently negotiate with Qualcomm, which, if Samsung is left without its own developments, will be able to dictate its will. And so Samsung manages to maneuver competently, negotiating for itself the best conditions for working in the US market, which occupies an honorable first place in the company's portfolio. Secondly, Exynos chipsets, as an in-house development, are an additional opportunity to recoup R&D costs in markets where users are less obsessed with technical specifications, and the press is not as harsh and corrosive as in the US.

Three Strategies for the Streaming Market

This topic was prompted by the events of last week - Apple entered into a rather unexpected agreement with Amazon. In Russia, Amazon is better known as an online retailer, but for Americans it is also one of the main streaming services, competing on equal terms with Netflix.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

All streaming services are fighting hard against Apple and Google, as the latter strive to charge up to 30% per transaction for access to their platform. That is why, for example, Netflix opens the page in the browser for any interaction with the account, and not in the application - the company does not want to pay. So on Android. In the case of iOS, where Apple forbids such tricks, you need to open the browser yourself and go to the site.

Apple has a powerful Apple TV platform that includes a set-top box, an app for iPhone, iPad, macOS, and a subscription streaming service. Being inside this system is not only the display on the title screen, but also search results, as well as support for Siri queries, that is, the user can ask: “Siri, what to watch?”. And if a third-party video service is inside the system, then Siri can offer something from its range, but for this you will have to share money with Apple.

Amazon was able to negotiate with Apple in such a way that now Amazon content is integrated into the Apple ecosystem, but it will not pay. Rather, something will pay, but definitely not 30%. So far, Amazon has only managed to negotiate videos for books in the Kindle app.

The situation is winning for both companies. Apple has been able to offer its users more entertainment content options, improving their lives. Amazon, like any other business, loves Apple customers very much, as these are well-trained users who pay for content, and do not rummage through the garbage dumps of torrents (by the way, appreciate the clear balance in the proposal: some will be offended that they were called trained, others will be offended by garbage torrents).

However, this partnership situation is not possible with Netflix. The reason is that Apple competes with Netflix, while Amazon does not. The essence of Amazon's business is the resale of goods. And the same is true for video content. While Netflix invests heavily in creating its own unique content, Amazon is more involved in distribution. Amazon both sells individual films and series of third-party and its own production (you can, for example, buy one episode or the entire season at once), and resell packages of other streaming services (HBO, Showtime, etc.) in the Amazon Channels product. Thus, having agreed with Amazon, Apple, as it were, virtually agreed with everyone at once. Along the way, Apple has significantly colored its application, as the company currently lacks its own content to satisfy customers.

This situation is interesting from the point of view that all companies, in fact, can be divided into those who create something and those who are engaged in distribution, that is, aggregators. Netflix is ​​one of the first, and has been unprofitable for many years.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

There is a profit, but the cash flow is negative, as Netflix is ​​spent on making films and series. In turn, Amazon produces its own content on a much smaller scale and is profitable. And here the question arises which way is more correct. Every year, Netflix invests more and more, driving itself into big minuses. And a reasonable, but banal conclusion arises, applicable, it seems, to any sphere of life: balance and moderation are important in everything. And Amazon's path is more strategic.

There is one more curious moment. For Amazon, video streaming is a by-product. A kind of additional bonus for customers. For Netflix, this is the core business. And here it is interesting to see how Disney works, which recently debuted with The Mandalorian with its own streaming service. Disney has its own approach to business, introduced back in 1957 and drawn by Walt Disney himself. Look at the diagram below. Film production is in the center, but note that the arrows to additional businesses go in both directions (clicking on the image will open in a new window). Disney achieves synergy from all types of businesses.Films and cartoons should stimulate trips to Disneyland, which, in turn, due to interesting attractions, should make you want to watch or watch cartoons, buy a record (there were records in 1957!) With thematic music, buy books, comics, toys with your favorite characters . Also, Disneyland should help promote themed shows on television, that is, sell commercial breaks. Of course, today this scheme would be much more extensive and with a large number of arrows. But there would be no cardinal differences.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

Disney's approach is unique and no one else can replicate it at the moment. The company works closely with its customers, monetizing them as much as possible. By the way, Disney's approach cannot even be called diversification in the literal sense, since all directions have the same foundation.

And sadly, Netflix is ​​in the most vulnerable position, while Disney and Amazon will be profitable, happy and plump.

Instead of a conclusion: insurance against coronavirus

Alfa-Bank sent an offer to insure against coronavirus. For 2, 5 or 10 thousand rubles, you can receive a payment of 20, 50 or 100 thousand rubles. And in case of death they will give a whole million! Terribly beneficial! But remember, it is necessary to die from coronavirus and pneumonia with a doctor's opinion. If you get sick with the coronavirus, but die from something else, you won't shoot. So I recommend pre-training before concluding!

#Echo66: why Exynos, not Snapdragon, and Disney's unique path

A funny thing happened in China. The app of the coffee chain Luckin Coffee became the leader in terms of downloads. You might think that this is either a very good or very trendy coffee shop. But the reason for the popularity is different.

A little about Luckin Coffee. This is a Chinese competitor to Starbucks that offers to download the application and order coffee to be delivered to your home or office. You can also pick up coffee yourself at retail outlets. Luckin Coffee launched in 2017 and hit hard, spending three times as much on development as it earned. The partnership with the Internet giant Tencent, which brought the brand online, also helped. The popularity was also facilitated by the fact that prices at Luckin Coffee were 2 times lower than at Starbucks.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

Luckin Coffee has an interesting business style. For example, there are no cashiers. You can only pay through the app. And the format of consumption does not imply the option of sitting in a coffee shop for a long time. The principle of "grab and run on business" applies here. According to experts, the quality of coffee is average, but worthy. The Chinese like it: fast, cheap, convenient.

Last year, the company was listed on the stock exchange, and in early April it became known that the financial statements turned out to be fake and the company's sales were not as rosy as investors were told. And rumors about a possible bankruptcy appeared on the Internet, which worked better than any advertising campaign. The Chinese began to massively download the application, as each new user is entitled to a free cup of coffee. Even those who are not too fond of coffee pump. Logic: well, it's a pity if the company goes bankrupt and something free is lost.

There is no morality in the story. I just couldn't figure out why the free stuff was so appealing. For some reason, it is believed that if it's free, then you should definitely take it, even if you don't need it. From a relatively recent, on a trip, I extremely puzzled the seller when I took 2 scoops of ice cream, and asked not to put the third (gift!) He was not even too lazy and opened Google translator, thinking that I did not understand what kind of happiness fell on me.

What do you think about freebies? For example, here you can take a smartphone for free, which costs 20 thousand. You already have a good phone, and so do your friends and relatives. Will you refuse, saying that you do not need it, or will you take it just in case?

Why Samsung will never abandon Exynos

Every year, Samsung introduces two versions of its flagships. Some work on Samsung's own developments - Exynos chipsets, and some - on solutions from Qualcomm. Usually Qualcomm versions are sold in the US and China, and Exynos in Europe, Latin America and Asia.

Samsung chipset versus Qualcomm chipset fight has been going on for a long time now, when supporters of Qualcomm chipsets attack Samsung with a call to stop releasing their flagships on Exynos, which, according to legend, heat up more and consume battery more aggressively. Although wrestling is the wrong definition. There is more of a siege, since Exynos has no fans. There are those who don't like Exynos and those who don't. For years now, Samsung has been repeating like a mantra that there is no difference between chipsets.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

The year before last, the S9 on the Exynos 9810 was heavily criticized. Samsung managed to make a powerful chipset that can go up to 2.7 GHz, which, however, in real-life scenarios, drained the battery at an impressive rate. It was a software problem, as the processor "overclocked" where it could not. The Galaxy S10 had a similar picture.

Now we are witnessing a new round of the siege. After the release of the Galaxy S20 series, the Internet was flooded with comparisons of models based on Exynos 990 and Snapdragon 865. And there is a reason for this - unexpectedly, smartphones first came out on Snapdragon in the home market of Samsung. And even 5G modems were used from Qualcomm. Along the way, the story was embellished with details that the decision had been made because Exynos chipsets "did not live up to expectations" and Exynos engineers were humiliated by this outcome Phone, the shareholders also harshly asked for this at the next meeting. According to the same rumors, this was a surprise decision for all Samsung employees.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

And, apparently, the situation has reached such an intensity that Samsung, usually silent on the topic of chipsets, has commented, stating that in real life, both chipsets give the user the same experience. Possibly.

Why are the results of synthetic tests so important to users? The answer is simple. We are talking about flagships, that is, devices of the maximum price, which at the current stage of development of smartphones are clearly overestimated in terms of price / quality ratio. Such devices are bought in order to get the very best, without compromise. And the situation is somewhat similar to elite sports or Formula 1, when the gap between the cars at the finish line is hundredths, or even thousandths of a second.

Samsung, however, cannot abandon Exynos. Exynos is needed in order, firstly, to competently negotiate with Qualcomm, which, if Samsung is left without its own developments, will be able to dictate its will. And so Samsung manages to maneuver competently, negotiating for itself the best conditions for working in the US market, which occupies an honorable first place in the company's portfolio. Secondly, Exynos chipsets, as an in-house development, are an additional opportunity to recoup R&D costs in markets where users are less obsessed with technical specifications, and the press is not as harsh and corrosive as in the US.

Three Strategies for the Streaming Market

This topic was prompted by the events of last week - Apple entered into a rather unexpected agreement with Amazon. In Russia, Amazon is better known as an online retailer, but for Americans it is also one of the main streaming services, competing on equal terms with Netflix.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

All streaming services are fighting hard against Apple and Google, as the latter strive to charge up to 30% per transaction for access to their platform. That is why, for example, Netflix opens the page in the browser for any interaction with the account, and not in the application - the company does not want to pay. So on Android. In the case of iOS, where Apple forbids such tricks, you need to open the browser yourself and go to the site.

Apple has a powerful Apple TV platform that includes a set-top box, an app for iPhone, iPad, macOS, and a subscription streaming service. Being inside this system is not only the display on the title screen, but also search results, as well as support for Siri queries, that is, the user can ask: “Siri, what to watch?”. And if a third-party video service is inside the system, then Siri can offer something from its range, but for this you will have to share money with Apple.

Amazon was able to negotiate with Apple in such a way that now Amazon content is integrated into the Apple ecosystem, but it will not pay. Rather, something will pay, but definitely not 30%. So far, Amazon has only managed to negotiate videos for books in the Kindle app.

The situation is winning for both companies. Apple has been able to offer its users more entertainment content options, improving their lives. Amazon, like any other business, loves Apple customers very much, as these are well-trained users who pay for content, and do not rummage through the garbage dumps of torrents (by the way, appreciate the clear balance in the proposal: some will be offended that they were called trained, others will be offended by garbage torrents).

However, this partnership situation is not possible with Netflix. The reason is that Apple competes with Netflix, while Amazon does not. The essence of Amazon's business is the resale of goods. And the same is true for video content. While Netflix invests heavily in creating its own unique content, Amazon is more involved in distribution. Amazon both sells individual films and series of third-party and its own production (you can, for example, buy one episode or the entire season at once), and resell packages of other streaming services (HBO, Showtime, etc.) in the Amazon Channels product. Thus, having agreed with Amazon, Apple, as it were, virtually agreed with everyone at once. Along the way, Apple has significantly colored its application, as the company currently lacks its own content to satisfy customers.

This situation is interesting from the point of view that all companies, in fact, can be divided into those who create something and those who are engaged in distribution, that is, aggregators. Netflix is ​​one of the first, and has been unprofitable for many years.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

There is a profit, but the cash flow is negative, as Netflix is ​​spent on making films and series. In turn, Amazon produces its own content on a much smaller scale and is profitable. And here the question arises which way is more correct. Every year, Netflix invests more and more, driving itself into big minuses. And a reasonable, but banal conclusion arises, applicable, it seems, to any sphere of life: balance and moderation are important in everything. And Amazon's path is more strategic.

There is one more curious moment. For Amazon, video streaming is a by-product. A kind of additional bonus for customers. For Netflix, this is the core business. And here it is interesting to see how Disney works, which recently debuted with The Mandalorian with its own streaming service. Disney has its own approach to business, introduced back in 1957 and drawn by Walt Disney himself. Look at the diagram below. Film production is in the center, but note that the arrows to additional businesses go in both directions (clicking on the image will open in a new window). Disney achieves synergy from all types of businesses.Films and cartoons should stimulate trips to Disneyland, which, in turn, due to interesting attractions, should make you want to watch or watch cartoons, buy a record (there were records in 1957!) With thematic music, buy books, comics, toys with your favorite characters . Also, Disneyland should help promote themed shows on television, that is, sell commercial breaks. Of course, today this scheme would be much more extensive and with a large number of arrows. But there would be no cardinal differences.

#Echo66: why Exynos and not Snapdragon, and a unique path Disney

Disney's approach is unique and no one else can replicate it at the moment. The company works closely with its customers, monetizing them as much as possible. By the way, Disney's approach cannot even be called diversification in the literal sense, since all directions have the same foundation.

And sadly, Netflix is ​​in the most vulnerable position, while Disney and Amazon will be profitable, happy and plump.

Instead of a conclusion: insurance against coronavirus

Alfa-Bank sent an offer to insure against coronavirus. For 2, 5 or 10 thousand rubles, you can receive a payment of 20, 50 or 100 thousand rubles. And in case of death they will give a whole million! Terribly beneficial! But remember, it is necessary to die from coronavirus and pneumonia with a doctor's opinion. If you get sick with the coronavirus, but die from something else, you won't shoot. So I recommend pre-training before concluding!

#Echo66: why Exynos, not Snapdragon, and Disney's unique path

A funny thing happened in China. The app of the coffee chain Luckin Coffee became the leader in terms of downloads. You might think that this is either a very good or very trendy coffee shop. But the reason for the popularity is different.

A little about Luckin Coffee. This is a Chinese competitor to Starbucks that offers to download the application and order coffee to be delivered to your home or office. You can also pick up coffee yourself at retail outlets. Luckin Coffee launched in 2017 and hit hard, spending three times as much on development as it earned. The partnership with the Internet giant Tencent, which brought the brand online, also helped. The popularity was also facilitated by the fact that prices at Luckin Coffee were 2 times lower than at Starbucks.

Luckin Coffee has an interesting business style. For example, there are no cashiers. You can only pay through the app. And the format of consumption does not imply the option of sitting in a coffee shop for a long time. The principle of "grab and run on business" applies here. According to experts, the quality of coffee is average, but worthy. The Chinese like it: fast, cheap, convenient.

Last year, the company was listed on the stock exchange, and in early April it became known that the financial statements turned out to be fake and the company's sales were not as rosy as investors were told. And rumors about a possible bankruptcy appeared on the Internet, which worked better than any advertising campaign. The Chinese began to massively download the application, as each new user is entitled to a free cup of coffee. Even those who are not too fond of coffee pump. Logic: well, it's a pity if the company goes bankrupt and something free is lost.

There is no morality in the story. I just couldn't figure out why the free stuff was so appealing. For some reason, it is believed that if it's free, then you should definitely take it, even if you don't need it. From a relatively recent, on a trip, I extremely puzzled the seller when I took 2 scoops of ice cream, and asked not to put the third (gift!) He was not even too lazy and opened Google translator, thinking that I did not understand what kind of happiness fell on me.

What do you think about freebies? For example, here you can take a smartphone for free, which costs 20 thousand. You already have a good phone, and so do your friends and relatives. Will you refuse, saying that you do not need it, or will you take it just in case?

Why Samsung will never abandon Exynos

Every year, Samsung introduces two versions of its flagships. Some work on Samsung's own developments - Exynos chipsets, and some - on solutions from Qualcomm. Usually Qualcomm versions are sold in the US and China, and Exynos in Europe, Latin America and Asia.

Samsung chipset versus Qualcomm chipset fight has been going on for a long time, with Qualcomm chipset proponents attacking Samsung to stop releasing their Exynos flagships, which are believed to run hotter and consume more aggressive battery. Although wrestling is the wrong definition. There is more of a siege, since Exynos has no fans. There are those who don't like Exynos and those who don't. For years now, Samsung has been repeating like a mantra that there is no difference between chipsets.

The year before last, the S9 on the Exynos 9810 was heavily criticized. Samsung managed to make a powerful chipset that can go up to 2.7 GHz, which, however, in real-life scenarios, drained the battery at an impressive rate. It was a software problem, as the processor "overclocked" where it could not. The Galaxy S10 had a similar picture.

Now we are witnessing a new round of the siege. After the release of the Galaxy S20 series, the Internet was flooded with comparisons of models based on Exynos 990 and Snapdragon 865. And there is a reason for this - unexpectedly, smartphones first came out on Snapdragon in the home market of Samsung. And even 5G modems were used from Qualcomm. Along the way, the story was embellished with details that the decision was made because the Exynos chipsets "did not meet expectations", and the Exynos engineers were humiliated by the similar outcome of the Phone case, and the shareholders were also asked harshly for this at the next meeting. According to the same rumors, this was a surprise decision for all Samsung employees.

Now we are witnessing a new round of siege. After the release of the Galaxy S20 series, the Internet was flooded with comparisons of models based on Exynos 990 and Snapdragon 865. And there is a reason for this - unexpectedly, smartphones first came out on Snapdragon in the home market of Samsung. And even 5G modems were used from Qualcomm. Along the way, the story was embellished with details that the decision was made because the Exynos chipsets "did not live up to expectations", and the Exynos engineers were humiliated by this outcome. Phone phone , and the shareholders also toughly asked for this at the next meeting. According to the same rumors, this was a surprise decision for all Samsung employees.

And, apparently, the situation has reached such an intensity that Samsung, usually silent on the topic of chipsets, has commented, stating that in real life, both chipsets give the user the same experience. Possibly.

Why are the results of synthetic tests so important to users? The answer is simple. We are talking about flagships, that is, devices of the maximum price, which at the current stage of development of smartphones are clearly overestimated in terms of price / quality ratio. Such devices are bought in order to get the very best, without compromise. And the situation is somewhat similar to elite sports or Formula 1, when the gap between the cars at the finish line is hundredths, or even thousandths of a second.

Samsung, however, cannot abandon Exynos. Exynos is needed in order, firstly, to competently negotiate with Qualcomm, which, if Samsung is left without its own developments, will be able to dictate its will. And so Samsung manages to maneuver competently, negotiating for itself the best conditions for working in the US market, which occupies an honorable first place in the company's portfolio. Secondly, Exynos chipsets, as an in-house development, are an additional opportunity to recoup R&D costs in markets where users are less obsessed with technical specifications, and the press is not as harsh and corrosive as in the US.

Three Strategies for the Streaming Market

This topic was prompted by the events of last week - Apple entered into a rather unexpected agreement with Amazon. In Russia, Amazon is better known as an online retailer, but for Americans it is also one of the main streaming services, competing on equal terms with Netflix.

All streaming services are fighting hard against Apple and Google, as the latter strive to charge up to 30% per transaction for access to their platform. That is why, for example, Netflix opens the page in the browser for any interaction with the account, and not in the application - the company does not want to pay. So on Android. In the case of iOS, where Apple forbids such tricks, you need to open the browser yourself and go to the site.

Apple has a powerful Apple TV platform that includes a set-top box, an app for iPhone, iPad, macOS, and a subscription streaming service. Being inside this system is not only the display on the title screen, but also search results, as well as support for Siri queries, that is, the user can ask: “Siri, what to watch?”. And if a third-party video service is inside the system, then Siri can offer something from its range, but for this you will have to share money with Apple.

Amazon was able to negotiate with Apple in such a way that now Amazon content is integrated into the Apple ecosystem, but it will not pay. Rather, something will pay, but definitely not 30%. So far, Amazon has only managed to negotiate videos for books in the Kindle app.

The situation is winning for both companies. Apple has been able to offer its users more entertainment content options, improving their lives. Amazon, like any other business, loves Apple customers very much, as these are well-trained users who pay for content, and do not rummage through the garbage dumps of torrents (by the way, appreciate the clear balance in the proposal: some will be offended that they were called trained, others will be offended by garbage torrents).

However, this partnership situation is not possible with Netflix. The reason is that Apple competes with Netflix, while Amazon does not. The essence of Amazon's business is the resale of goods. And the same is true for video content. While Netflix invests heavily in creating its own unique content, Amazon is more involved in distribution. Amazon both sells individual films and series of third-party and its own production (you can, for example, buy one episode or the entire season at once), and resell packages of other streaming services (HBO, Showtime, etc.) in the Amazon Channels product. Thus, having agreed with Amazon, Apple, as it were, virtually agreed with everyone at once. Along the way, Apple has significantly colored its application, as the company currently lacks its own content to satisfy customers.

This situation is interesting from the point of view that all companies, in fact, can be divided into those who create something and those who are engaged in distribution, that is, aggregators. Netflix is ​​one of the first, and has been unprofitable for many years.

There is a profit, but the cash flow is negative, as Netflix is ​​spent on making films and series. In turn, Amazon produces its own content on a much smaller scale and is profitable. And here the question arises which way is more correct. Every year, Netflix invests more and more, driving itself into big minuses. And a reasonable, but banal conclusion arises, applicable, it seems, to any sphere of life: balance and moderation are important in everything. And Amazon's path is more strategic.

There is one more curious moment. For Amazon, video streaming is a by-product. A kind of additional bonus for customers. For Netflix, this is the core business. And here it is interesting to see how Disney works, which recently debuted with The Mandalorian with its own streaming service. Disney has its own approach to business, introduced back in 1957 and drawn by Walt Disney himself. Look at the diagram below. Film production is in the center, but note that the arrows to additional businesses go in both directions (clicking on the image will open in a new window). Disney achieves synergy from all types of businesses. Films and cartoons should stimulate trips to Disneyland, which, in turn, due to interesting attractions, should make you want to watch or watch cartoons, buy a record (there were records in 1957!) With thematic music, buy books, comics, toys with your favorite characters . Also, Disneyland should help promote themed shows on television, that is, sell commercial breaks. Of course, today this scheme would be much more extensive and with a large number of arrows. But there would be no cardinal differences.

Disney's approach is unique and no one else can replicate it at the moment. The company works closely with its customers, monetizing them as much as possible. By the way, Disney's approach cannot even be called diversification in the literal sense, since all directions have the same foundation.

And sadly, Netflix is ​​in the most vulnerable position, while Disney and Amazon will be profitable, happy and plump.

Instead of a conclusion: insurance against coronavirus

Alfa-Bank sent an offer to insure against coronavirus. For 2, 5 or 10 thousand rubles, you can receive a payment of 20, 50 or 100 thousand rubles. And in case of death they will give a whole million! Terribly beneficial! But remember, it is necessary to die from coronavirus and pneumonia with a doctor's opinion. If you get sick with the coronavirus, but die from something else, you won't shoot. So I recommend pre-training before concluding!