Apple is known for closing ecosystems and financially strangling them.
Welcome to the reality distortion field, still working as strong as ever.
You're confusing Apple with Google and Microsoft.
Certainly, every company ends programs that aren't making financial sense anymore; but Microsoft (remember "PlaysForSure"?) and Google (remember, well, PICK a Project, almost ANY Project!) make a habit of it, and close down things that are HIGHLY successful ALL the time.
Apple has only done this sort of thing twice in recent memory: iAds (which never took off) and now this (which sounds like it is more trouble than it is worth).
But remember, this is the same Company that just SIGNIFICANTLY helped-out all GOOD Developers by allowing ALL Apps to offer a "Trial Period", and who has also instituted policies to cut the subscription-fee "cut" for those types of Apps over time.
There is no way this is substantial income loss for Apple, affiliate commission was dropped to 2.5% last year, added to that a small percentage of their sales are from affiliates. It seems ignorant to royally screw over some of your biggest fans and cheerleaders. News, review, and download sites have built their entire presence to champion the app store.
ROYALLY screw over? It doesn't sound like it was worth the overhead in bookkeeping costs for Apple, and for all but a very small handful of sites, it certainly wasn't a significant source of revenue, either.
By cost cutting as much as possible, this is just a follow on from where they can't even bother to put a proper cooling system in their new macbook pros, making them throttle all day.
Hey dumbass, it was INTEL that released LYING documentation for the 6-core i9, giving it the SAME TDP as the previous, 4-core i7 used in the 2017 MacBook Pro 15 inch.
So, why would Apple (who may not have even had Engineering Samples of the i9 until WAY late (too late) in the Development Cycle to make such a fundamental change to EVERYTHING that changing the cooling system may have required), be "guilty" of not "bother[ing] to put a proper cooling system in their MacBook Pros, making them throttle all day"???
Oh, and your rant is proven baseless by the fact that Apple was able to make a simple SOFTWARE change and FIX the issue within something like 24 hours.
Hey, I tuned it down already. Originally it was "and if Cook doesn't get his head out of his ass (or what- or whoever's in there right now)", but I didn't want to come across as homophobic.
Well, you may have "TUNED" it down (whatever THAT means!); but you CERTAINLY didn't "TONE" down the homophobic rhetoric.
So far the theory. In fact, investors will become uneasy far, far earlier. Apple would survive that, easily, but you'll see a very different C-Level lineup very, very soon.
And since C-Levels make decisions in such companies, that's not going to happen anytime soon. They'd probably sink the company before going out with a whimper.
But, since Apple WILL continue to innovate and sell products, it's all a REALLY unlikely scenario.
I don't think Sarbanes Oxley law has been repealed. This type of stuff of counting pre-sales and shifted inventory doesn't fly anymore. They may count if they are sold to Best Buy for resell. But not the Apple Store.
The lower sales of phones, is in part that Apple Released two phones at the same time the iPhone 8 and the iPhone X. The iPhone X didn't sell as much as expected because the 8 was in "competition" with it. So they sold a little more 8 then expected and less of the X. Being the 8 and the X have been sold over the a few quarters. The This initial sales number and stories of lagging sales from early on are not so much valid anymore, as the excess inventory is sold off and production is adjusted to meet current demand.
OMG! Can it be? And actual, considered, erudite response on Slashdot?!?
Mods: Please Mod Parent WAY up!!!
Ok, assuming that this article from 2013 is still accurate, it appears that Apple counts retail sales (like from Best Buy) when the customer actually buys the phone; but sales to Carriers are counted when they are sold to the Carrier. But, as that article also points out, Apple does NOT actually deliberately "channel stuff" to artificially inflate sales figures.
Hardly fair. In 2009, there really wasn't any real competition for the iPhone.
It's more than fair. iPhone's market slide looks way worse when compared to Android alone, instead of including RIM.
Android certainly had to compete, but it didn't just compete, it slaughtered. Why? Three big factors: more value for money; Google brand was more more trusted than Apple; Google's services such as maps and email were better than Apple's. All three remain in effect today,
And Mac share of the "Desktop" market is over 10%, twice what you claim.
Try to post without the insults, ok, to avoid being called out as the clown you come across as by not being able to support your argument after heaving out a lame ad hominem.
Android only "wins" because of the plethora of cheap-shit low-end "giveaway" phones. If you restrict your view to the "Flagship" models, the numbers look QUITE different. And speaking of "Quite Different", I don't know where you got the 12% marketshare number for iPhones; but this source quotes it earlier this year at a whopping 51%:
Apple doesn't produce products that cater to the other 90%, simply based on average selling price. The damage it would do to their brand to produce "cheap" products wouldn't be worth it. They focus on high-end, high margin products. So no, there isn't that much growth left in pure marketshare.
Wait until they switch to ARM for their "consumer"-level machines.
Apple hasn't achieved market saturation until Windows is at 10% and macOS at 90%, and not until Android is at 7% and iOS is at 95%.
You live on a different planet than the rest of us. On the planet we live on, Apple's smartphone market share peaked in 2009 at 48% and has declined steadily ever since, to less than 17% today. There is no reason to suppose that that trend will stop. Maybe it will eventually stabilize around 5% like the MacOS share of the PC market.
Hardly fair.
In 2009, there really wasn't any real competition for the iPhone.
And Mac share of the "Desktop" market is over 10%, twice what you claim.
But neither of those matter to the "point of saturation" figures I was stating.
I don't know if I'll ever buy another MacBook Pro unless someone at Apple begins making rational design decisions instead of focusing on appearance, thinness, and weight alone.
And if you'd get your head out of your ass, you'd see that Apple HAS been making VERY rational design decisions with the MacBook Pros. You're just too stupid and backward to think ahead a few years, when you will still have that MacBook Pro.
Dead? Far from it. But Apple is doing what MS has been doing since the 90s: Moving through inertia. The engine is off.
Juggernauts like Apple can do this. Even with no new products, Apple would still make acceptable profits for a while. Apple store, accessories, repairs and add-on sales would certainly keep the revenue going. But they would be living off products that they already designed, created, made and sold. That can keep a company the size of Apple afloat for a couple years.
After that, the Juggernaut is dead in the water. And as any oil tanker captain will tell you, getting a huge thing like that moving again takes a LOT of fuel for very, very little gain in the first couple days.
Hell, Apple could STOP selling EVERY product TODAY, and keep every single employee worldwide at their desks at full salary playing games all day for about 25 YEARS before the lights would be turned-off.
That give Apple a LOT of time to come up with "The Next Big Thing".
Fortunately, in the meantime, they are selling goods and services quite handily, thank you very much. That extends that "Lights Out" time by several DECADES.
Sorry, Apple will not be going away in the lifetime of anyone who is reading this. OR their children's.
The iPhone X was such a disaster that they were able to increase their phone margins and overall net income enough to lift their EPS and share price >3%. An unmitigated disaster that brought them closer to being the first trillion-dollar company in history.
Outsold by Huawei now. Nothing could possibly go wrong, right?
Samsung is the one that should be worried; not Apple.
Nice summary of the Apple story. But you need to recognize Apple's dilemma: they painted themselves into a corner. Having reached market saturation and further numerical growth cut off by the Android hordes, Apple's now has to grow the price and the amount of aftermarket money it can squeeze out of each of its misty eye followers. Either that or invent something entirely new that everybody wants, but that isn't going to happen under the Tim Cook culture.
Apple hasn't achieved market saturation until Windows is at 10% and macOS at 90%, and not until Android is at 7% and iOS is at 95%.
They've got a LOT of growing left to do, even WITHOUT "The Next Big Thing".
The X is only the icing on the shit sundae. The problem runs far deeper, and if Cook doesn't get his head out of his ass (or the proverbial stick) this is not going to end well for Apple.
How does one get their head INTO a proverbial stick?
Depends what kind of user you are. For simpleton users, there is no lock-in. For me, I have quite a bit of lock in because I rely on quite a few important apps. I'm also locked in by iTunes, Macs, iPads, AirPods, AppleTV and other things. Sure I could move, but the number of comfortable things I'd have to replace is painful to think about once I start thinking about all of it.
That's not "Lock-In" you stupid toad! That's liking a better product!
As an alpha asshole, you are a great ambassador for Apple. And like a typical Apple camp follower you are a barefaced liar. Apple freeloaded on the Vulkan working group to build its own incompatible API, as any fool can see. Yes it was a plan, however idiotic. Doesn't change the slimy intent. Doesn't matter how a lying fucktard like you tries to spin it. Apple stays on the Vulkan working group to freeload on more of their great work. Just the kind of thing we have come to expect from Apple. Sweet that Autodesk rubbed your face in it, looking forward to more of that.
Metal was RELEASED nearly 2 YEARS before the Vulkan final SPEC was even announced. NOW who copied from whom?
And considering the Metal API is SIGNIFICANTLY different from the much harder to use Vulkan API, plus is more than twice as efficient, I don't see how you can support a claim of "Freeloading" on Kronos' weak-ass, second-rate solution.
BTW, Apple is a "Promoter"-level member of the Kronos group.So I assume they know what is the good, and the bad, in Vulkan:
And if Apple is "Freeloading" from Kronos, then WTF are AMD, ARM, Google, Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel, NVidia, Sony and Valve (among SCORES of others) doing?
Now, do I think Apple should Open Source Metal 2? Yes I do. But it's their ball, and their game; just like DirectX is MS' ball and their game.
And with the lightweight MoltenVK translation-layer, there simply isn't an argument to whine about Metal 2 being proprietary; because a Vulkan-based Application simply doesn't have to suffer any significant rework to support Metal 2 through MoltenVK Dota 2, which even YOU noted has "Very Good" performance...
The thing is it's not lock in. No amount of vendor lock-in will keep you buying new systems if you've had a bad experience.
Yes Apple makes it pleasant to stay within their ecosystem but so does everyone, and it simply doesn't matter own a world where apps are dirt cheap and photos can be easily moved.
The reason people go to Apple for new products is generally not because of lock-in, but because Apple has not pushed them away from making the natural choice to stay with a product line they have been using. How are non-technical people supposed to feel about a phone that doesn't receive updates any more after a year or so? Wouldn't they be more likely to consider some other brand?
A better solution is to use Amazon Glacier for backups. $0.004 per gigabyte per month.
So, at 1 TB, it is roughly equivalent to the cost of BackBlaze (which can go lower with a longer committment), with none of the other amenities (30-day versioning, mailed Restore drive, zero-conf backup s/w included, support, etc.). Not to mention the fact that Retrieval times SUUUUCK!
"Amazon Glacier provides three retrieval options to fit your use case. Expedited retrievals typically return data in 1-5 minutes, and are great for Active Archive use cases. Standard retrievals typically complete between 3-5 hours work, and work well for less time-sensitive needs like backup data, media editing, or long-term analytics. Bulk retrievals are the lowest-cost retrieval option, returning large amounts of data within 5-12 hours."
Oh, and did you notice that any significant Retrieval COSTS EXTRA!!!
"Glacier offers a 10 GB retrieval free tier. You can retrieve 10 GB of your Amazon Glacier data per month for free. The free tier allowance can be used at any time during the month and applies to Standard retrievals."
Hell, even DELETING Data can cost money!!!
"Amazon Glacier is designed for use cases where data is retained for months, years, or decades. Deleting data from Amazon Glacier is free if the archive being deleted has been stored for three months or longer. If an archive is deleted within three months of being uploaded, you will be charged an early deletion fee. In the US East (Northern Virginia) Region, you would be charged a prorated early deletion fee of $0.012 per gigabyte deleted within three months. So if you deleted 1 gigabyte of data 1 month after uploading it, you would be charged a $0.008 early deletion fee. If, instead you deleted 1 gigabyte after 2 months, you would be charged a $0.004 early deletion fee."
Oh, and that $0.004 figure you quoted was an "As low as..." rate. Obviously, that's if you dial-in EVERYTHING "just right"...
And it STILL doesn't beat BackBlaze on large backups. Amazon Glacier will cost $16/mo to backup that 4 TB drive in your iMac Pro. BackBlaze will cost.... $5. AND provide INSTANTANEOUS (other than transfer-time) Retrieval!
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty amazing accomplishment!
Maybe this will quiet the anti-Cook faction.
Oh, nevermind; who am I kidding?
Apple is known for closing ecosystems and financially strangling them.
Welcome to the reality distortion field, still working as strong as ever.
You're confusing Apple with Google and Microsoft.
Certainly, every company ends programs that aren't making financial sense anymore; but Microsoft (remember "PlaysForSure"?) and Google (remember, well, PICK a Project, almost ANY Project!) make a habit of it, and close down things that are HIGHLY successful ALL the time.
Apple has only done this sort of thing twice in recent memory: iAds (which never took off) and now this (which sounds like it is more trouble than it is worth).
But remember, this is the same Company that just SIGNIFICANTLY helped-out all GOOD Developers by allowing ALL Apps to offer a "Trial Period", and who has also instituted policies to cut the subscription-fee "cut" for those types of Apps over time.
There is no way this is substantial income loss for Apple, affiliate commission was dropped to 2.5% last year, added to that a small percentage of their sales are from affiliates. It seems ignorant to royally screw over some of your biggest fans and cheerleaders. News, review, and download sites have built their entire presence to champion the app store.
ROYALLY screw over? It doesn't sound like it was worth the overhead in bookkeeping costs for Apple, and for all but a very small handful of sites, it certainly wasn't a significant source of revenue, either.
Nevermind headphone jacks in iPhones, Slashdot still doesn't support UTF-8 in 2018!
Hehe! Touche!!!
By cost cutting as much as possible, this is just a follow on from where they can't even bother to put a proper cooling system in their new macbook pros, making them throttle all day.
Hey dumbass, it was INTEL that released LYING documentation for the 6-core i9, giving it the SAME TDP as the previous, 4-core i7 used in the 2017 MacBook Pro 15 inch.
So, why would Apple (who may not have even had Engineering Samples of the i9 until WAY late (too late) in the Development Cycle to make such a fundamental change to EVERYTHING that changing the cooling system may have required), be "guilty" of not "bother[ing] to put a proper cooling system in their MacBook Pros, making them throttle all day"???
Oh, and your rant is proven baseless by the fact that Apple was able to make a simple SOFTWARE change and FIX the issue within something like 24 hours.
Hey, I tuned it down already. Originally it was "and if Cook doesn't get his head out of his ass (or what- or whoever's in there right now)", but I didn't want to come across as homophobic.
Well, you may have "TUNED" it down (whatever THAT means!); but you CERTAINLY didn't "TONE" down the homophobic rhetoric.
So far the theory. In fact, investors will become uneasy far, far earlier. Apple would survive that, easily, but you'll see a very different C-Level lineup very, very soon.
And since C-Levels make decisions in such companies, that's not going to happen anytime soon. They'd probably sink the company before going out with a whimper.
But, since Apple WILL continue to innovate and sell products, it's all a REALLY unlikely scenario.
I don't think Sarbanes Oxley law has been repealed. This type of stuff of counting pre-sales and shifted inventory doesn't fly anymore. They may count if they are sold to Best Buy for resell. But not the Apple Store.
The lower sales of phones, is in part that Apple Released two phones at the same time the iPhone 8 and the iPhone X. The iPhone X didn't sell as much as expected because the 8 was in "competition" with it. So they sold a little more 8 then expected and less of the X. Being the 8 and the X have been sold over the a few quarters. The This initial sales number and stories of lagging sales from early on are not so much valid anymore, as the excess inventory is sold off and production is adjusted to meet current demand.
OMG! Can it be? And actual, considered, erudite response on Slashdot?!?
Mods: Please Mod Parent WAY up!!!
Ok, assuming that this article from 2013 is still accurate, it appears that Apple counts retail sales (like from Best Buy) when the customer actually buys the phone; but sales to Carriers are counted when they are sold to the Carrier. But, as that article also points out, Apple does NOT actually deliberately "channel stuff" to artificially inflate sales figures.
https://www.businessinsider.co...
Hardly fair. In 2009, there really wasn't any real competition for the iPhone.
It's more than fair. iPhone's market slide looks way worse when compared to Android alone, instead of including RIM.
Android certainly had to compete, but it didn't just compete, it slaughtered. Why? Three big factors: more value for money; Google brand was more more trusted than Apple; Google's services such as maps and email were better than Apple's. All three remain in effect today,
And Mac share of the "Desktop" market is over 10%, twice what you claim.
I doubt it. Mac, 5.03%
Try to post without the insults, ok, to avoid being called out as the clown you come across as by not being able to support your argument after heaving out a lame ad hominem.
Android only "wins" because of the plethora of cheap-shit low-end "giveaway" phones. If you restrict your view to the "Flagship" models, the numbers look QUITE different. And speaking of "Quite Different", I don't know where you got the 12% marketshare number for iPhones; but this source quotes it earlier this year at a whopping 51%:
https://www.investopedia.com/n...
Apple doesn't produce products that cater to the other 90%, simply based on average selling price. The damage it would do to their brand to produce "cheap" products wouldn't be worth it. They focus on high-end, high margin products. So no, there isn't that much growth left in pure marketshare.
Wait until they switch to ARM for their "consumer"-level machines.
Apple hasn't achieved market saturation until Windows is at 10% and macOS at 90%, and not until Android is at 7% and iOS is at 95%.
You live on a different planet than the rest of us. On the planet we live on, Apple's smartphone market share peaked in 2009 at 48% and has declined steadily ever since, to less than 17% today. There is no reason to suppose that that trend will stop. Maybe it will eventually stabilize around 5% like the MacOS share of the PC market.
Hardly fair.
In 2009, there really wasn't any real competition for the iPhone.
And Mac share of the "Desktop" market is over 10%, twice what you claim.
But neither of those matter to the "point of saturation" figures I was stating.
I don't know if I'll ever buy another MacBook Pro unless someone at Apple begins making rational design decisions instead of focusing on appearance, thinness, and weight alone.
And if you'd get your head out of your ass, you'd see that Apple HAS been making VERY rational design decisions with the MacBook Pros. You're just too stupid and backward to think ahead a few years, when you will still have that MacBook Pro.
There are only so many people they can sell products too, there's a ceiling on that hardware growth.
Apple has about 10% of the Desktop Market.
Apple has about 12% of the Mobile Phone Market.
I think there is SIGNIFICANT distance to the "Ceiling" when it comes to "Hardware Growth".
Dead? Far from it. But Apple is doing what MS has been doing since the 90s: Moving through inertia. The engine is off.
Juggernauts like Apple can do this. Even with no new products, Apple would still make acceptable profits for a while. Apple store, accessories, repairs and add-on sales would certainly keep the revenue going. But they would be living off products that they already designed, created, made and sold. That can keep a company the size of Apple afloat for a couple years.
After that, the Juggernaut is dead in the water. And as any oil tanker captain will tell you, getting a huge thing like that moving again takes a LOT of fuel for very, very little gain in the first couple days.
Hell, Apple could STOP selling EVERY product TODAY, and keep every single employee worldwide at their desks at full salary playing games all day for about 25 YEARS before the lights would be turned-off.
That give Apple a LOT of time to come up with "The Next Big Thing".
Fortunately, in the meantime, they are selling goods and services quite handily, thank you very much. That extends that "Lights Out" time by several DECADES.
Sorry, Apple will not be going away in the lifetime of anyone who is reading this. OR their children's.
stop writing smiley face backwards you dolt
Really struggling to find something negative to say, aren't you?
stop writing smiley face backwards you dolt
There are spelling rules and grammar for ascii art? Would you mind proofreading my p0rn collection?
https://www.asciipr0n.com/pr0n...
You actually made me chuckle out loud. Bravo!
The iPhone X was such a disaster that they were able to increase their phone margins and overall net income enough to lift their EPS and share price >3%. An unmitigated disaster that brought them closer to being the first trillion-dollar company in history.
Outsold by Huawei now. Nothing could possibly go wrong, right?
Samsung is the one that should be worried; not Apple.
Nice summary of the Apple story. But you need to recognize Apple's dilemma: they painted themselves into a corner. Having reached market saturation and further numerical growth cut off by the Android hordes, Apple's now has to grow the price and the amount of aftermarket money it can squeeze out of each of its misty eye followers. Either that or invent something entirely new that everybody wants, but that isn't going to happen under the Tim Cook culture.
Apple hasn't achieved market saturation until Windows is at 10% and macOS at 90%, and not until Android is at 7% and iOS is at 95%.
They've got a LOT of growing left to do, even WITHOUT "The Next Big Thing".
Cook probably couldn't sink Apple even if he deliberately set out to do just that.
Watch what happens to Cook if the stock trends down.
They did that one time when Apple simply missed their Earnings Estimate. Cook's pay was reduced that year by about 2 MEELION dollars!
The X is only the icing on the shit sundae. The problem runs far deeper, and if Cook doesn't get his head out of his ass (or the proverbial stick) this is not going to end well for Apple.
How does one get their head INTO a proverbial stick?
Idiot.
Depends what kind of user you are. For simpleton users, there is no lock-in. For me, I have quite a bit of lock in because I rely on quite a few important apps. I'm also locked in by iTunes, Macs, iPads, AirPods, AppleTV and other things. Sure I could move, but the number of comfortable things I'd have to replace is painful to think about once I start thinking about all of it.
That's not "Lock-In" you stupid toad! That's liking a better product!
Jeezus.
As an alpha asshole, you are a great ambassador for Apple. And like a typical Apple camp follower you are a barefaced liar. Apple freeloaded on the Vulkan working group to build its own incompatible API, as any fool can see. Yes it was a plan, however idiotic. Doesn't change the slimy intent. Doesn't matter how a lying fucktard like you tries to spin it. Apple stays on the Vulkan working group to freeload on more of their great work. Just the kind of thing we have come to expect from Apple. Sweet that Autodesk rubbed your face in it, looking forward to more of that.
Metal was RELEASED nearly 2 YEARS before the Vulkan final SPEC was even announced. NOW who copied from whom?
And considering the Metal API is SIGNIFICANTLY different from the much harder to use Vulkan API, plus is more than twice as efficient, I don't see how you can support a claim of "Freeloading" on Kronos' weak-ass, second-rate solution.
BTW, Apple is a "Promoter"-level member of the Kronos group.So I assume they know what is the good, and the bad, in Vulkan:
https://www.khronos.org/member...
And if Apple is "Freeloading" from Kronos, then WTF are AMD, ARM, Google, Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel, NVidia, Sony and Valve (among SCORES of others) doing?
Now, do I think Apple should Open Source Metal 2? Yes I do. But it's their ball, and their game; just like DirectX is MS' ball and their game.
And with the lightweight MoltenVK translation-layer, there simply isn't an argument to whine about Metal 2 being proprietary; because a Vulkan-based Application simply doesn't have to suffer any significant rework to support Metal 2 through MoltenVK Dota 2, which even YOU noted has "Very Good" performance...
Your Hater argument is simply pathetic. Like you.
LOL BGR. The second biggest apple dickpuppet next to you.
Ok, I assume all THESE are not "Dickpuppets", Hater:
https://www.anandtech.com/show...
https://www.thestreet.com/mark...
https://www.marketwatch.com/st...
https://www.channelweb.co.uk/c...
Or, as the Slashtards spin it: Vendor Lock-in.
The thing is it's not lock in. No amount of vendor lock-in will keep you buying new systems if you've had a bad experience.
Yes Apple makes it pleasant to stay within their ecosystem but so does everyone, and it simply doesn't matter own a world where apps are dirt cheap and photos can be easily moved.
The reason people go to Apple for new products is generally not because of lock-in, but because Apple has not pushed them away from making the natural choice to stay with a product line they have been using. How are non-technical people supposed to feel about a phone that doesn't receive updates any more after a year or so? Wouldn't they be more likely to consider some other brand?
You're preachin' to the choir, man!
But I like your Sermon... ;-)
A better solution is to use Amazon Glacier for backups. $0.004 per gigabyte per month.
So, at 1 TB, it is roughly equivalent to the cost of BackBlaze (which can go lower with a longer committment), with none of the other amenities (30-day versioning, mailed Restore drive, zero-conf backup s/w included, support, etc.). Not to mention the fact that Retrieval times SUUUUCK!
"Amazon Glacier provides three retrieval options to fit your use case. Expedited retrievals typically return data in 1-5 minutes, and are great for Active Archive use cases. Standard retrievals typically complete between 3-5 hours work, and work well for less time-sensitive needs like backup data, media editing, or long-term analytics. Bulk retrievals are the lowest-cost retrieval option, returning large amounts of data within 5-12 hours."
Oh, and did you notice that any significant Retrieval COSTS EXTRA!!!
"Glacier offers a 10 GB retrieval free tier. You can retrieve 10 GB of your Amazon Glacier data per month for free. The free tier allowance can be used at any time during the month and applies to Standard retrievals."
Hell, even DELETING Data can cost money!!!
"Amazon Glacier is designed for use cases where data is retained for months, years, or decades. Deleting data from Amazon Glacier is free if the archive being deleted has been stored for three months or longer. If an archive is deleted within three months of being uploaded, you will be charged an early deletion fee. In the US East (Northern Virginia) Region, you would be charged a prorated early deletion fee of $0.012 per gigabyte deleted within three months. So if you deleted 1 gigabyte of data 1 month after uploading it, you would be charged a $0.008 early deletion fee. If, instead you deleted 1 gigabyte after 2 months, you would be charged a $0.004 early deletion fee."
Oh, and that $0.004 figure you quoted was an "As low as..." rate. Obviously, that's if you dial-in EVERYTHING "just right"...
And it STILL doesn't beat BackBlaze on large backups. Amazon Glacier will cost $16/mo to backup that 4 TB drive in your iMac Pro. BackBlaze will cost.... $5. AND provide INSTANTANEOUS (other than transfer-time) Retrieval!
In short: No fucking thankyouverymuch, Amazon.