wigby

ivanh said:

Design defect, wrong material used. I warned Apple for years. I replaced a few. No other USB cables in my drawer has such problem in 10 years, except Apple’s.  Apple has years of opportunity to improve it, if they wish. No action still.

robbyx said:

StrangeDays said:

somebody’s worried about being fitbitted...

the Sonos One is a single-channel speaker. funny nobody had panic attacks about it being mono...yet now people are upset at the multi-channel HP and its seven drivers!

Sonos has nothing to worry about. Apple doesn’t offer a range of speakers like Sonos.  Everyone is comparing the entry level Sonos offerings to HomePod, but Sonos offers far better speakers than the Sonos One or Play:1. I guarantee the HomePod doesn’t come close to a Play:5, much less two Play:5 speakers linked together, a feature Apple promised and delayed.

Of course none of these speakers will satisfy a true “audiophile” (I’m not talking about the sudden crop of overnight “audiophiles” eagerly awaiting HomePod as if no other good speaker exists). Thankfully Sonos has true audiophiles covered with the Connect and Connect:Amp options. One connects to your existing home stereo systems to play music through legitimate high end speakers. The other provides an amp so no home stereo system is necessary.

Apple can’t compete with Sonos. They simply don’t offer what Sonos does, no matter how good HomePod sounds.  Discounting and bundling the Sonos One is a smart move. It steals a bit of Apple’s thunder (not that there’s much thunder around HomePod’s delayed and feature incomplete release), plus highlights just how weak Apple’s offering is compared to Sonos.

Let’s see, I can get one speaker with a half-baked voice assistant that supports a single music service...or two speakers that can link to create true stereo output, that work with numerous music services (including the only one supported by HomePod), and allow me to use a variety of voice assistants.  Seems like a no brainer to me. 

gmgravytrain said:

Samsung's motto is, "Anything Apple can do, we can do better." That probably applies to all of Samsung's business model concerning all companies. Samsung always stays hungry, constantly nipping at the butts of rival companies. If Apple had the same philosophy, they might have mostly wiped out the Android platform by now. However, passive Apple is now the only company that remains on the doomed list and doesn't even come close to having the high value of any FANG stock or even Microsoft. Android is still getting stronger in terms of outright unit numbers and that's all Wall Street cares about

I don't have a clue as to what Apple needs to do to crush Samsung's smartphone business and at this point it may be too late.  The tech-critics are going to heap mountains of praise for the Galaxy S9, saying how much better it is than the iPhone X and there's nothing Apple can really do about it.  It will just be business as usual for Apple.

VRing said:

racerhomie3 said:

It’s pretty pathetic that my $350 32GB iPhone SE is visibly faster than the $1000 Note 8

No it's not.

MustSeeUHDTV said:

Soli said:

MustSeeUHDTV said:

Soli said:

MustSeeUHDTV said:

Apple should really make $29 the permanent price for replacing the batteries.

Why? Can you explain how it benefits Apple to, say, have a 10 year old iPhone (or a 6 year old iPad, 17 year old iPod or a 26 year old Powerbook) that gets a battery replacement for $29? Do you know who would end up paying for this massive loss leader that would allow for a $29 permanent price for replacing batteries?" The customer pays for it through higher costs of new devices to make up for the entitled assholes that think that the iPhone they bought in 2007 should still work the same today and any time in the future because they're cheap and selfish.

And you think $80 is justified? As I replied to another poster, most Lithium Ion battery batteries that size are usually $10 at stores, so Apple probably gets it cheaper. Labor might be $5 a phone assuming you pay the guy $20 a hour and he can fix 4 an hour. That's huge markup for when it was priced at $80. No way they are losing any money at $29.

Also, if a person still wants to use an old phone, that should be their decision. Tons of people still use computer with WinXP and that is 15 years old....security risks and all....

Are you seriously that ignorant about basic battery technology or are you just trolling? I can by 8 AA batteries at the Dollar Store for $1 but they don't last as long as more expensive AA batteries from reputable sources and brands. I've also seen countless cheap batteries—even from Amazon—that stated a specific mAh, and have a specific mAh upon original testing but then the cells quickly degrade and stop working—or worse!—after just a few charges. Then there's the constantly cases of knock off and cheap PSUs and 12V cig lighter USB-A adapters, and power cables you can buy that frequently cause fires and even result in deaths… but according to you these are all just as good as Apple is just being a greedy piece of shit company.

Is it really that hard to do a 5 seconds of research and contemplation before you post?

I actually gave a breakdown. You have not. You still haven't said what justifies $80? Yeah, just go to sites like Battery.com to see the price of Lithium Ion batteries for cell phones.  Obviously they are charging my $5-10 more for Apple because they can, not because Apple is an different says Samsung. Still no where close to $80.