williamlondon

georgie01 said:

The tactic here is obvious:

‘Entity A’ expresses grave concerns about how ‘Entity B’ is doing something bad so that it will distract from the fact that ‘Entity A’ is doing exactly what they’re criticising ‘Entity B’ of doing.

The democrats have mastered this technique with their increasing desire for an authoritarian state. ‘In the public’s interest’, because the population are babies and need protection from the evil coronavirus and the evil Trump and the evil misinformation, and they want the population to suckle at the government’s teat. And the population is happy to submit out of fear.

lucidcg said:

So Apple is eliminating expandability, sealing up the mac completely AND requiring an external power brick - for no benefits.  This design is a huge step backwards versus the intel Mac minis.  It's essentially a headless laptop.  I won't bother with this model.  It would be compelling if Apple made the bottom or top easily flip up (that bottom round cut out for a square machine was truly absurd) AND they added a pair of m.2 storage slots - now that would be a tangible benefit of moving to an external power supply (and an actual upgrader over dual SSD mac mini server configs).  I know it won't happen - Apple and their f*ckin' walled garden of no upgrades & no repairs from a pretend green company.

mattinoz said:

darkvader said:

maltz said:

So the suit boils down to the fact that the screen is made of glass, and broken glass is sharp?  Good luck with that...

No, that's not what it boils down to at all.

It boils down to the design of the watch not allowing for an expanded battery (which can be anticipated to happen with a certain percentage of batteries of the type used in the Apple Watch) and therefore the battery is breaking the glass and creating a potentially hazardous condition.

I suspect they'll have a hard time if they can't prove actual damages, meaning if the glass didn't cut somebody there isn't an injury.

It absolutely IS a defective design.  If the battery expansion (which, again, can be anticipated) causes damage to the device, it's a problem.  And it's a problem that's affected every portable Apple product for years.  Apple really should have to pay for any damages caused by battery swelling when they designed the product in such a way that a swollen battery can damage other hardware.  There's an easy fix Apple could have implemented - batteries that are easily changeable by the user could implement a locking catch system that would automatically unlock and release if a battery swells enough that it could cause damage.  There's no reason for Apple not to do that other than their idiotic thin fetish.

Given the screen and glass are bonded does the glass really break and become dangerous if the battery swells?

The screen module is held in with a sticky gasket and the battery to one end so if it did swell it would seem like it would put more pressure on one part of gasket. Seems like the whole screen would tear off the gasket before the screen would shatter. Even then the screen is captured by cables going under the battery and haptic motor so wouldn't fall off and smash. 

waveparticle said:

China has been scapegoat for whatever happened.