avon b7

They have to try. That is clear, but Google is well out in front at the moment.

I went to a funeral yesterday up on the mountain. Google gave me directions for public transport right down to the unique identifier of the bus stop and the minutes to wait for the next bus. Updated in real time to reflect delays caused by traffic.

It is clear that none of the people criticising this proposal have even bothered to read the EU factsheet which can be clicked through on via the article.

Almost all questions raised here are answered in the fachsheet, along with something else that seems to have gone over many people's heads. This proposal is not limited to smartphones.

It is attempting to tackle a wider problem.

There is a lot to like and once read, most people should be able to get their heads around why we reached this point. 

I thought this feature had already been pre-announced by some company.

I saw something on YouTube from a presentation recap and it was mentioned. 

I can't remember which company was going to bring it to market though.

With this ad, I suppose it must have been Google.

EDIT:

Found it. The feature was announced four months ago:  minute 4

There are pros and cons to having a headphone jack.

It isn't about 'courage' though. That has nothing to do with anything. 

Right now (2022) I'd still Rather have one than not have one.

AppleExposed said:

avon b7 said:

AppleExposed said:

rogifan_new said:

mubaili said:

Apple must not talk itself into believing that it cannot gain more market share. It must act aggressively, speed up the cycle, and push more variety of devices, i.e., do what they have done to the iPad line up to the iPhone line up. 

The problem is price, plain and simple. In 2016 the flagship iPhone started at $649. One year later the flagship model was $999. Even the Xr which is supposed to be the more affordable model starts at $749, $100 more than the flagship from 2 years prior. It doesn’t matter if the tech inside the phone or the materials it’s made with are more advanced/expensive to manufacture. At the end of the day the average selling price of the iPhone has steadily been going up. And consumers are starting to say no thanks, I’ll keep what I’ve got it’s good enough.

With the X I think Apple was testing how much of a price increase the market would bear (and the higher ASP would allow them to show revenue growth even when sales were flat to down). I think they got their answer. I’d be surprised if there are any price cuts this year and I’ll bet the XS gets removed from the lineup. But I don’t think we’ll see any price increases or storage configurations that push up the price. And I’ll bet we see Apple aggressively pushing trade-ins again.

The problem with this statement is that the iPhone X sold really well.

This affirmation is actually questionable for various reasons.

Apple never revealed any numbers beyond saying it was the most popular iPhone. It's all relative if the less popular iPhones weren't far behind iPhone X but didn't of course reach 'most popular' status. So, I think Apple made that claim for two or maybe three quarters and for the last quarter they said nothing.

That ties in with some analysts reporting at the time that iPhone X sales had dropped off faster than any other new release before it.

It was retired in the 2018 refresh and the first quarter of that cycle Apple issued a profit warning.

While we will probably never know all of what happened, it is very reasonable to speculate that the iPhone pool of purchasers simply ran out of 'financial steam' and sales dropped as a result. 

Tim Cook said it sold well.

Your theories are irrelevant.

My theories are no more or no less relevant than yours.

Tim Cook saying it 'sold well'  doesn't say much. If you only release three phones a year (or only two, prior to the X) but ship over 200 million handsets, it likely that sold well could be applied to all of them.

What the OP was referencing was that overall, prices for new releases had gone up. As a result people bought those new releases in smaller numbers.

What I was referencing was an extension to that logic. That, at any given time, there are only so many people who can reach those high prices. Some of them probably bought the iPhone X and most of those left the group of potential buyers as a result. Others may have been able to afford one but didn't see enough value in the Xr, Xs lines so opted out.

It's possible that when the 2018 refresh occurred (with those prices) there were simply far fewer takers.

At first Apple upped the promotion of financing deals on top of the regular upgrade/trade in offers.

As they went 'all hands' just before Christmas, they went one step further and introduced new trade in deals with bigger discounts and put them on the front page of the Apple websites. Originally they were called 'limited time' promotions. The last time I checked, they were still on the front page.

That tells us a lot about expectations and sales even in the absence of official numbers.

And if you want to quote Tim Cook, remember it was him who said Apple had miscalculated.

IMO, they miscalculated on various aspects and price was just one of them

Leaving the UK market is what would be commercially unacceptable.

Making threats of this kind does Apple no favours, it simply makes them sound as if they think can pull strings, sway decisions and set 'punishments'. Could turn into a PR nightmare if it eventually gets spun negatively.

Extra territorial reach is in itself a double edged sword. The US has been putting 'sanctions' on countries and companies and expecting sovereign nations to fall into line on enforcing them. 

Sometimes things can swing in the other direction. If they lose the fight, the best thing they can do is take it to the last appeal and then pay up if they lose. 

I think that Epic simply wanted to prove that the concept of user lock in was actively considered and implemented at Apple.

The communications around the iMessage issue do seem to show that Apple saw it as a way to prevent users moving to Android devices and acted on it to that end.

Epic may have won this point. 

Illus1ve said:

avon b7 said:

Illus1ve said:

avon b7 said:

Illus1ve said:

chutzpah said:

verne arase said:

avon b7 said:
A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.

Doesn't mean they're right or have legal jurisdiction outside their borders.

They have to right to revenues or actions taking place outside their borders - they're suffering from king of the world syndrome.

A person can get life imprisonment for a crime, they have no argument that they weren't intending on spending their whole life in that country.

It's called punitive damages.  It means multinational companies cannot treat fines as a cost of doing business.  There is no question of legal jurisdiction or right, it's a fine.  If the company wants to not pay the fine and completely withdraw from the EU then that's their prerogative.

Fines are usually just money makin' for the 'regulator'. The US could be quite a bit more vocal about this. Like, so you exert pressure on our businesses? Here's a 200% import duty on everything you sell until you reverse that decision. Bet they wouldn't last a day. 

Tit for tat doesn't usually lead to anything satisfactory to either side in a dispute. 

The US for example thinks it can unilaterally impose sanctions on sovereign nations and then extraterritorially enforce them as punishment for anyone that 'breaks' them.

That is exactly why the EU created its blocking legislation in 1996 with the aim of tackling those situations. 

This came back into focus in 2018 when the US decided to pull out of the Iran agreement and EU companies were caught in the political crossfire. 

Problem is, these political shenanigans tend to affect the consumers. European prices on Apple products are already through the roof. Yet who do you think is going to absorb all the extra costs that come with these initiatives? New cables? I never asked for it. Alternative App Stores? Again, never asked to degrade my user experience. ‘Enhanced’ ‘privacy’ through surrendering the data to people with questionable reputations (basically any politician)? They claim to be acting on behalf of the people, yet ‘the people’ seem to have no say in it whatsoever. 

The 'people' were consulted during the consultation period on the different aspects for which were applicable, as were the industry players. Anyone who wanted to give an opinion was able to. 

These aren't 'blind' moves. There are impact assessments. 

Sometimes (common chargers) there is no one size fits all solution. That was highlighted in the impact assessment.

Other times users have no final say because current legislation may be being infringed. 

You, as a user, will not be forced to use an alternative app store. The whole point is choice. 

You mean there were actual user surveys? If so, I completely missed that part. 

Also, if it's all about choice, then a provision should be included to make sure the developers are to submit their apps to the App Store, too, so that they couldn't force the user to either download them from a third-party platform or get lost if the said user disagrees.

You only need to download the impact assessment for something like the common charger initiative. It has a wealth of information. 

The consultation phase lasted 11 months. Two companies were tasked with that angle and a representative selection of 5,000 consumers was created. 

Apart from that, anyone in the EU could write directly to their MEP. Don't forget that it was pressure from MEPs that resulted in legislation and not another MoU. 

jas99 said:

My original versions are both still going strong. How many years of use is that? I don’t even know. 

Temporary? You’re flat out wrong. 

The batteries inside them are temporary by definition. I can't see how that can be flat out wrong. There's a chemical reaction going on which is affected by other factors such as heat, cold, usage patterns etc. Charging and use capacity is not indefinite


The fact that the batteries inside them cannot be replaced simply makes the temporary nature of them clearer.

It's logical that, as buyers wake up to this reality, they will become far more cautious of future purchases (especially if they are precisely cheap). 

glnf said:

mattinoz said:

So what's in a modem that is different / hard compared to the M1?

Seems an odd statement to just hang out there.

You are (also) dealing with analogue signal processing at incredibly high frequencies. Designing a microprocessor is stacking up Lego bricks, designing a G5 modem is wizardry and magic with thrown in quantum effects. So to speak.

Not to mention all the standards compliance, testing and certification processes. 

Then the finished product has to actually play well with the deployed carrier infrastructure out there where Qualcomm and Huawei etc will have a major advantage, as both of them are actively involved in making that hardware as well as moving it forward (5.5G, 6G...).

Of course, financially, there is no getting away from paying patent fees to both of them in the process.