libertyandfree

This is a proposal from people whom do not understand consumer electronics or economics.   Who in the world would want to repair a 7, 6 or even 5 year old phone or tablet?  The repair cost would exceed the device value or at best be a wash.  Typical European government wanting to interfere with the free market - the nanny state always goes too far.   Do these “geniuses” ever think that maybe one could buy a used 6 year old phone or tablet for a lot less than it would take to repair the same device.  This is a brain dead proposal from the Germans.  

The M3 iMac is a very nice upgrade but Apples pricing for memory and SSD upgrades is ludicrous.  These upgrade prices should be sliced in half immediately and Apple would still be making huge profit margins on them.  Minimum configuration should be 16GB and 512GB SSD.  The lower options should not exist. 

macxpress said:

beowulfschmidt said:

No doubt someone will claim that Apple has an unfair advantage, and buying all of the first batch is simply a tactic to suppress other potential buyers.

Apple also used to purchase all of the NAND Flash chips for its iPods, iPhones and certain Macs back in the day too....because it had the money to do so and it wanted to make sure the supply of NAND Flash wasn't the limiting factor in getting their products out the door. 

tmay said:

I very much doubt that Apple would be inclined to purchase 2nm SOC's for the equivalent of a "year's worth of revenue" at $173 B, given that Apple is typically about 25% of TSMC revenue (something on the order of $18 B in 2023). 

Still, what would Apple want to do with all of those additional transistors that they are "allegedly"  purchasing? 

My guess would be iPhones and some type of updated Mac....and obviously more M4 iPads. 

Now this is absurd since no way is Apple securing $100B+ from TMSC Apple doesn’t spend anywhere close to that on semiconductors over a few years.  Let’s do some simple math; iPhone processors are about $30 each and for 200M iPhones that’s only $6B per year and lets assume Apple sells 25M Mac’s and those CPUs say cost $200 each that’s another $5B  and  Apple sells about 50M iPads and assume avg processor cost of $60  that adds another $3B.  So we are at about $14B per year even if I’m off by a factor of 2 it’s no where near $170B even over a few years.  

flydog said:

This article manufactures a non-existent controversy to justify its existence. I haven’t seen any evidence that Samsung is treated differently than Apple in the press or the public eye.  

Although the Verge stated just yesterday, "My Samsung Galaxy Fold screen broke after just a day. Yikes," this article refers to the author as passive and as evidence of an anti-Apple bias, cherry picking quotes to justify its false premise.  If anything, the Verge article is evidence of the opposite:   

We’ve seen worries about scratches on expensive phones and debris breaking the keyboard on expensive MacBooks, but a piece of debris distorting the screen on a $1,980 phone after one day of use feels like it’s on an entirely different level.

 Wow you are in denial.  If Apple released a folding phone that did this it would be a lead story on the news and #foldgate would be #1 on Twitter.  The media pressure on Apple would be insane. 

dangaioh said:

It’s about time. Apple always seems to be playing catch-up with Samsung which has had Always-on display as far back as 2016 starting with the Samsung Galaxy S7.

Apple may seem like it's always playing catchup but there are a few things you need to understand why this is so.  
1) Apple will not introduce a new feature until it's near perfect, they don't strive to be the first but to provide a great user experience (Samsung obviously doesn't hold to this standard).  
2) Apple has a massive R&D team developing new tech and features all the time and annually files numerous patents.  Because it takes a long time from the initial prototype to a polished product doesn't mean they are not leading on the tech front. 
2) Apple rolls out new features across all Pro models and or all iPhone models at once and based upon the sheer volume of devices (min 80M/year for Pro's) they need a large well-stocked supply chain (Samsung doesn't hold to this).  This is a major reason OLED took so long to arrive on the iPhone. 

mknelson said:

lkrupp said:

I’m not the least bit worried about Warren’s plan ever becoming law. She’s a radical with radical, untenable ideas, as is AOC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

1982… that was while Reagan was president… 

  You obviously are too young to even understand what AT&T was back then.  They were a govt protected monopoly which is not even in the same universe of companies like Google or Facebook etc.  AT&T monopoly should never have been allowed and once it existed it should have ended in the 1940’s. The Termination of the govt monopoly that was AT&T was a godsend for the people of the country.   True monopolies can only exist with govt enforcement power behind them this is not what Google, Facebook, etc. are.  But Warren is just playing to her ignorant base of supports by being an extreme progressive.  

 Just when I thought Apple could not get more lame in their colour selection they now added poo colour.   Please Apple can you hire people that actually like colour.  These colours are soooo boring and lame.  Why not just make every iPhone in black (eg like the Model T) and call it done. 

bytor said:

California places zero value on anyone else’s speech, political views or voting 

Bravo x 100.  

64GB on an iPad mini would be criminal neglect.  No way should it ever have less than 128GB. 

 Seems like a product in search of a problem.