- Last Active
avon b7 said:nunzy said:New Zealand is being unfair to Apple. If anybody knows how to take care of its customers, it is Apple.
Apple has a long history of trying to flout EU consumer law with its selling practices of AppleCare for mobile devices. It is a repeat offender, and AFAIK, never challenges consumer protection demands because it has known from the outset that, in the training phase of store employees and the wording of online marketing, it was misleading purchasers. I think it has had its house in order for a couple of years now although they tried to sell me AppleCare when I bought the iPhone 6 using the same tactics that consumer groups were complaining about.
When I pointed out that the two year coverage the guy was trying to 'sell' me was already included in my statutory consumer rights, he gave a wry smile and conceded I was right but said he had the obligation to offer it to me anyway.
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears. Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
debohun said:But should there have been a difference? Drawing an absolute moral equivalency between all crimes (White color crime equaling mass murder in your example case), only makes Apple (and AppleInsider) appear to be a pandering partisan corporation. What next, handing information over to the government for parking tickets? So much for thinking different.
Cesar Battistini Maziero said:The experience on iOS is far superior.The lack of problems and freezing is what makes iPhone great.My mon has a seven, and it's still blazing fast!
It's hard to believe the rival numbers are accurate. I was at a Wal-Mart* waiting for the bathroom to open(janitor was cleaning) and just for fun decided to look at peoples wrists. Apple Watches everywhere I looked. There were at least 2 Apple Watches in my view at all times during the 5 minute wait). I even saw 3 teens at the self checkout and 2 had an Apple Watch but I couldn't see what the other was wearing but she had an iPhone and it looked like all 3 had a Watch. The only non-Apple Watches I saw were about 3 analog ones compared to about 10 Apple Watches. It's not uncommon in the States to see couples or groups of friends all with Apple Watches on.
Rarely do you see an android watch but sometimes you'll see a fitbit.
In my experience here is the watch popularity in the past 3 years:
1. Apple Watch
2. Analog Watches
4. Android spyware
P.S. Tim can't innovate Apple died with Steve Jobs the Watch is too expensive and Health is a gimmick yada yada.
*Another reason Wal-Mart is ignorant for not supporting ApplePay.
The headline is a bit strange. It suggests Google and Amazon are racing to imitate an Apple product that has not been released or even announced - or did I miss an announcement? We could just as easily say Apple is racing to imitate Google or Amazon. Or more likely, they are all racing to compete in the health/wearables market, which is hardly a surprise.
maestro64 said:Anyone who lives in the northeast would you want a car drive you around which was trained on California roads? I'll give you a hint, would you get in any car with a person who never seen snow and let them drive you during the storm we just had.
The van Idea make sense since it give more room for batteries and allows the sensor to have higher vantage point.
When I tough my kids to drive one things I taught them was not to always watch the car in front of them but the cars 10 in front as well as the cars behind. I have avoided more accidents because I saw brake lights way ahead and began slowing long before the car in front of me even tapped their brakes, this also allowed the cars behind me to begin slowing so we all did not have to panic stop. This is call offensive driving which most drivers do not do and think about the people programing theses system, what view of driving do they follow.
With regards to where the cars are being trained - they start out somewhere nice and dry and flat and straight then launch there, as we've seen with Waymo. Once they are confident that they are ready to test in more difficult conditions, they'll do that. There's no chance they will just launch in the NE having trained only in Cali or Arizona.
I don't live in the US so my experience is different due to VAT, smaller size of the market and different competition but the difference between buying an S9 the day it's released - usually at the expensive retail chains - and buying it a month or two later when smaller, cheaper, but still reputable online stores get in the game is huge. On launch date, the S9 cost about $1200, a month later it was $800 and $600 today. If you're someone willing to buy on day one, you're probably not worried about resale value. Anyone else would wait and then the difference a couple of years later isn't as dramatic as portrayed in this article. For comparison, a similar iPhone X went from $1500 on launch day, up to $1600 a month later and then slowly came down to $1000 today.
I don't know what resale prices are like here but even if your $800 S9 went down in resale value by 70%, paying that much less up front makes up the difference and then some.