franklinjackcon

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.

New Zealand is not being unfair to Apple. These laws apply to all companies. Flouting them (through ignorance or deliberately) will lead to this kind of action.

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.

They were fined about a million euros in Italy a few years ago for doing exactly that - charging customers for coverage that they were already legally entitled to.

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.

MacPro said:

I guess we can see who all the Fox Faux News aficionados are.

You don't need to consume Faux News to know that CNN has a lot of work to do to convince people that their service is worth paying for.

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. 

I'm guessing you only read the headline?

A whole analysis on prices and not a mention of the USD tanking over the last year vs major currencies. In Europe, if you bought a phone for the same price today as you did a year ago, it'd look like you bought a 20% more expensive phone in USD.

rotateleftbyte said:

You won't find me on any social media site as I think they are all a total waste of time. All you do is expose your life so that advertisers can try to sell you more tat that you don't need and probably can't afford. Welcome to the machine people!

Posts: 1,100

There are two different business models that seem to be getting blended into one in this article. "Good-enough gear" could arguably apply to midrange phones or if you think they are below the bar set by Apple, then flagships of Samsung and Huawei. They do 90% of the job of an iPhone and I assume most people on here would agree with that, it's the extra 10% that they are will to pay a 30% premium for.

Then there's the second business model of getting gear/services out to their users before they are ready. This is where the Fold fits in. This isn't some good enough product at a discount, it's new form factor at a premium. Apple wouldn't put such a device on the market until it's better but Samsung will and hopefully the early adopters realise that.

These editorials always seem to suggest that Apple's way is the right way but the world is better having both types of companies. It's not a zero sum game, technology keeps going up every time any tech company releases something new a bit flaky or something old but better.

urahara said:

We as (French) individuals would have to pay those taxes. Especially for products/services provided by such companies like Apple or Amazon, who focus on providing value to a private person. Why should those companies pay more than French companies?
This is such a BS.

One of the original problems that prompted this was Google, selling a digital service like advertising. They would sell advertising to French companies to advertise to French viewers on French websites but because they sold the service from another country (I think it was Ireland), the French companies paid VAT to Google but it went to that other country. They also recognised no revenue in France as a result and paid no tax on the profit. A French company performing the same service as Google would be contributing to the local economy that they are benefitting from by paying both VAT and tax on their earnings. You are fortunate that France has a large domestic economy and many local corporations. In smaller countries with many more foreign companies, it's even harder for the government to collect tax.  

MacPro said:

Apple, the tech world's R&D department.

More like the tech world's marketing department. Wireless buds existed before Apple "invented" them but no one was buying them.

doctwelve said:

Daniel, I really want these editorials off Appleinsider .... and on a less Apple-centric site. I send links to your editorials to my PC/Android friends, but I wish you had a bigger voice in the tech writing world. Another great piece. 

They are usually too long and ranty to make it onto any other site. They'd need to be heavily edited before anyone that only has a passing interest in Apple would read them right through.