- Last Active
tacoplenty said:Apple has become a turgid bueocracy under Tim Cook.
dominikhoffmann said:tnet-primary said:There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI. Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument? And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.
Stay out of politics, please.
He could probably run rings around any of you in matters of the law, especially criminal law.
ireland said:Yes, but how many old users left Netflix? I left.
Disney+ not available here. What’s it like? Name the kinds of stuff on there, please.
I’ve never understood the angst about the Magic Mouse 2 charging port. The critique above explains clearly why the port doesn’t need to be on the edge or top of the mouse. Less than a minute’s charge yields hours of use.
As as noted in another post above, a charging cable isn’t structurally designed to handle the motions and bending involved with being a mouse cord. Yet, you can rest assured that lots of people would just leave it plugged in all the time, damaging the cable and the charging port on the mouse as well. Then there would be lots of complaints and inevitable class-action lawsuits over the poorly designed charging cables and charging ports. And for what? Because users can’t wait a minute or two to charge up the mouse for a day’s use.
Or or they could put the charging port on the bottom of the mouse, so the user can’t misuse the charging cable, torquing, twisting and damaging it and the mouse.
No, Ive and Apple knew exactly what they were doing here, and they made the right choice.
Why is this even a story about Apple Pay? A pricing error occurred prior to Apple Pay carrying out the transaction as displayed. The customer completed the transaction without looking at the erroneous total. A refund was made, but complicated by hardware failures that have nothing to do with Apple Pay. This is a non-story.
Mike Wuerthele said:tnet-primary said:There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI. Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument? And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.
Stay out of politics, please.
You'll probably find that the other coverage of this particular matter in other venues exclude "general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests" -- which is the entire point of the matter.
I haven't seen any commentary about a flip-side of this issue: Air Tags as evidence against stalkers. These devices are registered to a single user, and presumably leave a data trail on Apple servers somewhere. It's easy for a stalker to drop a tag in someone's bag, but not so easy to retrieve undetected later. Someone who finds a tag that someone else has placed in their effects could take it to the police. With a properly executed warrant, this could be end up as pretty clear evidence against a stalker who has used one to track someone. A few publicized instances of people being penalized for that, and many potential stalkers may ultimately hesitate to use tags for nefarious purposes.
gatorguy said:GeorgeBMac said:That makes sense to me....I have seen my collection of earbuds growing and growing.Essentially, at this point, almost everybody already has multiple sets of them. Plus, AirPods have essentially obsoleted these things.So, why force people to buy something they don't need and don't want?
The iPhone selling price would be the same with or without them IMO. They end up as a freebie in the box. It makes perfect sense that if hardware revenues are decreasing a bit that those free things get removed and paid things take their place, but you won't be paying less for your next Phone because they took cheap earbuds out of the box. The market will bear the same price with or without them.
It's true that many people already have multiple spare and unused earbuds, charger bricks and cables lying around. Those things are used (or not used) and worn out at different rates than the phones themselves. It would make sense both financially and from an environmental standpoint to start separating those from the phone package, and instead offer discount vouchers with a new iPhone that can be applied toward the purchase of those other things separately. Some percentage of the vouchers will go unused, roughly commensurate with the number of EarPods that are tossed directly into junk drawers now. When you think of it on the macro level of the millions of phones sold every year, that represents a significant amount of waste that can be removed from the system. It is very unlikely that the price of an iPhone would be reduced. Removing the cost of including a set of earbuds with every phone would, however, make it possible to incrementally increase the value of what goes into the phone itself, even accounting for use of discounts towards peripherals, profit, etc.