leighr

Also, I get a sore hand from writing too much with a pen and paper. They need to fix that.

Chin looks waaay better. Bulked-up backs say “we tried to look thin but couldn’t do it, so we hid the mistakes at the back”. 

As the “store owner” surely Apple has a right to charge a fee, in this case 30%. Amazon and eBay (as do most other online storefronts) charge a fee to use their service, as does every single bricks and mortar store, when you purchase an item with markup. Supermarkets even charge manufacturers a fee to stock their goods in prominent places in their stores, as this results in higher sales. Apple built the store, developed the customer base, and continues to operate and improve the store. It all needs to be paid for with a percentage of the developer’s profits, which is still 70% more than they would be getting if they didn’t use the App Store. Not to mention that Tesla charges its customers an ongoing monthly fee to access features in the vehicle they have already bought. 

In these cases, where “companies” have simply bought a patent that is similar to an industry-wide practice, the payout figure needs to be somehow based on a percentage of the infringed companies’ own production numbers vs the infringing company. So that a company that makes zero products themselves have essentially a zero dollar claim, but a company that has a $5M turnover, which could be shown to have been $50M, had the IP not been copied, are compensated appropriately. This would, as Apple states, stop these ridiculous non-practicing entities from making ludicrous claims. 

You would have thought that after the first 1,400 phone replacements assigned to his AppleID or whatever ID was used, that Apple would have twigged. Not sure how you can return so many items without raising a red flag?

We all know that business ethics do not exist in China. Combine that with a government that demands access to all your information or else you “disappear”, and you’ve got no data privacy whatsoever. “Strong data security” does not mean that it is not shared, it just means that it is securely shared. 

The ink/toner deferred profit model which Canon, Epson, Brother etc.  use, should have been stopped years ago. Its simply irresponsible and environmentally absurd. If it is cheaper for me to buy a brand new printer (with included ink) than it is to buy a few cartridges of ink, then something is wrong. This results in people simply throwing printers away when they run out of ink, buying a whole new printer, to save money. Time these companies were called out for their price fixing and environmental damage. 

"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance," - Steve Ballmer.  

I realise that Apple has spent a long time developing their AR, but I can’t help but wonder if their time has been misplaced. Both MS and Google tried, and failed, which is not unusual, and Samsung will no doubt copy as soon as it can, but until an AR headset is indistinguishable from a normal pair of glasses, and can offer better visual assistance than glasses, I can’t see them going mainstream. AI, on the other hand, is a market that Apple needs to get into and do well, and quickly. 

What about other devices that have their own App Store. I’m thinking Sony PlayStation, XBox, all Smart TVs. What about streaming - should Netflix be forced to allow content from other sources? I only hope that if Apple is forced to allow side loading and crimware stores, that it voids all AppleCare and warranty privileges, similar to car manufacturers stating that use of non-genuine parts voids the manufacturer’s warranty. Why should Apple be forced to fix someone’s phone because an idiot downloaded malware from a dodgy store...