Dan_Dilger

kkqd1337 said:

I wonder how successful Apple Services would be if you were given a choice of whether or not to use them.

Roll on antitrust. 

What services are you forced to use? Or do you mean that you’d like to see competition for subscription gaming, news and TV? Actually there lots of competition for TV. There’s no real market/demand for news or really gaming. 

lkrupp said:

The only thing about DED’s editorials is that he is a sort of Don Quixote fighting windmills. The tech media doesn’t like Apple, they never have and never will. Apple is anathema to most tech writers, geeks, nerds, and many AI commenters. For this crowd Apple shouldn’t even exist and they cannot accept that it does. No other big tech company triggers so much hate and vitriol, not even Google. The knives are constantly out looking for potential ways to take Apple down. If there’s even a glimmer of hope for a failure of some sort it is trotted out like a prize catch. So fight on, Mr. Dilger but I doubt you will change any minds, especially here in AI forums.

Full disclosure: I’m not trying to change minds. I’m trying to establish a pattern of being consistently correct.

avon b7 said:

China doesn't need Apple. Not a little. Not much. Not a lot and of course definitely not 'desperately' . 

That is a very strange claim to make. 

China can get by without Apple at all. Very easily. 

Apple is just another manufacturer assembler. One of many. It provides jobs, brings in revenue, just like thousands of other companies in China. 

All of China's "thousands" (a couple hundred actually) companies making phones together earn vastly less than Apple. If China didn't desperately need foreign investment, it wouldn't be rushing to keep its foreign investors happy and working to make sure it doesn't lose that. Every SEZ that exists is proof what you claim is just wrong. 

sdw2001 said:

Let's hope the recovery is quick.  My concern is several states (like mine) remaining on lockdown the both the curve has been crushed (not flattened) but the evidence is starting to show extended lockdown does more harm than good.  We can't recover until business can open, even if that initially means no dine-in and pubic gathering initially, followed by distancing , followed by more normalcy through the summer.  Hard to recover when you're still under stay-at-home orders like we are in PA, NJ, DE, MD, etc.  

The point of stay at home orders was partly to "flatten the curve" of infections hitting overburdened ERs and ICUs, but was also suposed to allow time to establsh testing and contract tracing to identify anyone who needed to be isolated to prevent further infections. Other countries did this (Germany) while the USA did not. Instead, Congress spent trillons to socialize losses by banks and big companies without any oversight, and the White House put some donors in charge of organizing young Heritage conservatives to roll out a high school bake-sale scale, random drive-through testing program at 100 WalMarts, gathering worthless data that didn't solve anything. The USA will continue to have Vietnam-scale deaths all summer while the rest of the world continues to recover. The entire Cabinet doesn't care because they all expect to be Raptured soon. Other countries (again, Germany) have done quite a lot to support the self employed, artists, and others. That entire segment of America is going to be destitute reall soon now. It's awful. All because 1/3 of the country refuses to belive in science.

firelock said:

“ without a functional public health system”

Oh please. I generally like DED articles but this is just a hyperbolic political screed.

The US healthcare system is pretty good for employeed healthy people making over $50k, but that's not representitive of the overall population. If you lose your job or run into a temporary financial situaion, just gettting treatment for COVID can easily return a $70,000 bill, and most Americans don't even have $400 saved up for such events. What we are finding out is that the healthcare available to the poorest can impact the affluent. There is no "public health" system in the US, as millions of its citizens have no insurance at all. That includes many people who work full time. Public health is a system that covers the public, not just people who have employeers paying $300-500/month to cover their medical expenses.