avon b7

phillyfanatic09 said:

“CheeseFreeze said:

jfreedle2 said:

Side loading is moronic and stupid, and only an idiot would suggest it. I feel sorry that some idiot is attempting to “require” it. 

I guess I’m that “stupid guy”, and with me all EU citizens. And you know what? The experience has been amazing so far. “

I suspect not a lot of side loading is happening in the EU or elsewhere, even Android side loading is a minor part of app usage on that platform.

In the end, side loading is about money and where that money goes - to Apple for providing and developing the platform or software developers for developing their products. Both deserve compensation. Consumers gain control but probably won’t save money and, to the extent that Apple loses money to developers and seeks new revenue streams from consumers, may pay more.

melgross said:

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said: Folding phones have a huge selling point: the folding part. It's safe to say 100% of folding phones are sold on that feature. 

But that doesn't mean customers consider the folding part to be without flaws. And saying folding is a "huge" selling point is contradicted by the actual sales of folding phones.

No one is saying there are no flaws. 

The folding aspect is huge for the people who buy folding phones. It's the number one reason for the sale. How many units are sold is not relevant. 

People most certainly don't buy iPhones for Siri and Apple Intelligence is far from where it needs to be at the moment. 

The number of sales is very relevant. It’s always relevant. If they don’t sell enough, they can’t lay all of the costs, which are huge. They may be selling the phones at a loss. Nobody outside of the companies involved know the answer to that.

Xed said:

MplsP said:

Xed said:

welshdog said:

y2an said:

As I expected, much improved repairability. And actually, that’s not because it was designed specifically for repairability rather it’s because it was designed for manufacturability. Apple’s goal is now to be able to transfer manufacturing quickly between countries which means assembly skills have to be simplified.

I feel that if repairability and recyclability were required by law, it would be easier for everyone - companies and consumers alike. It is irrelevant that such constraints might have an effect on the design of the products. Designers egos and human tech infatuation are not valid reasons to make products that waste resources. I hope Apple, for what ever reason, continues to move in this direction of lower waste product lifespans for their products.

What about the waste that comes from building to the lowest common denominator? How do you build a modern smartphone that has to be designed so that anyone can repair it? If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?

I used to repair iPhones a lot and it wasn't a big deal for me, but that was before they had IP68 ratings. After that they did become more problematic. I did it because of my "tech infatuation," as you call it, which is also why I rad this article and watched the teardown. I don't think it's "tech infatuation" to want the best device possible and not expecting everything made by a company to be repairable by the customer. Does that also mean AirPods Pros can have batteries users can replace? How exactly would that work?

Not sure what you mean by 'lowest common denominator' but you seem to be using a straw man argument to make your claim. No one says that everyone should be able to fix an iPhone but we've seen designs in the past that required disconnecting the logic board to replace the battery. How about the Magic Mouse (apart from the incredibly stupid decision to put the charging port on the bottom.) The entire assembly is glued together making battery replacement next to impossible. Design decisions like these are completely unnecessary and more a sign of laziness than anything else.

Considering that I replied to a comment that stated "easier for everyone" it should be clear to you why I used the phrasing that I did. And if you then read another sentence further you'd see that I very clearly wrote, "If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?" So where do you draw the line?

You can wish that Apple made products easier to repair, but you haven't stated anything that is useful to them or to the consumer to make this possible. Again I'll ask how you would design AirPods to make their batteries user replaceable?

The bottom line is that you can't have progress if you want want to enact laws that requires Apple to make all these components user replaceable. It just can't happen. You can want this to be how the technology evolves — I certainly do — but making pie eyed comments about how great it would be to replace, say, the camera model on the iPhone 17 like it was on the original iPhone is meaningless techjackulation. When you consider waste you need to consider more than just what suits your particular needs.

At one point people expected transistors to be user replaceable, but that day is long past. Components will get smaller and more integrated which will affect the repairability of individual components, but this will also lead to opportunities for certain other components to be more repairable just as we've sene in the few years, but this is not by any means a set cadence for progress.

PS: LCD refers to the lowest level of a consumer group.

ApplePoor said:

Apple's goal is complete vertical integration. Best example is Ford's Rouge Plant in Detroit where the iron ore from the far end of Lake Superior arrived by ship arrived at one end of the plant and a finished vehicle came out the other end. Little outside products are used to make the finished product.

So Apple is tooling up to make their own modems (which may also be used elsewhere like in their future computers and iPads) and their own versions of the Bluetooth and WiFi chips. Their economies of scale production would increase their new profits over time by not paying others to build the same products.

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said: Folding phones have a huge selling point: the folding part. It's safe to say 100% of folding phones are sold on that feature. 

But that doesn't mean customers consider the folding part to be without flaws. And saying folding is a "huge" selling point is contradicted by the actual sales of folding phones.