avon b7

davidlewis54 said:

As the headline says, if Spotify is the dominant provider in the EU so it can hardly complain about Apple Music dominance.

We all have a choice which service we use so there’s no need for any external pressure.   If you want to build your company provide a reason why customers should buy from you.

It’s just nonsense and noise and just another attempt by companies to blame Apple for their incompetence.

Is it about dominance or abuse of dominance?

Does the headline fit in that context? 

If there is no need for external pressure then why did Apple need anti-steering rules? Why was it found to be not complying with the regulations?

Better to wait and see if Apple's changes bring it into compliance or not. 

IMO, they don't but it's not my call. 

sdw2001 said:

baconstang said:

Shhhh.... Don't tell the Dotard.  He thinks he just pulled off an amazing deal....

Yeah, the dotard who conducted the greatest comeback in political history---despite the full force of the US government, media and majority of leftist global powers against him.  I understand why leftists don't like Trump, disagree with him or even hate him.  But I'll never understand how they think he's stupid.  

He showed his negotiating hand to Russia before even tabling negotiations (which he also decided should be done without letting Ukraine participate). At the same time he weakened the western geopolitical stance by criticising the EU nations - in the EU and on EU soil (via Hegseth/Vance) - sowing MAJOR discontent among allies, calling Zelenskyy and dictator and saying he started the conflict!

He is ignorant on foreign policy. Not a just a bit, not just in some areas but entirely ignorant and in every area.

He thought Spain was part of BRICS! He wasn't sure if China was part of BRICS and then claimed BRICS was dead anyway. 

Just a few off-the-top-of-my-head examples and from only a few weeks in government.

He's writing the second edition of 'How not to govern'. He wrote the first edition too. 

My recollection of events is different.

I've always seen Apple as being as far away from Qualcomm as it possibly could right from the patent spat and switch to Intel. 

From that moment on it was Intel all the way (even with poorer performance) wherever possible. 

Qualcomm basically knew it would stop being an Apple supplier for its iPhone modems. Qualcomm never expected Apple to be back after things went to court. 

With that in mind, this isn't a 2025 'loss' for Qualcomm. It's really the complete opposite. It's the beginning of the end of a multi-billion dollar surprise windfall for Qualcomm that it never expected to have in the first place. It has been laughing all the way to the bank since 2019 due to Apple having no other option but to cease litigation and sign on to a new Qualcomm deal.

That definitely wasn't anywhere on Apple's roadmap. Neither was a homegrown modem. 

This snippet reads strangely to me:

"In 2019, Apple and Qualcomm reached a new agreement that ended their legal battle. The deal included a multiyear contract for Qualcomm to supply modems to Apple and a one-time payment of approximately $4.5 billion from Apple.

But for Intel, the outcome was bleak. Since Apple was its only modem customer, the new arrangement meant Intel was out of the picture."

It reads like Apple signed with Qualcomm and left Intel with a bleak outlook whereas my recollection is the opposite.

Intel failed to deliver and left Apple with no option but to go back to Qualcomm.

As a result of Intel failing to deliver a viable product on time, Apple had to make a key strategic decision: stick with Qualcomm and save billions in the process or go it alone and try to build a modem itself.

It chose the latter. 

As a strategic move it was correct IMO. It was costly and left them literally years behind the competition (in terms of homegrown products) but the deal with Qualcomm was at least a lifeline to a competitive solution. The result remains far behind current solutions but at least the public roadmap is clearer. Basically to wait even more years for a competitive solution and even then it would be crazy to think Qualcomm, Mediatek and Huawei are resting on their laurels. 

Again from a strategic perspective, I wouldn't be concerned if Apple's solutions are not as performant on speed but they absolutely must be robust in terms of things like handover, holding a signal and dealing with very weak signals. In those situations other areas are critical: materials, antennas and AI. Existing solutions have made great strides with that over the years. Energy efficiency is not relevant because current solutions are already fine for current usage. 

Patent-wise, it will continue to pay Qualcomm, Huawei, Samsung etc. In engineering terms, I have an inkling that Mediatek, Broadcom and Qualcomm still remain key elements in Apple's efforts to get a cellular/wifi solution onto its devices. 

StrangeDays said:

avon b7 said:

The advent of triple camera iPhones brought us ugly.

If correct, these 17 series models are the new ugly. And they have an extra ration of ugly slapped on for good measure. 

Nah. My iPhone Pro looks awesome. Nobody cares about this shit except the whiners and haters. They said the same thing about the “ugly screws” on the iPhone 4 leaks, and now it’s considered a timeless classic. 

It's all subjective but only to a point. I think your 'awesome' looking phone is akin to having an ugly dog. You simply got used to it. 

If you go back in time to when the first leaks of the current back-design tri-camera iPhones were rumoured there were people who said Apple would never release that design but that's what they got and they had no option but to swallow hard and 'like' it.

If this design is real (I'm sure most iPhone users are praying it isn't!), some people are going to have to get used to the Google Pixel comparisons too.

The current design has been compared to a stove top. Maybe this new one houses a heater to keep your coffee warm! 

Drawing a parallel to a design choice of screws (which are discreet to the point of being invisible to most people) and the overall design aesthetic (which is totally in your face) is stretching things a bit.

My original post was tongue-in-cheek even though I don't like the design at all. However, There is a long way to from a very basic render to a fully polished final design where materials and colour combinations can make all the difference.

We've seen it time and again so all is not lost - yet. 

rob53 said:

Why in Texas? People thought Apple's products were getting too expensive, just wait for products coming out of Texas. They will break everyone's budget. Who in Texas will actually work at this manufacturing facility? Will everything be automated? Where will the people for these 20K come from, India? Who's going to build the facility? Not the hardest workers from south of the border. trump made sure of that.

The servers aren't for sale so that isn't a factor in that particular regard. They are for in-house use so Apple can swallow the costs. They were built outside the US previously for good reason. 

Now, with tariffs and all, and also federal or state incentives, it probably works out as acceptable to do the manufacturing on US soil. 

Reducing supply chain external interplay (and possible interference) is also becoming a hot topic so the more manufacturing is done at home makes sense as long as it doesn't break the bank to do so. 

I agree that 20,000 jobs is a drop in the ocean but anything is better than nothing. How many will go to US citizens is another matter but I'm sure that Cook pushed back on Trump thinking in that regard in their meetings in order for Apple to be able to hire whoever is needed with little red tape.

Most of this announcement is probably not really Trump related. The server farms (Apple manufactured or not) were probably in the final stages of planning before Trump got back into the White House.