- avon b7
- Last Active
I took the 'grandparents etc' to be a simple generalisation with no ill will.
As a generalisation, I think most people will agree that it's a valid statement. There are going to be exceptions but grandparents are less likely to be tech savvy (as a group), than later generations who have grown up with the technology
"In fact, beyond Surface, the only thing to get more reverent adulation from tech media this year was Samsung/Huawei's $2000+ fold phone prototypes that didn't work in the real world at all. It's getting hard to take pundits seriously when they are so overtly out of touch with the reality of the market and what consumers want to buy."
1. "Out of touch with what consumers want to buy?"
How about waiting for both phones to actually reach consumers before jumping to conclusions? Both phones are niche phones. Were you under some different impression? Or do you think there is a huge market for first gen $2,000 phones?
How can you know what consumers want to buy if the products aren't even widely available?
2. "Huawei's $2000+ fold phone prototypes that didn't work in the real world at all."
Really? "At all"? Huawei's phone hasn't even been released yet! Where didn't it work in the real world? It hasn't reached the real world! That said, there have been numerous hands ons (and not just a few minutes) and I have yet to see a single Mate X with issues. Opinions are overwhelmingly favourable and they are the daily drivers of the CEOs and numerous employees.
You clearly want them to fail but at least wait for the Mate X to reach the real world before claiming it didn't work at all and is overly out of touch with what consumers want.
auxio said:avon b7 said:StrangeDays said:avon b7 said:auxio said:crowley said:magman1979 said:franklinjackcon said:MacPro said:Apple, the tech world's R&D department.
Truly wireless ear buds, aka ones that didn't have a stupid cable that connected between the two of them, did not exist before AirPods. Those were the first truly WIRELESS ear buds, and they sound amazing to boot.
ALL of the issues the AirPods solve are common issues to truly wireless earbuds. There is nothing other companies weren't aware of or planning to tackle. In fact some issues remain, like them being virtually disposable devices.
Apple releasing the AirPods didn't suddenly key the industry in on how to tackle those issues. What Apple basically did was develop a custom chip to remedy certain aspects.
Saying that other companies "were planning" on doing the same is a stretch. First, because you have no idea. Second, because by that logic no credit should ever be given to prime movers because at some point in future history somebody would have done the same. Okay....
Yeah, Apple definitely did key in the industry on how to do these things correctly. Had they not done a custom chip to improve BT suckage the industry very likely could and would maintain status quo on BT suckage.
Also, your post is rich considering your Chinese knockoff brand immediately copied AirPods with these gems:
No, sir, no Apple leading the way here... (Hint: the fact of Apple leading the way is why your knockoff CEO said Apple is "the master", to which they are the student)
Every company on the planet with even a passing interest in truly wireless earbuds was aware of the issues involved. They are universal to the problem.
That is completely and undeniably the case. To even suggest they weren't working on resolving those problems (and others like open fit noise cancellation, bone conduct ID, specialised AI processors) etc is literally absurd.
Of course there were things that even Apple couldn't do because it was waiting on improvements from the industry (high bandwidth Bluetooth for example). That is now here and available on competing products so I imagine that if AirPods 3 appear this month, they will have that.
I see this all the time in the tech industry, where people proclaim something to be completely obvious after the fact. That it was just something inevitable. It's kind of like the kids in school who just innately copy from others without even realizing they're doing it. They seem to either lack the level of awareness in their brain which allows them to see it, or they willfully ignore it because it's too painful to face up to their own limitations.
This is about earbuds and, as has been said further up, Apple wasn't even first with the truly wireless earbuds. The issues involved in making a good pair of earbuds don't even have to be 'groundbreaking'. They simply have to overcome a set of issues that everybody faced and were very aware of. In the case of Apple, they went for a self designed chip to resolve some of (but not all) of those issues.
Clearly cost is a factor in how well you can get around shortcomings. That isn't a factor for Apple but it is for many companies making wireless earbuds, but having said that, Apple hasn't implemented noise cancellation on AirPods while others have on their products, so having the money isn't the solution for everything. They have also very probably been waiting for Bluetooth to evolve too (like everyone else).
There are things Apple hasn't done that others have. That's how things go.
As solutions become 'industry solutions', they become off-the-shelf parts and widely available (and cheaper).
In the case of 'groundbreaking' in a wider sense, this is a narrow minded view as it is being applied to a CE company. It is false to say other companies aren't producing groundbreaking products. They are. Both in CE and far beyond. And lots of them.
That people don't see that and claim Apple is the R&D department for everyone else is simply being blind to reality.
Look no further than the latest iPhones. Most of the tentpole features have been on competing phones for a very long time. That doesn't stop people from making crazy claims though.
There are people who have insistently claimed Apple doesn't do this or that and those people in spite of being so sure of themselves, have been consistently wrong.
As a result, I'm not going to go against this rumour. I've suggested the same approach for Apple as a valid option for the last three years and fleshed out why I think it could happen.
I'm not saying it's something Apple necessarily wants to do but that it may have no choice to do if market realities don't change.
An A13 looks like a big attraction but I think a lower priced phone could easily get by on an A12. A spring release makes all the sense in the world and overall cost reductions too.
There won't only be iPhone 6 holdouts of course. There will be the risk of seeing this rumoured phone eat into the higher tiers. It also makes sense for less industrialised markets. I hope they don't choose to restrict it to such markets though.
Overall, a thumbs up from me if the phone materialises at a decent price.
lkrupp said:This is what a global corporation has to deal with. How can Cook and company espouse all their liberal twaddle here in the U.S. but then turn around and kowtow to a totalitarian dictatorship in China? It’s the money, pure and simple. Apple and a plethora of American companies’ financial lives are completely dependent on China. Apple, who presents itself as a poster boy for peace, love, tolerance, diversity... and unicorns, turns out to be the biggest hypocrite on the planet when it comes to keeping the money flowing. Apple removed the app over “legality concerns” my old, stinky ass.
I wonder what Apple would do if an app like this one were developed for the U.S.? Would Apple refuse to approve it or would they give the government their middle finger and let it in the App Store?
Apple, and everyone else in a similar situation, has to perform a balancing act, often taking decisions on the spur of the moment because you can't anticipate every eventuality. Just like with everyone, mistakes will be made along the way. Stupid things will sometimes be said by executives. I think when there is no right or wrong because context is changing all the time we have to cut them some slack.
You're right that money talks and money rules but the U.S is the land of the lobby where money often overrides everything.
I'm pretty critical of Apple for varying reasons but on the face of it, this looks like a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' situation. Again, on the face of it, Apple's stance looks understandable IMO.