avon b7

sbdude said:

avon b7 said:

sflocal said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

BYD replaces Foxconn, and Huawei replaces Apple, which is wonderful for indigenous phone sales, but not so much for exports. It's hard to imagine that BYD and Huawei will be better for the workers and local economies than Foxconn and Apple, but that's what the PRC will end up with.

I appreciate that Apple is interested in adding more countries, like Indonesia, to its supply chain, while vacating a portion of its supply chain in China.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/foxconn-reportedly-paying-huawei-workers-more-than-iphone-builders

From the article:

"Xu told the SCMP that FIH employees are often paid higher but that the group that makes iPhones "typically offers better welfare programmes for workers than others," suggesting better benefits."

Nice try.

'often', 'suggesting'... Is vague at best but I have no issue with including all the article references. 

A 'nice try' would have seen me quote only the wages part. 

I simply countered the original claim with factual information: the higher wages. 

That's balance in the discussion. 

It's worth noting that benefits vs wages is often a trade-off situation but it's more likely that higher wages will stimulate the local area economies more than 'benefits'. 

Yes, we've all seen what higher wages does to local economies. It's called inflation.

That’s debatable but I'd say in certain situations it increases the cost of living. Just look at Cork for example and the impact Apple and Google have had. 

Inflation though because of higher wages isn't as clear cut. Some say wages follow inflation and I think the Fed issued a report on this last year attributing 0.1% of a 3% rise in inflation to wages.

Ironically I am sitting on a train traveling home from Barcelona and not paying a cent. The train service is free this year (as it was last year) as an anti-inflationary measure and if anything, wages have been going down.

That's 1,000+ euros saved for me. 

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

The user has clicked on Safari for a reason and won't have time to correctly process a dialog that's sitting between them and their desired page. The most likely result is that the user will choose Safari out of inertia and then that will stick. 

In the past you have posted in support of third-party app stores and mentioned that it’s great for user choice, that people can make their own decisions on how safe apps from those stores would be from a privacy and security standpoint, etc. Now you’re saying asking users to choose a browser the first time they want to go online is too difficult for the user. 

Why do you think users are competent enough to navigate the relatively opaque privacy and security policies of apps that would come from currently unvetted third-party stores  but those same users won’t figure out a dialog box asking them to choose a browser? To me the dialog box seems much easier than personally vetting apps. 

This isn't about privacy, security or anything similar. 

It's about moving the place of the screen where users choose. No more, no less. 

It's very similar to the tactics used by most software companies when new terms and conditions must be signed off on. 

If an upgrade is available that requires accepting new terms and conditions, then that fact should be presented to users when they are notified that the update is available. And an option to view the new ToS should also be available.

That isn't the case. Updates are pushed out and 'sold' to users (new features, bug fixes, security etc) and it is only when the update is installed that the ToS appear. 

Rejecting those terms often leads to a message warning the user to stop using the software, or other such limitation, and very probably with no one-click downgrade available. 

Most users, wanting to get back to their app or system as soon as possible will simply click 'accept'. Inertia again. 

It is equally wrong. 

"You always could install alternative browsers on the iPhone, you weren't required to stay with Safari. You just had to know that the alternatives existed and, perhaps more seriously, all the alternatives still had to depend on the same Apple WebKit that Safari does."

A alternative web browser that doesn't allow for changing the engine can't really be called an alternative.


"it's deeply unlikely that the average iPhone user would be able to tell alternative browser engine apart."

My wife has run into numerous problems over the years where mobile Safari has been unable to function with web sites and she's had to move to a non-WebKit device.

The easiest solution to this issue is to present the user with a browser selection dialog on first boot after the OS update and during setup for new iOS users. 

No one would have problems understanding what the dialog was related to.

This current situation is a type of concealed coercion. 

The user has clicked on Safari for a reason and won't have time to correctly process a dialog that's sitting between them and their desired page. The most likely result is that the user will choose Safari out of inertia and then that will stick. 

Apple is fully aware of this. 

Anilu_777 said:

America needs to out-compete China, not ban it like they did with Huawei and now with TikTok. They can call it what ever they want (national security or national whatever) but if US companies had a better product then Americans would use it. Sad image for the US. 

I agree. Ban if you have good reason to ban. Show evidence and act accordingly. 

'Suspecting' this or that could happen and throwing everything under a 'national security' umbrella is doomed to failure. 

That failure itself would be OK if it only impacted the country taking the action. 

The problem is when you start demanding others follow suit (as the US does with its 'allies'). 

It won't work with places like China. Even now, Blinken is in China telling them what to do with their Russian interests - on their own soil. That is crazy.

Would US politicians accept someone from China landing in Washington and threatening action if they didn't get their way? 

Sadly, US interests (and with it, influence) are being impacted by foolhardy decisions of a few China hawks with influence. 

Non-US companies are wisely seeking to 'de-Americanise' for fear of being dumped onto some entity list, or worse, being required to stop doing business with someone simply because a small part of US technology is used in their equipment. All unilaterally. 

The best route from the get go was to out-compete/out-innovate rivals, not 'ban' them for reasons with zero supporting evidence. 

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/why-the-united-states-is-losing-the-tech-war-with-china

The Tik Tok situation is more paranoia than anything else. 

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

ssfe11 said:

Even the EU must be like…”stop the whining already”. Every parent eventually gets sick and tired of their one constantly complaining child and eventually says “leave me alone”. Then the child goes away. 

I doubt the EU sees things that way. 

It is likely the EU even agrees with Spotify's stance. 

It has nothing to do with what Spotify pays or doesn't pay. 

The EU is too vested in the success of Spotify, now the EU's Champion, to change anything now...

That would be reason for complaint. 

The EU isn't the protector of Spotify. It isn't about spotify. The EU is the 'leveller of fields' and Apple transfering a commission from one place to another (even if lower) is a deliberate attempt to keep the field lopsided in Apple's favor. 

I highly doubt the EU will look favorably on this and I very much doubt Apple would be able to plead compliance with a straight face.