avon b7

applegeorge said:

VictorMortimer said:

Before you whine about the Mango Mussolini's DoJ, remember that this suit is something that was started during a sane administration to give US more rights to the products WE own.

It doesn't go far enough, we need the right to install whatever software we see fit on OUR devices without Apple's permission or interference.  And while some of the issues have already been resolved, they haven't all been, and they definitely need to be resolved in OUR favor, not Apple's favor.

YOU bought the device knowing exactly what the deal was. Don’t like it, don’t buy it. 

That argument wouldn't even reach court. 

The truth is you cannot make statements like that because there is nothing in the purchase process that spells out the Apple imposed limitations (which Apple could make perfectly clear - but doesn't).

But, running with your idea, do you think these limitations should be made clear to users prior to purchase? If not, why not? 

Apple is potentially on the hook for past and present actions.

No amount of change now or recently can affect what went on in the past.

They effectively used 'first mover' status and the ecosystem narrative to lock out true competition and lock in consumers. Right at the outset. In the process, innovation has been stifled and competition harmed. 

Although in the EU, my wife went for years unable to use our bank's wallet system because Apple only allowed one wallet system. Its own.

She also went years without being able to use the Barcelona public transport NFC phone option because Apple didn't allow it. And even after the introduction of the DSA/DMA, the Barcelona transport authority still had to complain to the EU to gain access. 

My wife's Huawei Watch 'works' with her iPhone on some levels. It works with other Android phones on a much better level. This is by design. Apple makes it difficult for competitors to offer a seamless experience with iPhones. If Apple has to rework things from scratch to offer true like-for-like compatibility, it's because that should have been the case right from the beginning. Interoperability should be a design focus for gatekeepers. Just likes 'standards' are in other areas. Times have changed. We now live in a digital world and there should be wide ranging interoperability. 

And if we go back, almost to the beginning, we already know that Apple had 'lock in' well in it's sights. Previous court cases have revealed internal mails that say as much. 

The changes implemented over the years have almost exclusively been in response to investigations or potential fines. Not voluntary actions. 

Apple isn't alone here but the root problems are quite similar across jurisdictions. There are technicalities that set them apart (EU, DoJ, South Korea, Australia, UK, Japan etc) but IMO, Apple has gone out of its way to impede competition to its own benefit. 

Different jurisdictions are now looking at what has gone on. Most of them have raised issues with Apple. 

Can I understand Apple, Google etc? Yes. 

Should governments be stepping in to level the playing field for everyone? Absolutely. 

And, as I've said many times before, I'd go one step further and actually inform potential purchasers of the limitations of choice that the company imposes. If choice will be limited by the company, just inform users prior to purchase. That should be easy enough. 

Or alternatively, make everything first party and closed off to outside sources. 

It would be great if Apple informed users of its own free will. After all, according to Apple these/those limitations, are a key part of what makes the platform a success. Just make purchasers privvy to what Apple is taking away from them. The same would apply to Google, Meta etc. 

And there lies one of the biggest issues and a major part of Apple's reasoning. 

"threatens the very principles that set iPhone apart in a fiercely competitive market". 

Who is arguing that the market isn't competitive? 

But we'd have to define both 'market' and 'competitive' here. Apple obviously makes no such effort. 

In the US the 'market', in platform terms, can be seen as containing just two players. Android and OS. A duopoly. I wouldn't call that competitive or even fiercely competitive. Basically, there is no competition, just two companies dividing up the market and both of them trying to lock their users onto their respective platforms.

If you just scratch the surface,details of things like the long-standing Google/Apple default search deal immediately pop up! And only through court discovery processes. 

Google paying Apple billions to be the default search option or potentially Google paying Apple billions a year to not compete with it. 

Obviously, there were grounds for investigation here (from both suppositions).

The first Trump admin saw Tim Cook meeting Trump. Various times. Almost in the same period, Huawei handsets were banned in the US. That was 'competition' knee-capped by government. Huawei was on course to be the world's dominant handset maker and was a serious threat to both Apple and Samsung. More grounds for investigation? Possibly. 

But, getting back to the point of the quote. 

Maybe those principles were wrong from the outset. 

What is clear to most jurisdictions around the world is that Apple needs to make changes because the current operation is not healthy for consumers (and again and this case apart, this isn't only an Apple thing).

Put simply, Apple did what it did for so long because it could. And it got away with it. 

Times are changing and Apple doesn't want change but change it will have to. 

In the DoJ case specifically, maybe it will or maybe it won't. Currently there is too much political influence being exercised (in all directions) and then there are those technicalities so it's impossible to know how things will go. 

This would be a logical move and something I've argued in favour of for years.

Both the notion of more models and a scaled roll out. 

It's a win-win on every level and competitors have been doing the same for ages. It works. 

Marketing gets something to 'sell' all year round. 

Manufacturing get it's load lightened. 

Engineering gets some respite. 

Logistics becomes more agile. 

Consumers don't have to wait a full year for the 'latest' phones. 

How they would go about it depends on higher management. 

No 'Pro' models early in the year and 'Pro' models prior to Christmas is definitely an option.

Another is one full range in spring and another in autumn.

The strategic benefit to that is being able to release competitive flagships throughout the year and scale features between releases.

Currently Apple releases phones that are often trailing the competition on new features even at release and then they have to wait a full year for another shot and then the same thing happens all over again. 

IMO, that is one of the main reasons Apple has constantly trailed in camera and battery/charging advances. That's setting aside folding phones for a moment. 

It's also the main reason (but not the only one) why it's losing ground and competitiveness in China quarter after quarter and that is having a knock on effect with wearables etc. 

Not having a car and folding phone simply exacerbate the problem. 

MplsP said:

avon b7 said:

macxpress said:

MplsP said:

A coworker has a folding Android phone (I think it’s a Samsung.) It seems nice for the times you have your phone and need something closer to an iPad mini, but there is a very visible bump/crease in the middle where it folds and the screen did seem to be having some issues along the edges. If you’re watching a movie, the aspect ratio doesn’t really work or help you and you end up with a crease down the middle of the image so it’s really no good for that. The form factor also means you can’t have much of a case or a case with a kickstand so in some ways it’s a bit limiting.

For iPads, many of the same limitations apply, only more so. You’re not trying to fit an iPad in your pocket so they don’t have the size constraints that a smart phone has, and iPads are designed to do more work using the entire screen, so having a crease in the middle is even more of an issue. 

Overall, from what I’ve seen I’d take a standard smartphone and skip the folding screen and i can’t really see the use for a folding iPad. 

This is exactly the issue with folding phones (even iPads for that matter). There's minimal value and far too many tradeoffs. I doubt Apple would ever release something with a crease down the center of the screen. Android users don't care about stuff like that. They'll buy nearly anything if it sounds cool and then act like their product is better because it was first to the market so it's "cutting edge" and Apple is always years behind! 

Plus there's only so many folds it can do before it breaks and I wouldn't be surprised if some even broke prematurely. 

Yet the rumours are constant and pointing to ever-increasing probability of a release in the relatively short term so I think Apple has decided to sign off on the product. 

The notch was a huge trade off for something that wasn't even strictly necessary. 

Glass fronts and backs have to be accepted even though there are great alternatives for backs that are far more durable. 

Folding phones, by nature, need extra care and that is a trade off. A hinge is a potential point of failure that slab phones don't have. But then slab phones can't double as mini tablets.

Anything mechanical will have a certain amount of actions before they break. Buttons, physical sliders, even ports
(insertion/removal). 

Modern folding phones are rated for years of use but the target audience at the high end probably renews the device with every hardware upgrade as they have lots of disposable income. 

I can see why that might appeal to Apple. Especially as they might be losing high income users through not having a competing offering. 

As for the crease, even the first foldable phones (with more visible creases) it was a non-issue. They were hardly noticeable in use. Very similar to the situation with the notch. 

I have to disagree with you on pretty much very point.

The notch was hardly a huge tradeoff and it gave increased security combined with convenience. I suppose you could say those weren't strictly necessary but the majority would disagree with you. I have touchID on my laptop and iPad and FaceID on my phone and FaceID is orders of magnitude better. As for the tradeoff - it uses real estate on the screen that was essentially unused anyway so it really wasn't much of a tradeoff. It's a matter of perspective, but essentially it allowed use of the 'ears' on either side of the camera to extend the screen up.

Many iPhone users keep their phones for years. I'm in that camp. I have an iPhone 12 Pro that's 5 years old and still working perfectly. That's part of the reason I buy iPhones - because they're well made and last several years. I'd rather buy a quality product less frequently than continually replace cheap crap. Any mechanical feature of a device needs to be sturdy enough to last the life of the phone. Especially with a folding phone, if the hinge or screen wear out before the rest of the phone you've essentially compromised the lifespan of the device.

I can also say from personal experience, the crease is most definitely an issue and is clearly noticeable. It may be an acceptable compromise to some people for the novelty of a folding device but to dismiss it as insignificant is simply attempting to rationalize a design deficiency.

The notch wasn't an issue for me at all but in design terms it was huge because it was an always there, always visible aspect and, unlike competitors, Apple offered no way to hide it. 

Just like a crease on a folding phone but with one big difference. You normally never even see it until you tilt the phone to an unnatural angle to force it into view. 

All mechanical parts are stress tested to different ratings and while most get through the lifespan of a phone without issue, some will fail prematurely. 

That is the same with folding phones which also have to deal with the hinge mechanism. Hovever, the minimum hinge rating is 100 folds a day for five years. Some are rated for far more.  There is no design deficiency but they do need more looking after than slab phones. That is very much part of the purchase decision. 

As is buying a slab phone with glass fronts and backs and using them without a case. 

Ratings are just ratings though. Like IP ratings. There are no guarantees involved.

Like I said above, given prices for the 'creme de la creme' folding phones, I doubt longevity is an issue as many who buy them will probably upgrade to the next best thing when it's available. People with a lot of disposable income as opposed to your average buyers. 

That is a market that Apple would love to have access to, especially as it might be losing sales to competitors because it does not offer a competing product. 

And in China, where Apple is having a very tough time, that situation is at risk of getting worse because there is a mature ultra premium market that is being catered to with compelling products, not least the MatePad Fold. 

macxpress said:

MplsP said:

A coworker has a folding Android phone (I think it’s a Samsung.) It seems nice for the times you have your phone and need something closer to an iPad mini, but there is a very visible bump/crease in the middle where it folds and the screen did seem to be having some issues along the edges. If you’re watching a movie, the aspect ratio doesn’t really work or help you and you end up with a crease down the middle of the image so it’s really no good for that. The form factor also means you can’t have much of a case or a case with a kickstand so in some ways it’s a bit limiting.

For iPads, many of the same limitations apply, only more so. You’re not trying to fit an iPad in your pocket so they don’t have the size constraints that a smart phone has, and iPads are designed to do more work using the entire screen, so having a crease in the middle is even more of an issue. 

Overall, from what I’ve seen I’d take a standard smartphone and skip the folding screen and i can’t really see the use for a folding iPad. 

This is exactly the issue with folding phones (even iPads for that matter). There's minimal value and far too many tradeoffs. I doubt Apple would ever release something with a crease down the center of the screen. Android users don't care about stuff like that. They'll buy nearly anything if it sounds cool and then act like their product is better because it was first to the market so it's "cutting edge" and Apple is always years behind! 

Plus there's only so many folds it can do before it breaks and I wouldn't be surprised if some even broke prematurely. 

Yet the rumours are constant and pointing to ever-increasing probability of a release in the relatively short term so I think Apple has decided to sign off on the product. 

The notch was a huge trade off for something that wasn't even strictly necessary. 

Glass fronts and backs have to be accepted even though there are great alternatives for backs that are far more durable. 

Folding phones, by nature, need extra care and that is a trade off. A hinge is a potential point of failure that slab phones don't have. But then slab phones can't double as mini tablets.

Anything mechanical will have a certain amount of actions before they break. Buttons, physical sliders, even ports
(insertion/removal). 

Modern folding phones are rated for years of use but the target audience at the high end probably renews the device with every hardware upgrade as they have lots of disposable income. 

I can see why that might appeal to Apple. Especially as they might be losing high income users through not having a competing offering. 

As for the crease, even the first foldable phones (with more visible creases) it was a non-issue. They were hardly noticeable in use. Very similar to the situation with the notch.