roundaboutnow

AppleInsider said:

...

"We believe this lawsuit is meritless and welcome the opportunity to discuss with the court our unwavering commitment to consumers and the many benefits the App Store has delivered to the UK's innovation economy," Apple said, according to Bloomberg. "The commission charged by the App Store is very much in the mainstream of those charged by all other digital marketplaces. In fact, 84% of apps on the App Store are free and developers pay Apple nothing. And for the vast majority of developers who do pay Apple a commission because they are selling a digital good or service, they are eligible for a commission rate of 15%."
...

Time and time again, it seems these lawsuits about commissions conveniently ignore the number of free apps out there, and the billions paid to developers that do sell their apps.

That apple with a bite taken out of it is a nice touch.

The thought occurs to me that this is where the so called "obsession with thinness" finally pays off.

So far, the folded phones seem a bit thick for pocketing, but if each half is even thinner than the thinnest iPhone, then the folded thickness would be less of a concern. (Then again, even the thinnest wallets that can still hold cash and a good number of cards aren't exactly slim, so I guess it's all relative).

The larger concern I have is regarding the lifespan of the fold/seam, but if that can be properly addressed, then it would be a good time to consider a foldable phone.

trifid said:

AI chose some of the ugliest monitors that don't reflect the current market trend. First of all if you are going with a Mac Mini, why choose a 24" monitor? Choose 27". A simple amazon search for "27" monitor 4k" shows all the relevant results have thin bezels, they look far better than AI's recommended 24" monitors from the 90s, some even come with HDR10 and the cost is still around the same price range.

Ok sure, I know AI was trying to show the closest comparison possible to Apple's offering, but it's NOT realistic to what's trending in the market. The external monitor to get is 27" or higher, period. Of course you can choose 24" but there aren't as many options because the demand is for the higher sizes.

Those are definitely nicer looking monitors. A 27" 4K monitor is not a bad choice, but you don't get more pixels (or real estate) than any other 4K monitor, you just get larger pixels. It may be an advantage for some to be able to place a larger monitor farther away from the eyes, but as a person spoiled by the 27" 5K iMac, I think the 27-28" 4K monitors are a bit of a letdown by comparison.

Just to put things in perspective, the dpi (pixel pitch) of a 27" 5K or 24" 4.5K is less than 300 dpi, so even a cheap laser printer can do better (with most printers capable of 600 dpi or more).

Sharpness (pixel pitch) is my priority, having been spoiled by my 5K iMac. With this in mind, I would accept the smaller real estate of a 24" 4K monitor over a larger size 4K monitor.

Too bad the 4K monitors shown are so ugly.

Too bad 5K monitors are still so expensive (you can get a new 24" iMac for the price of a 5K monitor!). I would put up with some ugly for a reasonably priced 27" 5K.

Too bad there isn't a separate 24" 4.5K monitor yet. Hopefully soon (but please don't be ugly or expensive!).

Interesting to note that Dell's 32" 8K is lower price than Apple's 32" 6K (not that I would pay that kind of money for either). The Dell actually looks decent too, but as near as I can tell, 8K support on Macs not a given yet.