entropys

nunzy said:

This makes sense. Starbucks knows quality. They sell the world's best coffee, and so they need the worlds best technology.

I remember for the Sydney Olympics the CNN crew stupidly made a big deal about bringing a massive supply of Starbucks coffee beans with them as they could not be sure they could get good coffee outside of USA. The crew were treated with contempt and derision, and given a very hard time for their idea of what made good coffee.

Incidently Starbucks has not done very well In Australia because it is considered too weak and gauche compared with local product, where a variety of smaller, local roasters selling through shops and chains hold sway. Mum and dad coffee shops seem to do better than franchises. Much more variety, which is unusual and interesting when you consider the lack of options and variety of things we usually have in comparison with the USA.

And who puts flavouring in their coffee? Americans can be such Philistines!

He is a supply chain efficiency guru. The best in the world.
I don’t think he is all that visionary though.  Everyone has their blind spots. Like the Mac. Just think how much more profitable Apple would be if macs were loved as much as they used to be. The most Apple like ‘magical’ product shipped under Cook is the AirPods.

That said, it must be really irritating being constantly compared with Steve Jobs all the time, who maxed out the messiah complex by returning, a second coming if you will, to save the company and then dying early.
Wonderful motivator (/Sarc)

macxpress said:

Oh boy...here we go! Continuous bitching about the Mac mini. I doubt most here are gonna buy one anyways. 

Of course not. To be frank, you would have to be a brainless idiot to buy the current insult of a Mac mini.

I get that most of the money comes from the iPhone, so it’s the priority.  But the most stupid thing about the neglect and/or gimping of pretty all Mac lines over an extended period is that it is mistreating Mac buyers, who are the most loyal long term buyers of all things Apple, and have always been the greatest evangelists for its platforms and ecosystems. Neglecting and deliberately crippling functionality and utility of macs by design, and then failing to at the least keep them up to date is beyond the pale.

Divorce is ugly. And just like a neglected and spourned spouse, lovers can be turned into passionate haters.

Soli said:

entropys said:

2old4fun said:

JinTech said:

KevinBF said:

I thought Apple Pay was an safer alternative to using credit cards?

My thoughts exactly. Doesn't having a physical card defeat the sole purpose of ApplePay?

You might want to learn about ApplePay. It does not replace any credit/debit card.

Quite so. You need a card for Apple Pay to be associated with.

This needs to be global. Endless negotiations with thousands of banks who want to monetise Apple Pay for themselves or preserve their internally produced clunky alternative some banking MBA built their career on needs to end. Apple just sets up a global partnership with a credit card provider and goes around the banks. Win. For Apple yes. But also consumers.

I'm leaning toward wholeheartedly disagreeing, but I admit to not understanding how Apple could create a global system where there are no banks, no credit unions, and no multinational financial institutions (e.g.: MC, Visa) in the mix. While I trust Apple, I don't want them to control all the financial transactions going through all Apple devices. I like that their system puts the banks/credit cards in control of creating and storing your aliased card number with cryptogram on their servers. I'd also think there would be some antitrust issues if Apple Pay was killed so that no card could be used except by Apple and through Apple. Could you elaborate on your concept?

Piecemeal negotiation is like a thousand cuts. Apple Pay has developed with Apple controlling much of the security, while the card owner manages the infrastructure and regulatory requirements. From their perspective though, this means in Apple Pay the retailer and financial institution that controls the card does not get access to the amount of user information they currently do. They don’t like it as it reduces their ability to monetise information about you, in all their various ways. It is why in my country Apple Pay is limited to cards from minor institutions and only one of the majors, despite the ubiquitous access to tap and go terminals.
So for Apple, which is monetising their customers in a different way, by charging for the hardware, it is beneficial to make a deal with a global player to activate Apple Pay with their card. The point is it would not be Apple that creates a global system. Visa, MasterCard et al, including in this rumour, Godlman Sachs already have that.  This will speed up adoption. It also increases Apple’s bargaining hand with other institutions.
If Apple lined up with a partner with global reach, they only need to do this once. The global partner will already have sorted out the regulatory requirements in each country for its card, so Apple doesn’t need to.  The negative is that Apple has even greater control over your information, and has to deal with the card management, and I am pretty sure Apple would have preferred not having to do it, or they would have done it in the first place.  But on the other hand it would greatly expand the usefulness of Apple Pay.

Or nukes. Solar and wind would never cut it for Alu production.
aluminium is solidified energy. I am not sure what the “direct greenhouse gas emissions” means, but I suspect it isn’t much in relation to the power consumption required to make aluminium.

Edit:  I just looked up the Rio Tinto website on the process, and it looks like they are substituting an undisclosed product to act as the reducing agent for carbon based materials like black coal.  There is a lovely promotional video at the link that is a bit vague but does have lovely pictures of forests and a pretty girl lying on green, green grass.