boltsfan17

DAalseth said:

normang said:

Climate constantly changes, to think we can actually have any impact on significantly altering the climate is the height of arrogance. It's been warmer in the past than today and its been cooler, we know this..... but somehow altering a carbon footprint is going to save us? This is not to say that we should not try and be prudent in the use of resources, but the proposed changes all mandate government control of your life and all that will do is make things worse for people, not better.

Human caused climate change is a fact. I've been following the subject for 40 years and the only constant is we keep underestimating people's impact. I will leave it to you to explain to your grandchildren why you didn't do anything.

robbyx said:

I'm not against Apple producing original content, but I don't think it's going to turn into a major revenue stream for them.  I worry the quest for content is a fool's errand.  For years I've said they should buy Nintendo and I still think that would be the best acquisition they could make.  The lion's share of App Store revenue is video games and IAP associated with video games.  Nintendo is profitable, has numerous well-established and beloved global franchises, and does good work when it comes to hardware and game controllers.  I hope the original content play works out for Apple, but I think getting serious about gaming would be a much smarter move.

randominternetperson said:

iSalmanPak said:

Disney should buy it. After all, they own everything else. Star Wars, Pixar, Marvel, The Muppets, Winnie the Pooh, you name it. Oh yeah, almost forgot....they just bought 20th Century Fox.

How confusing is it that Disney is buying 20th Century Fox (a studio) from 21st Century Fox (the grandparent corporation; Fox Entertainment is the parent).  Too many foxes, too many centuries.

mpantone said:

It's pretty clear which AppleInsider commenters in this thread have flown on international business class overseas flights and who has not.

First of all, let's break down the revenue/flight numbers.

UAL says Apple's SFO-PVG route revenue generates about $35 million a year, that's about $95K per day. UAL also claims 50 business class passengers a day (average). That works out to about $1900 per one-way flight.

That's not really out of hand. Apple employees are probably flying refundable fares so they can change their schedules if necessary. Remember, these employees aren't paying out of pocket, the company reimburses them per the company's travel policy.

Apple has enough dough where they don't bother enforcing a $20 per diem.

When you fly from the US West Coast to eastern Asia non-stop, it is always a 10+ hour flight so the lay-flat seats in United Polaris class are worth it. Sure, Apple could make employees fly coach, but then they'd probably wreck the person for at least a day. Is it worth losing one day's work of a sharper, more productive employee by saving a few hundred bucks on airfare and letting them fester in cattle class? Not if the person flying has an annual salary of $100K+.

Next, let's address the seat number thing. 50 business class seats per day (average) might be 25 seats to and 25 return. Or more likely, there are probably days when Apple employees are few, but other days where Apple employees are heavy. For sure, every time Tim Cook steps on the private jet to fly to Shanghai, there are a bunch of Apple personnel who are flying commercial, some perhaps several days in advance or afterwards.

As for other airlines, well, airlines these days tend to work out of regional hubs and territories. SFO is a major United hub and anyone driving on US-101 by SFO over the past thirty years would know that because the United Airlines operations hangar is visible from the freeway. Yes, yes, Delta, American, etc. all have flights out of SFO, but they don't own SFO like UAL.

At least on international overseas business class flights on USA flag carriers, United is pretty much the same with other USA flag carriers (Delta, American, etc.) in terms of quality. Meaning, they are all *GARBAGE* compared to top tied international carriers.

The best international carriers are mostly the same as from 30-40 years ago: Singapore, Cathay Pacific, Japan Air Lines, All Nippon Airlines, etc. The best newcomer is Emirates. Virgin Atlantic isn't too bad if you are flying business class (formerly the cheekily named "Upper Class" when it was on the upper deck of the Boeing 747). Famous European flag carriers such as British Airways, Air France, KLM, Lufthansa, etc. are only marginally better than the USA flag carriers on international business class overseas flights.

The modern lay-flat seat is the best thing about business class overseas air travel. There are some people who think that the food in business class is "special" or "good". It's not. It's a glorified TV dinner.

Apart from the lay-flat seats, the best thing about the international business class cabin is the overhead luggage storage capacity. A lot of business class travelers don't try to haul everything aboard so about half of the overhead luggage storage is empty. With the spacious seating arrangement, there are fewer passengers per overhead luggage compartment so there's no mad dash to cram as much stuff in them nor is there any gate checking.

Anyhow, this has been an amusing thread to read.