jeff fields

trashman69 said:

”educational story about social change”.

and this is where apple is missing the mark.

people only want to be entertained.  escapism. 

Not educated on social change.  

That's your opinion. Obviously. You have no idea what people want.

hmurchison said:

The Banker too edgy for you Tim? 

That's not even what's being alleged here. So please, spare us the clumsy trolling. It was *clearly explained* in the article that the person in question is not in the movie and has nothing to do with the content. But you knew that, didn't you?

wizard69 said:

The problem with iFixIt is that they too easily dismiss the value of soldered in components which can drastically improve reliability.    

The problem I have with Apple is calling this a pro machine when subsystems that have a predictable failure rate are not field swappable.   Especially in the case of a battery which is certain to fail and they sometimes fail without warning.  You should not need to be a magician to swap out a battery.  Things like the keyboard also fall into this category though you would expect a bit more difficulty.  

So considering the lack of access to these high failure rate items I can’t really see the machines being all that attractive to the greater pro market.  They are still poorly engineered from the perspective of common maintenance.  

Nice 1995 perspective, there. It is *not possible* to make a modern laptop that weighs under 10 pounds that allows for all the stuff you want to be "field swappable". That's why *nobody is doing it*. Nobody. So I don't really know what the heck you could possibly be thinking or talking about when you predict, ludicrously, that these systems will be unattractive to the "greater pro market". There is *no other choice*.

spice-boy said:

Oh no, triggered, outraged that other countries dare have laws which do not fully embrace Apple, because snowflake Apple although the richest company in the world might disappear if anyone ask anything of it, beleaguered days will soon be upon us again. 

Um, GTFO with this troll non-argument.

PhillyJim said:

I was so sure that we would have a round version of Apple Watch by now. Especially when I saw some of the complications rounded off and tilted in the corners. Wonder what happened.

What happened is that a round design doesn't make sense, which is why Apple didn't adopt one to begin with. It would be stupid. Scrolling content and scrolling lists are both not feasible on a round watch face. The *only* reason to have a watch face be round is if you are being an idiot and hewing to old mechanical designs with hands rotating around a center point. The complications you mention in the corners would not be possible on a round face, either, since there wouldn't be extra space in the corners for them.