libertyandfree

racerhomie3 said:

seanismorris said:

I haven’t seen a iPod in the wild for about 4-5 years, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I never see one again.

With all the “buy one, get one free” deals or “free iPhone with new line” the iPod is irrelevant.

The only reason Apple bothers is because the margins are through the roof for the old tech...

Your thinking is really shallow. The iPod Classic was very cheap for Apple to make. Why don’t they sell it for $100 ? The iPod Touch is not ‘old’ tech. Most android phones sold are much slower than the iPod Touch. 

curtis hannah said:

GeorgeBMac said:

This would be a great time for Apple to abandon the annual media circus it holds every September.   The circus like atmosphere and the build up create what is invariably disappointment in what are always great products  -- if for no other reason than the build up combined with media's penchant for reporting negativity rather than positivity.

For myself, It is time to upgrade at least one of our phones.  But there is no way that I would want to buy a phone that is soon to be obsolete.  That is my feeling and I can pretty much guarantee that will be the feeling in the media as well.  People just don't keep phones for a year or two anymore and the media will be merciless if Apple tries to pawn a 4G phone off on us. 

But, on the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate to wait a few months till Apple can come out with a product I would want to live with for the next 4-5 years.  If Apple does decide to go ahead with its September circus, then I assume they will announce a 5G phone that will soon be available.  Otherwise...

Apple isn't going to give up on the yearly profit on phones nor drop the September launch time since that Maximizes profit, and am I wrong but hasn't every smartphone this year so far not been 5G, I know there are special variants like the Moto Mod and Samsung Galaxy 5G version, but none being the mainstream device, so I see no reason for Apple not to follow the same path, though I don't think they will have a 5G Pro variant.

As far as whether you'll upgrade or not. I have determined I'll be happy to keep my now 4 year old phone every year now that they don't go to 5G, as that is $1000 that isnt needed to be spent and would inevitably save $1000 down the line assuming it pushes my future upgrades linearly. Your needs and though of course might well not be that.

mknelson said:

lkrupp said:

I’m not the least bit worried about Warren’s plan ever becoming law. She’s a radical with radical, untenable ideas, as is AOC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

1982… that was while Reagan was president… 

boltsfan17 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

I have always been in favor of net neutrality -- enforced by government.   The idea of "government control of the internet is as ridiculous as government control of any utility.  The regulations are there to insure a fair shake for consumers and effective management of national infrastructure, nothing more, nothing less.   But, that was all "back in the day" of internet being delivered over coax, FiOS, and LTE.

With the advent of 5G that could all change.   Not only does 5G have the capacity to replace most or all of today's conventional delivery methods, but 5G can be software targeted to deliver pinpoint accuracy for critical functions like remote surgery and self-driving or remotely driven vehicles -- and a ton more.

I think this whole thing needs to be thought through as to how it will be used, how it fits into and supports critical U.S. infrastructure, and who says which resources get which resources?   For instance:   Do you trust Verizon to provide and decide how much you pay for remote surgery over their network?  What will stop them from price gouging based on willingness to pay -- the same as Big Pharma does for life saving critical medications?  Or say, your self driving car travels from the area covered by your Verizon network into AT&T's -- can AT&T then charge you a "roaming fee"?

If you look at the big picture, net neutrality hasn't done anything. I think the mandate by Obama in 2015 declaring internet a public utility made things worse. Net neutrality caused investment into broadband internet to decrease. With net neutrality, Title II regulations were imposed on ISP's. Under the regulations, all proposals had to be submitted to the FCC for approval. Look at how long it took the FCC to allow T-Mobile's Binge On service. Another huge problem in this country net neutrality doesn't address is the local monopolies all around the nation. All these restrictions city, county, and state governments have done has stymied competition. Almost every place I've lived in only had one option for high speed internet. Net neutrality also hasn't helped rural customers, who represent 20% of the U.S. population. I've seen quite a few local projects aimed at rural customers get the ax due to the bureaucracy of net neutrality regulations. Bottom line, I just think enforcing Great Depression era laws on the internet don't protect the consumer or help broadband growth. There is just too much misinformation out there where people continue to falsely believe net neutrality creates an open and free internet, which it doesn't. The hands off approach prior to the 2015 mandate is the way to go.