techlover

cnocbui said:

TSMC as a sole supplier could be a very risky strategy, given plate tectonics.  The recent Earthquake in Japan has apparently really messed with Sony's ability to produce camera sensors at its Kumamoto factory, with a severe disruption to supply in effect.

PS - a bit funny AI has made no mention of Tim Cooks forthcoming trip to China to talk to officials about 'stuff'.  http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/6/11606412/apple-china-books-movies-tim-cook-visit

Ask and you shall receive

foggyhill said:

longpath said:

I find the responses here interesting, given the similar tone responses that appeared yesterday in response to an AI article on claims by FitBit's CEO. What I mainly noticed is that most of the pro-Apple Watch/con-everything else responses are based on hypothetical folks without specific goals or feature needs, whereas those of us that considered the Apple Watch, and I most certainly did; but, decided on an alternate product, had specific feature needs that the present Apple Watch does not address. The typical response to pointing this out is to chastise the observation and observer as atypical and therefore irrelevant (a borderline ad hominem, if you think about it). The reality is that I needed a watch with built-in GPS, overtly stated waterproofing (Apple's claims regarding the first generation Apple Watch's capabilities regarding water exposure are clear as mud when they both advise against getting it wet and also, for specific maladies, recommend washing it water), and notification capabilities. Would Apple Watch's capabilities , on top of those of the watch I selected, be nice to have? Of course they would; but, for me, and for just about every other single member of USA Triathlon, there are more suitable products, at comparable price points. 

Do I acknowledge that some customers are acutely concerned with initial purchase price, rather than features or total cost of ownership? Certainly! MS, Dell, etc. all built whole business models based on those customers. Do I claim those people don't matter, or are irrelevant? No. Do I think that every business model must address every conceivable customer? No, that would ignore the opportunity costs of going after those customers.

The main point is that berating someone because they don't need a 33 function Swiss Army knife makes the berator look a bit on the rabid side. Likewise, berating someone because they had the audacity to pick something other than an Apple product looks idiotic and neurotic. I say this as a long-time Apple customer, and Apple Certified System Administrator, and iPhone user. I also keep my iPhone in a LifeProof case, since Apple declines to waterproof the phone itself, and I wear a Polar V800 because Apple Watch can not do the job I need it to do to find a place on my wrist.

Nobody gives a crap if you bought a polar; buy whatever fits your needs.

it's lumping those bands with the Apple Watch (and similar) that people object with: they're NOT in the same category.

The analysts lump everything that's on the wrist, most having 1/5 the price, to make a belabored point about "market share".
They did the same thing with the Iphone (lumped with feature phones), the Ipad (lumped with  $50 tablets), Macbooks (lumped with $200 chromebooks)
Who cares about market segmentation; despite that being a key element of how business create and market products.... Not them seemingly.

It doesn't matter if Apple makes 95% of all profits or 80% of all revenues; these analysts always push the shipped device narrative as the only important number.

These narratives impacts how Apple's stock is price. That's one reason why many people here are mad about this.

The Fitbit's statement, which that pushed the same narrative as the analysts, deserved a serious putdown for the same reason.
If someone soundly beats you to death in revenues and profits in just 10 months on a version 1.0 product; you don't call them "wrong".
The fact he's adding all sort of functions that are included in the Apple Watch, even undercuts his own argument!

BTW,
Next time, keep it short and less condescending; you're response was both haughty and meandering; and yes : BERATING.

Sorry to be the asshole here, but you may want to follow your own advice.

Condescending: Check

Haughty. Check.

Meandering. Check.

Berating. Check.

Read everything that you wrote again.

You complain about behaviors of others and yet you display those same exact behaviors in your own posts.

I don't understand it.

Maybe I am the crazy one.

I must be crazy.

cali said:

I consider iPhone the greatest invention of all time. Yes I'm including the wheel.

Although you are likely making a joke its hard to tell. While I agree that the iPhone could be the greatest gadget of all time, the greatest invention? I'm not so sure.

The wheel is pretty ubiquitous and useful world-wide for many people, even for those without phones or electricity. It's been around for a really long time. Without the wheel there is no iPhone. How would they make or ship the iPhone without the wheel?

Speaking of electricity I would say that while not necessarily an invention, the discovery and implementation of its properties has changed the world far more than the iPhone. There is absolutely no doubt that without electricity there is no iPhone. The electric motor alone has changed our lives immensely.

Off the top of my head, others I would put ahead of the iPhone as both greater and more life changing inventions world-wide would be refrigeration, the automatic cloths washing machine, the hypodermic needle, the loom, the sewing machine, I could go on and on. Think of the lives saved by refrigeration, and the time and labor freed with the cloths washing machine, loom, and sewing machine. The lives saved with the hypodermic needle needs little justification to place it above the iPhone as a greater invention.

Regarding saving lives, of course we can't forget Norman Borlaug. Borlaug is arguably the greatest human being to have ever lived. He invented saving lives through better crop yields. I'd put that ahead of the iPhone as well. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug ;

Just my two cents.

Microsoft is DOOMED!


Am I doing this right? I think I am doing this right.

nolamacguy said:

techlover said:

I don't believe that Apple should be compelled to unlock a device or put a back door in for the FBI, or any other governmental organization. 

Likewise the FBI should not feel compelled to share anything with Apple.

Both Apple and the FBI have a responsibility to the public and I honestly feel that the closer they work together the worse off the public will be in the end.

the difference being, of course, the FBI is a public government body of the people for the people -- and corporations are people too. the FBI is and should always remain in a weaker position as it must serve the public good. if the US people decide our government should share discovered security vulnerabilities with the owners of that tech (which we have, which is why there is a White House public policy requiring this via a review board), then the FBI as a public servant must do so in the interest of the public.

the FBI is not a business or citizen. it is a public servant that serves the interests of the public. we decide, it obeys.

Another good point. I only wish this is how it actually worked in reality.

Still, plus 1 for wishful thinking.