charlesn

I would also point out that the "different" that Samsung is promoting--specifically, a folding phone--has been around for 35 years, since Motorola launched the MicroTac in 1989. 

danox said:

CheeseFreeze said:

Don’t forget: Apple doesn’t operate in the market. They ARE the market now.

Apple operates in the greater Windows market and the greater Android market worldwide.

Exactly right. iPhone only has about 25% market share for European mobile phones. So it is positively NOT the market now, or even remotely close. This is all about trying to prop up struggling European companies on the back of Apple innovation and IP. Here's a thought for the European commission: help EU companies to go innovate, build a better mousetrap and COMPETE. Mobile phones existed decades before Apple got into the business. And Blackberry pretty much owned the smartphone business in 2007 when Apple launched iPhone. But Apple unseated Blackberry, which no one thought was possible when iPhone launched, by developing and manufacturing a radically different phone that the market ultimately determined was a better choice. Apple has paid its dues, and then some, to EARN the market share that it has, and no EU commission should be setting the rules for how its products have to operate. 

New York Times headline from Sept 9th: 

Europe’s ‘Reason for Being’ Is at Risk as Competitiveness Wanes, Report Warns

So the European answer to its inability to compete on the world stage is to force innovative companies like Apple to hand over the family jewels to be shared with Europe's laggard corporations that now rely on being gifted IP that they didn't and couldn't develop on their own. I know it would be a huge financial hit that a public company would be loathe to take, but I really wish Apple would say, "Eff Off!" to Vestager and pull out of the European market completely. No Apple products whatsoever. Honestly, as long as she keeps getting away with forcing Apple and other companies to give away their IP, this is just going to continue and get worse. This is a perfect example of that--"Well, since I got you to open up your App Store, now I want your iOS and iPadOS, too." 

Kuo Reality Check: he had the Apple Watch 10 screen sizes wrong the day before W10 debuted. So if he can't accurately predict screen sizes 24 hours before launch, consider how "worthy" his predictions are for iPhone chips two years from now. 

notwichred said:

Can someone clarify for me?

I have an ultra.  Is the screen on this any bigger?  I keep reading that it’s “apple’s biggest ever watch screen” but the specs list suggest the ultra is bigger.

Yes, the actual size of the display is a couple of square millimeters larger than the Ultra--it's not an increase you'd even notice but it's enough for bragging rights to "largest" screen. The "Ultra" name only applies to battery life now. FWIW, the "new" S10 chip's only difference from S9 is that it's thinner to fit the new thinner W10 case. It offers no performance boost in any parameter over the S9--which itself didn't offer much advantage over the S8. What Apple seems to be doing is locking certain new capabilities to the newest chips, even though I suspect these capabilities could work on older chips if allowed. For example: the "double tap" feature required an S9 chip, while the new sleep apnea feature will only work on S9 or S10. More than its other products, I think Apple is intentionally trying to push the upgrade cycle with Apple Watch by blocking capabilities from older chips that could probably run them just fine. We see how easy it was for Apple to turn off oxygen sensing on watches that still retain the hardware capability for that function.