dewme

I have no doubt that smartphone thefts are a major problem in the UK as they are in many other places. The claim that smartphone manufacturers are benefiting from these crimes and therefore taking no action to quell the crimes is utter nonsense. 

nubus said:

rob53 said:

The EU has no right to dictate to Apple how its products operate. 

Let us do a litmus test:
The US has no rights to dictate Ford how its products operate.
The US has no rights to dictate Boeing how its products operate.
The US had no rights to stop Johnson & Johnson from using asbestos in baby powder.

Could it be that EU has the right?

The EU has the right for as long as long as companies put up with it.

I fundamentally agree that the EU has every right to dictate what companies from anywhere in the world must do in order to sell products in the countries under their jurisdiction. The whole notion of "free trade" has been twisted and mangled into an unrecognizable shape by nationalistic tendencies over the past several decades anyway, and no more so than in the US. Free trade doesn't mean fair trade. 

It's not fair to call out one regulatory body like the EU when those who are calling them out are guilty of the same exact behaviors. We basically have about 150 countries in the world, some whose total population is comprised of penguins, all looking out for numero uno. Of course we all want access to goods from around the globe, but we also want to dictate the terms for how we obtain them to the extent possible so our best interests and how we manage our economy are taken into account.

The US is ruled by capitalism. Sometimes it benefits us but sometimes it places us in very precarious situations that play out over time. The US lost its ability to secure very strategic capabilities, like semiconductors, ship building, certain forms of manufacturing, public transportation, etc. This happened because the capitalism playbook at that point in time determined that retaining those capabilities was not as profitable as leaning on someone else to serve those needs while the US invested in higher profit margins or greater business opportunities in other areas, like massive military and defense systems. You know, profits over principles (PoP).

A lot of the things the EU does absolutely make a lot of sense for the EU. Same with the US. I believe despite the EUs actions they too are also falling into the same trap of losing organic capabilities they once had. But one thing the EU has learned is that no matter how egregious they treat foreign producers, like Apple or Microsoft, the capitalists will always succumb, perhaps reluctantly or by putting up a futile defense, to their demands. Why? Profits over principles. If Apple, Microsoft, Google, or any other non-EU company wanted to take a principled stand to defend its intellectual property, trade secrets, or relinquishing control over the ecosystems created at great expense, they absolutely could.

Apple, Microsoft, or any US owned company can tell the EU to go pound sand and quit selling products into those markets. Would it hurt Apple and its stakeholders? Absolutely. From a capitalist perspective it would be a catastrophe for Apple, at least in the short term. It would also be a very painful outcome for the EU as they have very little up & running capability to replace Apple. They could transition to Apple substitutes, but I think there would be a healthy black market for Apple products until that hole was filled, like in a decade.

But none of this will ever happen because Apple's business is run under the capitalist playbook. They have already pushed some of their core principles into the background, at least for the next four years. They will cave to the EU's demands like they've caved to China's demands and the current US administration's demands. When your strongest principles are based on economics and profits, as they are for any for-profit company, you'll do whatever it takes to keep the money train rolling. You can't fault Apple for it, but as a country dominated by similarly driven companies with the same motivations, it may not play out well in the long term. But then again, when did we start caring about the long term anyway? Those days are long over.

jonro said:

Why bother to review headphones without comparing the sound? Seriously, features comparisons mean little without discussing the sound quality, which is the core feature of headphones. It's like comparing cars without mentioning the engine or doing a test drive.

I think it's absolutely correct to compare competing headphones based on objective physical and functional characteristics and features. Anything beyond that gets into areas where a great deal of subjectivity is involved. They could go one step further and look at objective things like frequency response curves or noise cancelation performance when subjected to the exact same audio waveforms. This may provide more data for potential buyer who have a reasonably good understanding of how their hearing responds to audio with certain frequency response curves.

Nothing compares to putting the headphones on your head, adjusting them for a comfortable fit that you can tolerate for extended listening sessions, and listening to actual music that is at least characteristically similar to what you enjoy listening to. If you can repeat the same subjective evaluation for different sets of headphones you're considering, all the better. Every head is different, every ear is different, every person's hearing frequency response is different (and changes with age), and every person's brain and emotions reacts to sound in a unique way. 

I'm not suggesting that headphone evaluator's listening experiences and reactions are invalid, but they are always subjective and in many cases are more discerning. The higher you go in the range of audiophile hierarchy the more the terminology spoken or written about becomes more like a foreign language to a lot of people who are in the market for a new set of headphones, like me. No matter what anyone says sounds better or worse is only their opinion, but the only opinion that matters is your own. If you have a history with a particular reviewer who has helped you based on his or her subjective opinion, that can be helpful as a filtering process. It's no guaranteed but it's not totally random either.

Articles like this one do help you narrow down the list of candidate products based on objective visible, touchable, and measurable differences. No more and no less. It's a great step in the right direction. I'm not going to say that someone else's opinion of what sounds good or what sounds bad does not matter because it is a data point to consider.  I've bought $30 headphones that delivered a far more enjoyable listening experience than $300 headphones. This is why I'm wary of buying any product that has so many dependencies on my subjectivity without the option of trying it myself or having the ability to send it back if it doesn't meet my expectations. In a lot of ways the old brick & mortar experiences were actually much better than the YouTube, blog, online articles, or Amazon review based ones are. 

Tim Cook is stuck between a rock and a hard place.  Apple has, since its inception, tried to coexist peacefully in the world market while still holding on to its core values that do not always align with the whims of any particular center of power.

 Just look at how well Apple has been able to remain relevant to consumers in China, South Korea, Brazil, the EU, etc., even as the political situation in those countries did not always play in harmony with the political and/or social climate on either side of the relationships. Apple has always wanted to do what’s best for their customers and stakeholders. They certainly do not want to be exposed to the kind of turmoil they now face. 

Apple Silicon is one of the best planned and best executed moves by Apple - ever. If you're going to talk about Tim Cook's legacy, Apple Silicon has to be one of the crown jewels of his accomplishments at Apple. Truly masterful. 

Fortunately, Apple does not appear to be resting on its laurels with Apple Silicon. The competition is hot on Apple's heels and they have emerged from way way over the horizon to be within striking distance. As long as Apple continues to leverage not only the success of Apple Silicon, but everything else that makes Apple so unique, they will be in great shape. There can be no pause in the action. Intel paused and AMD caught them. Intel paused some more and Apple abandoned them. Now Intel is struggling to get back just to the wake of the slowest leaders. 

I know there has been a lot of turmoil and disruption in the marketplace caused by politics, and Apple has stumbled a little bit with Apple Intelligence and Siri, but it seems from the outside looking in that Apple still has its foot firmly planted on the accelerator pedal when it comes to Apple Silicon. They have to. Apple can't wait for the dust to settle from the passing bullshitnado to figure out where their next opportunity will be. Apple Silicon needs to stay on the fast track.