bb-15

chasm said:

Thanks, I think this makes it clear. If you do a lot of shooting in low light and already tolerate Android well, those are the Pixel 3a's strengths and you may even get more than one major update out of it, so worth considering.

If price is your main constraint and you're looking for the best value at the mid-range price level, the iPhone 7 wins out handily in day-to-day use -- and frankly most carriers are offering even more attractive deals on the iPhone 8, which is even better.

I don’t tolerate Android/Google services which mine the customer’s data to be used for targeted advertising. 
That is how Google makes most of its money. 
I am willing to pay a few hundred dollars more on an iPhone for Apple’s method where it’s easier to protect my privacy.

Imagine a company looking through your mail, tracking where you go & what you buy to send advertising to you. In the past that would have been intolerable.   
But that is what Google does. It mines data on its apps, ties it to the user and uses that data to send individualized ads to the customer. 
This is how Google makes most of its money. 

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020515/business-google.asp ;

https://bgr.com/2016/02/11/why-facebook-and-google-mine-your-data-and-why-theres-nothing-you-can-do-to-stop-it/ ;

I minimize that kind of data tracking as much as possible & part of how I do that is to carefully use Apple products to reduce data tracking for ads.
In addition, Apple has top notch customer service & devices which have OS support/updates for many years.  
The Apple ecosystem works well across its devices. 
Apple products by & large are simple to use & yet are very powerful. 

For all those things which benefit me, I’m willing to pay a reasonable amount more. 

 

6502 said:

stevenoz said:

This has Donald's cheese-burger-greasy finger all over it.

He kills any good will with China and Taiwan (where Foxconn is located) and deals are aborted.

I hope Trumpers take note. He is killing the Earth, and is a deal-breaker, not deal-maker.

China is out to destroy us, maybe not military (but may so) but for sure economically. China shows us no good will that doesn't benefit them 10x more. China is our enemy and they are truly the ones killing the earth. It amazes me when Americans put China above the US just to spite Trump.

China is a natural economic competitor going back thousands of years. Since the 1970s China has gotten their act together & the rest of the world has to deal with it. 
As for Trump & this failure in Wisconsin, he oversold his negotiating & management skills with this project (which is typical Trump boasting going back to the election).
Fact is in the 1990s Trump had a very poor track record in keeping his businesses going.  
I’m certainly not putting China over Trump but what I think this failure with Foxconn shows is that Trump is not the economic miracle worker he claimed to be. 

80s_Apple_Guy said:

wood1208 said:

jbdragon said:

I have to say, this is just more of Apple looking greedy. Apple is making a ton of money and doing that at the expense of everyone else. If Apple wanted to rent or build someplace, I'd do a 50% markup Apple Tax to Apple.

Not sure why people blame Apple. It is a simple business decision. If Mall owner wants to be greedy,unfriendly, non cooperative than Apple has no choice. Apple has withdrawn opening site in places where locals are non-cooperative,hostile.

The only greedy party here is Apple who despite sitting on billions of $ and profits that every other company drools over insists on terms that no one else gets or even asks for. Apple has become what they fought against Microsoft for so long trying to survive in the 80's 90's etc. The big bad bully. 

Nonsense; 
1. Microsoft drove software companies like WordPerfect & Lotus, into the ground (with unfair practices).
Mall tenant rent has nothing to do with that.
2. Apple’s terms in your words are greedy. By your “thinking” Apple’s unreasonable terms should = zero Apple Stores.
Fact; there are 504 Apple Stores worldwide. This shows that Apple’s terms can be considered acceptable by many mall owners.
3. In the history of retail not every store location/construction deal gets done. Apple is not obligated to agree with every landowner’s terms.
4. Apple Stores support the brick & mortar retail model. What company is hurting physical store retail the most? Amazon.
  

gatorguy said:

bb-15 said:

saltyzip said:

Apple screws suppliers, all big companies do it to some extent, some are just more aggressive than other. Supermarkets push milk farmers to the point they can hardly make any money. Apple killed GT advanced technologies because it couldn't meet apples demands, screwed some other imaging company to although forgot the name.

Apple is a super aggressive greedy bully, will do whatever it takes to keep generating its billions. Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. Apple now trying to screw over Qualcomm, because all they are thinking about is their share price and retaining their ridiculous profit margins.

.
Motorola and Nokia sued Apple first. 
https://www.cnet.com/news/this-time-motorola-sues-apple-over-patents/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/nokia-files-patent-suit-against-apple-over-iphones/ ;

Technically accurate but effectively wrong based on this. http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/proof-apple-attacked-motorola-not-other.html

No I’m not “effectively” wrong. I have a different conclusion based on the clear facts vs. a hypothesis by Florian Mueller about the confidential thinking of Apple and Motorola.

Here is a quote from the Mueller article you linked to. 

<b>”I have meanwhile seen articles in which certain experts -- who are experts in some areas, but likely spend less time perusing Android patent suit court filings than I do -- claimed that Motorola was the aggressor and Apple "forced to defend itself", which is plain wrong.”</b>
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/proof-apple-attacked-motorola-not-other.html

Mueller argues that he is right and other experts are wrong because he spends more time pursuing Android court filings. 
Is Mueller an attorney/patent attorney? No. 
He is a tech consultant currently working for Microsoft and Oracle. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Müller_(author)

Mueller is speculating about Apple’s and Motorola’s behavior at this time. Again from the linked article;

<b>”It's highly probable that Apple had a lawsuit in the making but had to change plans after the DJ action in terms of which patents to assert in which court.”</b>

“Highly probable” does not = an established fact. 
I do not know what Apple’s management / lawyers were thinking at the time because no outside observer was in the room when these matters were being discussed by Apple. No clear source about what was Apple’s timeframe at the time. It’s possible that Apple was waiting for Motorola to make the first movie. 
- I am open to accepting a statement (with citation) from Apple saying they intended to sue Motorola first.
Second, I would need to see a statement from Motorola that they had no intention to sue Apple. And that they only sued Apple first because they were afraid that Apple would sue them.
Third, to support Mueller’s reasoning a statement from Motorola is needed that they sued quickly because they wanted to get a preferable venue. 
On the venue issue Mueller brings up the East Texas court district. 

<b>”Companies do this frequently to avoid such venues as East Texas.”</b>

But Apple doesn’t go to the East Texas District to file patent lawsuits. Motorola should not have had a fear that Apple would do that. This reasoning by Mueller undercuts his argument. 

- I am not going to accept the speculations by Mueller in this case, over other experts, as absolute fact.