- Last Active
landcruiser said:Who cares what a rich hypocrite thinks. He overcharges for his products. Just look at all his price increases and record profits. How is this any different. Like I said just a rich hypocrite.
A guy would like to think that Corning would have been selling Gorilla Glass at a profit over the past 10 years. Enough profit to fund research and development.
Why would Corning need Apple's money? Seems like irresponsible management to me. Seems like the fruit company bought Gorilla Glass in the past and at their suggestion for something different, has to pay some more.
I don't understand.
The GT Advanced spanking that Tim and Jony received negatively influenced the future of Apple in many ways. Mainly, the dream of Steve Jobs for Apple to be trailblazing was ditched.
Sapphire glass screens were just the first big step to using new, innovative materials. But because the deal went bad, out the window went the using all that intellectual property that Apple gobbled up. Remember all those little companies; like consistently 10-15 each quarter that Apple would buy out? Remember Apple working alongside companies like Liquidmetal and Glassimetal? Those days are long over. It's a shame, maybe another firm could have successfully made the boules of sapphire?
So today Tim and Jony are very conservative and adverse to taking risks or experimenting with new technology. Thusly, we have iPhones that are still made of Gorilla glass and aluminum and look and preform pretty much as the the last model you just traded in. You visually can't tell the difference between an iMac made in 2010 or one made in 2020. A Magic Mouse is preforming the same magic as 2009. Etc. etc. etc.
I remember the conference call after the GT debacle and Apple lost that $200 and what ever million; Apple reported making so much God damn money that quarter, the GT $200 million loss---wasn't even mentioned. Not one analyst brought it up. CFO Peter Oppenheimer certainly didn't say a word, he didn't need to.
BxBorn said:"homeowners who have let a building contractor into their homes to upgrade their kitchens, thus giving permission for the contractor to demolish and change parts of the houses." - okay, but the intent is that that upgrade will improve the kitchen on how it looks and functions...I've had my renovations done on my home and in each instance the contractors have noted that "if we do X, then this is what happens to Y, do you still want to do X". . . I've never had a contractor make the executive decision that in order to bring hot water more efficiently to the kitchen they'll just reduce the flow of it to other parts of the house and I'll just have to live with not having a hot shower...Apple essentially made that executive decision and felt like they didn't need to inform user of what they would be giving up in order to have improved battery performance or that without the update and reduced performance there would be safety issue with the battery...it wasn't an unforeseen side effect, Apple knew what they were doing and consciously decided against transparency to the end user. Users have free will and should decide if they want to stay with Apple knowing where they stand as customers and the lack of transparency
And no one has ever had a contractor come back to their house three years later and tweek their dishwasher to work less because that contractor thought that was something the owner wanted now that some time has passed--without asking permission and entering through a backdoor (when does Apple say they are going to do an update? After 11pm?) in the middle of the night.
It's like Apple thinks they still have an ownership stake in something that they sold 3 or 4 years ago.
It's worth mentioning that the way Apple is micromanaged by Tim and Jony; they would have been aware and signed off on this.