Prof_Peabody

I hate these kinds of articles.  DED I presume?  AppleInsider doesn't do itself any favours by printing this kind of one-sided garbage.  A "year in review" type of article should contain the minuses as well as the plusses.  

A few that come to mind:

- the very, very late debut of the very, very expensive Apple Watch
- Apple TV being so delayed that it actually has last year's internals (for twice the price)
- the most talked about feature of the new Apple TV (skinny cable package) pulled at last second. 
- finally updating the iPad mini after three full years of languor. 
- the new $200 trackpad!  
- the new iPad that's more expensive than a laptop but half as capable.  
- Advertisements in the OS

I know others won't necessarily agree with me on all of these but the point is that there are many points of view and also pros and cons.  

These long, poorly written articles full of bitterness, that praise Apple to the heavens, while jousting against imaginary critics are tiresome, unfair, and uninteresting once you realize how biased they are.  Please stop. Someone knock that chip off Daniel's shoulder so he can write properly.  

atlapple said:

Good to see Apple is going to get rid of an universal port in favor of making most users buy yet again another dongle. Unlike getting rid of optical drives in Macs there is no real space saving benefits to getting rid of a 3.5mm jack. As far as making the thinnest phone ever that mean not only will it have to be thinner than the iPhone 6s it will also have to be thinner than the iPhone 6. This years model actually increased in thickness. 

iPhone thickness generally goes down (and sometimes up) by a few tenths of millimetres each year.  The iPhone 7 would have to be 3 full millimetres thinner however to make the claim (if Apple makes it) that "the audio jack had to be removed so they could make it thinner."  

So in that sense, almost every story on the subject you see on the web toady is incorrect since they all reference the "problem" of the audio jack in reference to being able to make the phone thinner.  Also, iPhone 7 is quite unlikely to be that thin.  It would require new battery tech or new screen tech (or both), each of which shaved a full millimetre or two off of the thickness.  

The odds of the new iPhone even being as thin as the current iPod touch, are very small.  Even if it lost a full millimetre, it would be a huge change, the biggest in five full years, and it would still be a millimetre thicker than the current iPod touch. 

greginprague said:

SpamSandwich said:

Well, that's it then. They're getting into the used car business.

Will they install aftermarket JVC, Kenwood, or Pioneer head units compatible with CarPlay into their entire stock?  Win Win for everyone...

If it has a stereo/radio at all it's far more likely to be integrated, provided by Apple, and not swappable at all.  The idea that you might be able to buy an "Apple Car" and go to a store just like any other car and "buy a stereo for it" is so extremely unlikely that it doesn't even bear thinking about.  

anantksundaram said:

lkrupp said:

And you can bet the farm that an Apple car will not be powered by hydrocarbon based fuel.

If it uses electricity, sure, it will be. Less of it compared to an ICE, but it's impossible not to be powered by fossil fuels.

Poppycock.  Complete nonsense. 

karmadave said:

Think what you want of Rupert Murdoch, but he controls one of the world's largest media companies and Apple would be foolish to ignore (or antagonize) him...

Nah, kissing someone's ass just because they are rich or influential is actually a really bad thing to do.  Quintessentially corrupt in fact. 

Apple should have refused to attend IMO, just for the optics alone, although no one really cares about doing the "right thing" much anymore (case in point: you).