gmgravytrain

I'm a little puzzled. I keep hearing (fake) news about how Google is crushing Apple in the educational market where all schools are buying Chromebooks for students because the schools have decided that Apple iPads are either too expensive or too limited in function. I had accepted that news as being true and I thought it was Apple who basically gave up on selling iPads to schools.

 I certainly never had any clue that Google was going to be dropping support of Chromebooks. I personally would rather have a device with a keyboard so I'd prefer a MacBook or MacBook Pro instead of an iPad. I definitely wouldn't want some Chromebook. I simply figured schools were buying Chromebooks because they cost less to buy and were good enough for students to use. Does Google giving up on Chromebooks mean Apple has a clear shot at taking over educational institutions with iPads? If so, that would be absolutely spectacular for Apple. The way Wall Street was always happily chirping about how Apple was being destroyed in the educational market, I really thought Apple products had no chance at all in schools.

I'm surely sick of hearing from analysts how the iPad has basically died because they don't feel Apple is selling as many of them as Wall Street expects them to sell.  It's not easy to sell a product in high quantity every year if the product is well-built and long-lasting.  There's simply no need for consumers to constantly upgrade products that are working well.  That would be a supreme waste of natural resources.  Wall Street doesn't seem to understand such simple concepts.

Google's Android OS does seem to be flourishing quite well on those low-cost streaming TV boxes which are practically for sale everywhere.  That is a really puzzling platform where features are never easy to figure out because they're so inconsistent with hardware.  SOME will have Bluetooth, SOME will have USB 3.0 ports, SOME will have dual-band WiFi, SOME will have more system RAM, etc.  Only the most expensive device has everything and the NVidia Shield is the King of Android streaming boxes.  There seem to be hundreds of various models from cheap to expensive all competing for the same space.  If AppleTV were a bit more open, Apple could probably own that Android TV space but that could be dangerous as there a huge number of apps relying on pirated content to keep Android streaming boxes from dying out.  I think they're pretty cool to play with but hardly a product any company could survive on.  I like my Fire TV 2 which Amazon doesn't sell anymore but I use that mostly to watch Amazon Prime Video content.  I've side-loaded plenty of illegal apps and they work fairly well but it really just for me to play around with Kodi and Kodi builds and stuff like that.  Messing around with pirated IPTV and such.

Jackass analyst ignores that fact that most people didn't upgrade because their older iPhone was working just fine. Any consumer with a half a brain isn't necessarily going to toss away a perfectly good device for something newer if they're already satisfied with what they're using. This analyst is retarded just like most greedy investors who believe consumers should upgrade their iPhones/smartphones every year whether they need to or not. That doesn't make any sense and it sure isn't good for the ecology. What would be the point in a company making quality products that last a long time if consumers were going to dump them long before they stop working? I'm sure any flagship iPhone/smartphone will last a consumer three good years if not abused or dropped. It was already said that Apple product users keep their devices longer than most other product users do. I'd say Apple products are built to last and that's a good thing. Only Wall Street is stupid enough to turn that into a negative thing. Those Wall Street pigs make me sick with their greed-filled thinking.

How can humanity survive without Alexa listening and answering to us on a daily basis?

Oh, that's a bad Apple!  It only goes to show how some gambles don't pay off for companies hoping to ride on Apple's coattails.

Considering all the use and many years I've got out of ALL my Apple products, it sure doesn't seem like planned obsolescence to me. There are far too many idiots running around spouting nonsense about my favorite company. I've gotten longer continuous life out of some Sony televisions I've had (one worked for nearly 20 years with a couple of trips to the TV repairman) but for the most part my Apple products lasted longer than them all, including major appliances. That's why it really annoys me when some whiners claim that Apple was forcing them to upgrade their iPhones by way of harmful OS updates. If that was the case, I should have sued Apple for moving from OS9 to OSX because OSX practically brought the computer I was using at the time to a crawl. Of course, that computer was already about four years old.

Wall Street also makes me sick with their constant BS about Apple not selling enough iPhones every year BECAUSE newer models don't offer enough innovation. That's about the most stupidest thing I've ever heard. What sort of fool wants consumers to keep dumping useful and decently-working devices just to buy new ones with slightly newer features. If analysts and investors live in the same world I live in, why aren't they worried about using up natural resources when there's no need for it? Apple should be praised for making longer-lasting products instead of being spit at and cursed for it. Companies constantly building disposable devices are quickly depleting the planet's resources. Why would normal consumers want to spend money on quality products which are only good for a year's use? That makes no sense whatsoever.