iSRS

About

Username
iSRS
Joined
Visits
37
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
257
Badges
1
Posts
54
  • Apple hit with lawsuit targeting AppleCare+ refurbished devices

    The article suggests the lawsuit will center on the definition of refurbished.  Really?  The lawsuit should focus on evidence, if there is any, that proves the refurbished product she received was NOT functionally equivalent to new.  I'd be very interested to learn what aspects of an electronic computer device, which runs all the exact same software at the same clock speeds, etc, could possibly be defined as not functionally equivalent to every other one in existence.  

    Maybe the speaker surface has deteriorated and will not last as long as a new one?

    Maybe she can somehow ascertain there's only 4,322,568 more clicks of the Home button where a new Home button would yield more lifetime remaining clicks?  

    But these are inconsequential, as a person with AppleCare could simple get another replacement should some physical part wear out sooner than a new one would have.  And These examples would not be supportive of her case, as functionally equivalent implies a part's current status, not its remaining lifespan.  If pressing the Home button on a refurb feels and functions the same as on a new device, then it's functionally equivalent.  Even if ten presses later it dies, though that would speak to the equivalent reliability aspect.  So let's see if this is where the lawyers go.
    Here is the thing, they are saying it impacts value. Yet, I have had many iPhones (and other iOS devices over the years), and sold several through gazelle or the like. Know what they NEVER ask you? Is this a warranty replacement/refurbishment device? They ask if the battery works. They ask if the screen is cracked. So on that ground alone they are wrong. And every site like gazelle is proof there is no financial difference.
    pscooter63SpamSandwichsteveh
  • BlackBerry CEO says Apple's security stance puts company over 'greater good'

    Chen says: "I think BlackBerry, like any company, should have a basic civil responsibility. If the world is in danger, we should be able to help out." How is Blackberry doing with: Running their company on clean energy, Labor, Recycling, Elimination of hazardous materials, Mining conflict-free minerals. If he truly thinks Apple isn't doing as well as Blackberry to improve their "basic civil responsibility" then perhaps a re-evaluation of his company is in order.
    He is also playing the emotion card my stating flat out false implications. Apple did, as he states, "But if you have the data, you should give it to them" - Apple gave them everything the DID have, and then provided assistance for how the FBI may get what Apple didn't.

    Tool.
    badmonkbaconstang
  • Fitbit CEO says Apple Watch 'wrong way' to approach wearables

    dewme said:
    Just another company man trying to create a narrative to rationalize his own company's non-dominant position in the market. One point he gets totally wrong and ends up sabotaging his claims is that "Apple Watch is a computing platform." Wrong ... Apple Watch is a connected watch. Watches are inextricably linked to time and everything that orbits around the wearer's relationship with time and time related events in their lives. As a watch thats not clad in rubber or festooned with spinning gizmos it also has to project an aestetic appeal that warrants an unapolagetic place on one's arm when they're not clad in gym shorts or swim fins. As a modern watch in a highly connected and mobile world the Apple Watch also has to keep wearer's connected to their lives as they move around. The fact that Apple Watch also provides high quality activity and fitness functions is a matter of convenience and practicality. Once you as a wearer have made the investment of occupying 50% of your arm-based real estate to a wearable device you want it to earn its keep and avoid having to strap on a separate device. The Apple Watch is an integrated device much like the iPhone, and just like iPhone subsumes all iPod functions, the Apple Watch subsumes fitness and activity functions to avoid having to wear two devices.

    Like it or not, the limited function fitness devices will increasingly fall prey to the integrated devices that provide more capability in a still reasonable footprint. Sure there will still be a market for limited function devices to satisfy the edge cases, niches, and price points, much like the iPod Nano and Shuffle hang in there as ultra portable and lightweight alternatives to iPhone. The iPod Touch remains as a lower cost phone-less version of iPhone but pulls in the vast Apple iTunes ecosystem. So there's still going to be a place for Fitbit to sell their products that were purposely designed to be fitness and activity devices. Sure they can add time and connectivity functions to their portfolio and start to encroach of Apple Watch from the other side. But Apple Watch started as a time and connectivity based device with integrated fitness and activity capability. It also leverages the Apple iTunes ecosystem because frankly that's now one of antes into the Apple product portfolio. Every Apple connected product has to extend the Apple iTunes ecosystem and create additional consumption points. Sorry Fitbit, that's going to be a tough mountain to climb if you want to put yourself in the same league as Apple Watch. Or you can try to create a new narrative that explains why your products are still worthy despite their apparent shortcomings against the dominant player. It's worth a try, but not everyone is going to buy into your argument. You could also recognize the niche where your product can be highly profitable and play to your strengths without denigrating the things that are outside of your happy niche.  
    Bingo - these activity trackers are the MP3 players of the day. The bridge product until full integration can be completed. You know, once Apple shows everyone the way.

    Why would anyone sign up for FitBit pay, and what does that have to do with their product line and business line? Nothing. But Apple did it so they must, too.

    Anyone who owns a fitbit will already have an iPhone, Samsung phone or Android phone, all with their respective pay services. FitBit Pay will be a separate ecosystem, so it makes little to no sense, where  PAY, Samsung Pay, and android Pay all make logical extensions of their respective companies ecosystems.
    magman1979nolamacguy
  • France says Apple owes 48.5 million euros for unfair iPhone contracts with carriers

    with the (slow) death of contracts and subsidized phones, at some point I can see carriers getting out of the sales of phone all together. Just like they used to be how people bought telephones. Now they are just the service, buy what you want.
    magman1979londorentropysmacplusplus
  • OS X 10.11.4 hidden framework hints Apple could rebrand it as 'macOS'

    I'm ok with the rebrand as long as apple don't reset the revision number counter. 
    Well, it would allow for macOS 11...

    And it was Mac System 8, then Mac OS 8, Mac OS 9, and Mac OS X for a while. They stopped the Mac part with Mountain Lion, 10.8 in 2012.

    People forget, OS X is 16+ years old. Time to drop the X.
    bdkennedy1002nolamacguy