randominternetperson
About
- Username
- randominternetperson
- Joined
- Visits
- 183
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 7,192
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 3,084
Reactions
-
Macs can now detect water in USB-C ports and spot warranty fraud
Apple is weird about water.
Modern iPhone are advertised to be very water resistant, being able to survive drops in the bath or whatnot.
So why, when I was going to get a battery replacement on my own dime, did they ask if my phone "ever got wet"? Whose phone never gets wet? So of course I said no and that was that. -
Apple Store tipping, watchOS 10 at WWDC, Google Passkey support
Dooofus said:Shareholders want a return on their investment. Why should Apple pay workers any more than they do now? The stores are fully staffed by people working there of their own free will. That means they are already paying the right amount. Any more would be pissing away profit.
Without speaking to the Apple Store situation, of which I know nothing, just because an employer has employees doesn't mean they are paying "the right amount." I'm sure if Google (or Apple) capped it's pay at $100K, they would still have no trouble hiring 10s of thousands of human beings. Would they be world-class engineers, etc.? Probably not. And if they were, would they be as content and productive as if they were making a salary commensurate with their skill set? I doubt it.
It is very possible for an employer to be underpaying people and still have employees. Therefore, it can be in the best interest of a company (and its shareholders) to increase employee pay even if all their positions are currently filled. If nothing else, employee turnover is very expensive (as is churn in most contexts).
Here's an extreme example. Suppose the Golden State Warriors (the NBA team closest to Cupertino) decided to not pay any players more than the league minimum. Would they be able to field a team of 15 players? Absolutely. There are thousands of former Division 1 hoopsters who would be happy to be professional basketball players, regardless of the salary. Would the owners profit from this move? Probably not. -
Apple, Travis Scott, others sued for $2B by attendees injured at Astroworld
Beats said:waveparticle said:They should sue the mob that injured them.wonkothesane said:Bizarre, how the individuals that crushed and stop me PED over the victims apparently are not on the liability radar. Ah, I see, more effort, less deep pockets… not worth the effort; and why share liability when there is the easy way.
Apple will get off the hook pretty quickly, assuming they had no involvement in the in-person logistics. If, as we all assume, Apple just took care of the filming and streaming, they'll be fine. -
Apple stock closes at record high, Microsoft unseated for top valuation
-
Compared: 2021 New 16-inch MacBook Pro vs. 2019 16-inch MacBook Pro
muthuk_vanalingam said:nicholfd said:muthuk_vanalingam said:nicholfd said:zoetmb said:laytech said:Im sure someone has commented above but no Face ID, surely not. Are we still logging in with finger print? Surely not.
ps. I did say "almost".
Edit: My earlier estimate of 700-800 million iPhones with FaceID seems to be on the higher side. For the last 4 years, considering a total of 800 million iPhones sold, it would be between 500-600 million iPhones with FaceID currently active, with earlier generation iPhones (7, 8 and SE series) making up the rest. Even then, the percentage of iPhone users with FaceID but not owning an Apple Watch is a HUGE population and their needs cannot be brushed aside just like that.