randominternetperson

I'm surprised at how little has been changed after 3 long years. Based on those benchmark charts, I see a nice, but not amazing, speed bump, obscure camera bump (Smart HDR 4 versus Smart HDR 3), faster USB (so exciting), and compatibility with the new Pro pencil. Sure the new model has more storage, but you can get even more by just buying the prior version on sale. I can see why this was a press release and not saved for an "event."

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they refreshed it, but it's just a modest refresh.

AppleInsider said:

Despite no case battery, Beats has managed to squeeze out a lot of battery life from the Solo Buds. It's claimed that they can last for up to 18 hours from a single charge.

How is that possible?  That's like 3x what AirPods get, right?

avon b7 said:

And in breakthrough technologies in almost any field, Apple isn't even trying. I'm talking about problems that have been around for decades, like overcoming Shannon's limit (polar codes) or moving beyond Von Neumann architecture. That nut has been cracked too. 

In Apple's top product category (phones), Huawei has been a, no, is THE leader in almost the entire set of tentpole phone features that have come to iPhone over the last seven years.

Who is knocking off who? LOL. 
 

Wow. Apple spends billions on R&R annually, but they aren't even trying "in almost any field"? You make some interesting points, but then you took it to an absurd level.

No one is arguing that Apple is some sort of basic science think tank. I wouldn't expect Apple to make any breakthroughs in low level telecommunications tech. That they do at all, is a credit to them, but their "job" and stated goal is to integrate technologies to make products to make people's lives better.

Also "Huawei" appears nowhere on this thread except in your post, so why are you writing a thesis on why Huawei isn't a "knockoff" company rather than just conceding the obvious point that "Chinese knockoffs" are a huge industry and relevant to this discussion?

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.

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.

I'm as big a capitalist fanboy as anyone, but this is nonsense.

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.