Notsofast

Hard to believe there's much left to say, but a couple of key items the nattering pushers of negativity left out were that there were 100 MILLION new activations of devices in 2018 and there were many developed countries that set new records for revenue.

rogifan_new said:

“If you believe your new iPad Pro does not meet the specifications described in this article, please contact Apple Support. Apple offers a 14-day return policy for products purchased directly from Apple. Apple also provides up to a one-year warranty on our products and will cover damage if it has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship. “

I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. How about don’t let products ship that don’t meet specifications? It shouldn’t be up to the customer to determine if something is more or less than 400 microns (assuming they even know what that means). If my 12.9” iPad looked bent it would be taken back to the store, period. No measuring for 400 microns or whatever. Thankfully it’s not. Apple’s response should be simply if you think you have a bent iPad bring it to the store for a replacement.  Those who have imperceptible bending won’t notice and everyone else obviously has an iPad that should be replaced.

You seem a little confused about what's going on. First, it is already Apple's policy that if you aren't satisfied with the iPad, for any reason,  simply bring it back to the store for replacement.  Second, manufacturing doesn't work the way you think it does. There's never been an Apple, or Google or anyone's product that has every single product ship that meets every single specifications nor will there ever be.   To do so would require complete hand inspection of every single product to find the rare item that the computer process missed. Can't possibly take the time, nor waste the massive time and money to deal with mass produced products this way.  For the tiny amount that have an issue that a consumer gives a hoot about, that's why you have a no questions asked return policy and generous warranty period to allow for the discovery of other defects.

gatorguy said:

StrangeDays said:

KingPacific said:

Nest is an Apple product brand  that Apple let fall from its tree

Well, if by that you mean "that Google bought and steadfastly refused to offer HomeKit support in an act of anti-user corporate warfare", then OK, sure... 

Wasn't it Apple that decided it didn't want Google's Nest around once there was any other Homekit-compatible option? Why yes, yes it was. I'd put as much of the blame on Apple as on Google, particularly since Nest can't offer Homeklt-friendly gear without Apple's approval which we have no idea if they'd grant.

Maybe Apple is the real hold-up rather than Google not wanting to offer it. In fact IMHO that's the more likely reason since most Google products outside of Nest are cross-platform. Nest is an outlier. 

 What benefit does Google gain from discouraging Apple users from purchasing the nicely-integrated, well-designed, and premium build products? None that I can think of and I bet you can't either.  Apple users are just the type of buyer who would appreciate the otherwise very Apple-y products. Common sense kinda points to Apple being the reason Nest products aren't Homekit-compatible. Apple doesn't lose a cent, while Google is losing out on hardware profits.  

Not enough time to explain it all, but suffice it to say that you need to read up on how HomeKit compatibility works. Apple doesn't decide which companies products are HK compatible.  Apple sets the security standards, thank heavens, that are the strictest in the industry, and it is then up to each company if they want to offer it.  Some companies don't want to, or can't, meet those security standards, especially when they can meet the much easier Amazon standards for Alexa.  

Nest and Ring, however,  are two companies that were purchased by major Apple competitors, Google and Amazon, and both companies absolutely are trying to do everything they can do keep Apple HK from being dominant as it ties into the world of assistants as well and other aspects of their respective ecosystems.  That's why, no other reason, Ring was about to offer HK compatibility, but now just keeps saying it "may be" coming in a future product--for the past two years!  The doorbell and camera market is a hot mess and cries out for Apple to produce a nicely designed top notch product that would likely immediately dominate the market.  Google/Nest will likely never allow HK-- here's their quote  to Apple Insider from early 2017, "a Nest spokesperson officially told us its “open to supporting” the platform and that it will indeed “consider HomeKit.”  LOL.

wanderso said:

Qualcomm is an example of companies that are more of a patent troll than an innovator these days.   Since they are publicly traded, the best thing that could happen would be for Apple to join up with Google to do a hostile takeover bid, purchase it, shut it down, and turn over the patents to public domain. The whole world would be better off.  That would avoid claims that Apple is cornering the market. I’m sure qualcomm has a poison pill in their stick that triggers if more than a certain percentage is purchased, but this could be thwarted by connecting to the right stockholders. 

So you expect Apple and Google to spend tens of BILLIONS of dollars to simply give the patents away?  Of course no company would consider that, nor could they as it would violate their duty to their shareholders, i.e., the owners.

radarthekat said:

Any court would need only run the following mind experiment to see that such a lawsuit has no merit.  This mind experiment deals only with a single dimension of the plaintive's argument; the time delay between invention and implementation.

Let’s imagine that Apple did implement the feature, not later in iOS 11, but implemented and released it the day after this crash occurred.  Would the plaintive’s lawyers still argue that Apple acted negligently towards its customers safety?  It takes time to design, implement and test features, which then are slotted into release cycles with many other features.  

To take an extrene example, let’s imagine Apple filed it’s patent the day prior to the crash, and released the feature just two days later, the day after the crash.  Would the plaintive’s lawyers still think he has a case?  It comes down to what’s a reasonable amount of time between invention and implementation, and who can say for any given feature or capability what that amount of time should be?  

Actually, it doesn't matter if or when Apple ever developed or implemented the technology; it's a basic rule of tort law that you aren't liable unless it is the "natural and probable consequence" of your action. In this case, as the Court ruled, Apple isn't liable for the driver's distracted use of the cell phone, whether it was for FaceTime, or a phone call or texting or reading the news or listening to music, because the "natural and probable consequence" of Apple creating Face Time isn't that an idiot will FaceTime while they drive.  Anymore than McDonald's is responsible for you having an accident while reaching into that irresistible bag of french fries while you are driving, (but those fries are so tempting, buying one for the road may be the natural and probable consequence, so maybe that's a bad example:) )