muthuk_vanalingam

charlesn said:

Here's a killer product that Apple could make today, but they won't: the MacPad Pro.  Essentially, it's a 13" iPad Pro form factor that can boot into either MacOS or iPadOS, depending on user choice. M chips are perfectly capable of this. Boot into iPadOS, and it behaves like a normal iPad. Boot into MacOS and the screen becomes non-touch, so you connect a Magic Keyboard and operate it like a normal Macbook. Best of both worlds in one device and no need to figure out how to kludge a touch-based OS onto MacOS. 

Pema said:

I transitioned from the Pixel 7 to the iPhone 15 Pro last year. I throughly enjoyed the Pixel line of phones: 5,6,7. The reason that I switched is security. No other reason. I don't really like the way the iPhone works. Everything is a struggle. Syncing movies, tunes, pics across. Nothing. 
But I now have an iPhone. So I figured another year hopefully the OS will get better and the phone experience will be better. I purchased the iPhone 16 Pro. The migration from 15 Pro to the 16 Pro was a nightmare. The swirly bubble on the 16 did not align with the 15 so I clicked on the option to Set it Up Manually. It took 5 minutes to complete. So that was a plus. But my Gmail, phone carrier and banking app would not work. Period. I spent an hour on the phone with a senior Apple adviser. Nothing accomplished. 
The strange thing is that when I transitioned from the Pixel 7 to the iPhone 15 Pro it went like a charm. No issues. No hassles. 
However, when I attempted to transition from iPhone 15 Pro to iPhone 16 Pro it was a mess and a nightmare. 
I am on the phone now with Apple to arrange for a return of the iPhone 16 Pro. 
And that too is taking an inordinate amount of time. 
Apple has become too big for its britches and can no longer manage simple matters like transitions from one current phone model to another phone model. 

Sad. Next upgrade will be from the iPhone 15 Pro to the Pixel Fold. I don't really need or use the banking app. 

freeassociate2 said:

We needed this article because…?

charlesn said:

WHAT is going on in Cupertino? Apple Watch Ultra abandoned without the chip or feature updates of Watch 10. And now Airpods Max is abandoned with 4-year-old technology and no update other than USB-C and additional colors... but no decrease in price, even though they're amortizing the hell out of APM. If the mission is to NOT sell new products, mission accomplished! 

charlesn said:

entropys said:

This rather sad upgrade doesn’t bother me. I will never buy these because they are an extremely expensive, yet poor competition for their Sony and Bose rivals.

I always wonder how sad and depressing the life of someone has to be that they choose to spend their precious time posting to a comment board about a product in which they have no interest. 

elijahg said:

mknelson said:

The logic for the limited warranty is probably something along the lines of "The design was tested for IP##, if there is water ingress under those conditions you must have damaged the seals".

That is a flawed argument. By that standard, zero warranty claims could ever exist because there would never be a manufacturing defect; every problem is user-created, which is obviously false. A defect in the seal could have existed from the factory, and allow water ingress when used in the conditions it's advertised with. To exclude that is no different to excluding camera problems due to using it in the sun too much, when advertising the phone being used to take photos in the sun.

My iPhone 13 Pro had dust in the lens, despite being sealed. You're saying that shouldn't have been covered because I must have somehow done something to get dust in the lens?

Either way in the UK, or the EU, and I would imagine Canada, Apple would have not a leg to stand on. You can't advertise the use of something then claim that using it that way might damage the product and that they won't cover it. That's just ridiculous, and it's fraudulent advertising.

elijahg said:

sloth77 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

The warranty for Samsung Galaxy phones works the same way. Exposure to water isn't considered normal use under the warranty. In other words, it's not a product that is specifically made to operate in water. 

AFAIK, all phone manufacturers that advertise water resistance have a warrantee that excludes water damage.

Counter intuitive perhaps, but it is the way it has always been.

To be fair, AppleCare+ (unlike the standard warrantee) does have a clause that states repairs will not exceed $79 for water damage.

Adding an exclusion doesn't mean it's legal. It has yet to be tested in court.