wisey

The article demonstrates a singular lack of vision and imagination.  Many thousands of people work in control rooms with multiple screens and information input.  They are the people who would benefit most from an Apple vision pro.  For example, a busy news room, a person with a Vision Pro would be able to direct people, stories, videos, and other input from multiple sources.  The writer clearly has never been in a busy stock trading room or a cryptocurrency trading room, where many people are frequently watching three monitors at a time and talking on two phones.  An Apple Vision Pro could be used by airport controllers who may be directing 15 aircrafts taking off and landing at a time.  These are the people who would need a device like this, not construction workers.  Military use of the Apple Vision Pro will blossom.  I also think that the Apple Vision Pro will be used by serious gamers.  

I agree with Tim Cook.  He owns cryptocurrency but does not impose his views on others.  People who are interested in in cryptocurrency can readily find information on the web regarding how they can mine and trade cryptocurrency.  Apple does not encourage and should not be encouraging such activities.  The situation would be analogous to Apple encouraging gambling.    

seanismorris, I agree with you that many of the inferences in the article are poorly justified and not credible.  The claim that a “glut” of exploits for iOS is responsible for the lower price of exploits being sold suggests that there is a limited budget for such sales and the prices fall when there are too many of them.  I don’t think that there is evidence for such market limits.  

One would also imagine that the more malicious and damaging the exploits, the higher price that organizations would pay for them, suggesting that Android exploits are more malicious and damaging.  

As you point out, the other reason why prices for Android exploits are high is because there are more Android users.  

More exploits for iOS is consistent with the greater wealth of iOS users.  The fact that Apple responds quickly to the presence of exploits and almost all iOS users upgrade their operating systems relatively quickly means that exploits are more rapidly and definitively neutralized, reducing their value.

Most people, including myself, have never heard of IPad.mobi.  So, consumers are very unlikely to be confused by the similarity of the word “iPad” for a service and the name of Apple’s iconic device.  The company RxD likely pushed the name iPad.mobi on their website in order to attract attention to their website and to capitalize on the similarity of the name.  The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled against them last year and now Judge O’Grady has said that the evidence of infringement by RxD on Apple’s trademark is “overwhelming”. I wonder if RxD is now responsible for having to pay damages, as well as costs of the original appeal and then the trial?  I hope so because this would discourage other frivolous lawsuits of this kind.

lukei said:

Arresting the Huawei CFO in Canada has had the effect of Chinese companies either giving away or heavily subsidising Huawei phones for employees. 

There was a country-wide boycott of Apple iPhones starting the second week of December in China after the Meng’s detention in Vancouver in the first week of December.  Feelings were very strong in China.  Even in Hong Kong, many people bought Huawei phones rather than iPhones in protest of the detention.  This has not been covered much, if at all, by the American press.  The timing of the event was very unfortunate and, in my opinion, was largely responsible for the reduction in sales because iPhone sales were actually quite strong going into November.