pjs_socal

I am surprised that it took EU countries this long to enact these kinds of taxes. It’s common knowledge that Apple (with help from Ireland) took advantage of loopholes in international tax laws to reduce their tax burden. Of course, Apple has done nothing illegal, but it’s completely within each country’s rights to change tax laws to close those loopholes.

It really blows me away how many people fail to understand the design of The Magic Mouse 2. I hear so many complaints about that fact that the charging port is on the bottom of the device so you can’t use it while it is plugged in. Huge numbers of people believe that this design was some sort of oversight by Apple or some triumph of form over function.  This idea is completely wrong. The placement of the charging port on The Magic Mouse 2 is very intentional. It is designed this way to force users to unplug the device once it is charged. If users are given the option to leave the device constantly plugged in, they will do so. In doing so, they will destroy the battery. It’s that simple.

Those who try to armchair quarterback Apple’s design decisions are, for the most part, truly clueless.

I find it hilarious how so many people have no sense of scale whatsoever. $30M per month for data services represents the tiniest fraction of cloud computing resources that Apple uses for iCloud and media services. Apple probably uses AWS and Azure services to maintain bandwidth during peak demand periods, like software release days...

The NY Times reference to Apple in their reporting is very shady. It seems that Facebook found a workaround to Apple's privacy controls and exploited it to fool Facebook users into unknowingly sharing their data. It also seems that Apple was unaware of what Facebook was doing. NYT was very careful to avoid openly accusing Apple of wrong-doing, but the references to Apple in the article are very carefully worded to create the impression that Apple was somehow complicit. Unlike the other tech giants, Apple wasn't a player in any of this, but suggesting that Apple was involved helps get clicks, so away we go. It seems like this was an intentional editorial choice by NYT. That's a super sleazy tactic by NYT.

One wonders how much money Super Micro, Apple, Amazon, etc. have spent looking for Bloomberg’s imaginary spy chips. Shouldn’t Bloomberg be held  financially responsible for these costs?