DAalseth

I find it interesting that barely 1/5th of the respondents view AI as the most important feature. For all the press and the hype just shy of 4/5 aren’t that interested. 

charlesn said:

Could a survey be any more preposterous than one which concludes that the #2 priority for iPhone upgraders is "thermal management?!" New features? AI? Faster speeds? New colors? Better battery life? Nah, what the people REALLY want is better thermal management. Absolutely ridiculous on the face of it, yet this stupidity gets published. 

This is why surveys are so tricky. It sounds like they had a list of things and asked people what was most important, so nothing received a majority. If they had instead asked on each one if it was most important, somewhat important, slightly important, or not important, they would have been able to determine relative importance more clearly. I suspect thermal management was an issue on a lot of people’s list, but the other choices, price, AI, etc., ended up split up to make it seem more significant that it really is for most people. 

anonymouse said:

Where have all the decent iPhone (Pro) colors gone? And my wife is always complaining that they don't have colors for "girls". Does Apple have some ridiculous idea that "Pro" iPhones have to be boring?

It’s not just the iPhone Pro. The regular iPhone only has uninteresting pastel colours. The iMacs have great colours, that face the wall. The side the user can see is washed out and bland. The MacBooks are in shades of grey except for one model of Air in a very pale urine yellow. The other desktop Macs are silver. I don’t know what happened to the Apple design team, but I am wondering if they are all colourblind. 

Bronze I might go for. Mud brown not so much.

apple4thewin said:

Looks like cardboard or the tape we use to ship out packages from our store. 

Yes, very close to that. 

mike_galloway said:

DAalseth said:

I have no problem with Apple taking 30% of sales through the AppStore. They run the place, maintain the servers, check the apps for malware, they earn that cut. 

I have thought from the very beginning that Apple demanding 30% of sales through apps just because they sold the app is wrong, greedy and corrupt. They have no business whatsoever demanding money from Patrion or any other vendor just because someone uses an app that at one time passed through their system. They have nothing to do with that sale and do not deserve a cent.

This is why Apple is getting hammered with antitrust charges. If they had been less greedy in the past they would not be getting in trouble now. 

I’ve probably misunderstood you, but would that mean if an app was free (or very cheap) and had in app purchases than Apple would get nothing (or very little) for their services.

You have it exactly right  Apple gets a cut of the purchase price of the app, and if it’s free they get nothing.  After that, if the sale does not go through Apple’s servers, Apple should not get a cut. The comparison I use is if Ford demanded 30% of all income from cab companies that used Ford cars. It is ludicrous.  Now if Apple wanted to put a minimum price, like 99 cents for apps that allow in app purchases, that’s fine. But as far as a cut of the sales after that, absolutely not.

I have no problem with Apple taking 30% of sales through the AppStore. They run the place, maintain the servers, check the apps for malware, they earn that cut. 

I have thought from the very beginning that Apple demanding 30% of sales through apps just because they sold the app is wrong, greedy and corrupt. They have no business whatsoever demanding money from Patrion or any other vendor just because someone uses an app that at one time passed through their system. They have nothing to do with that sale and do not deserve a cent.

This is why Apple is getting hammered with antitrust charges. If they had been less greedy in the past they would not be getting in trouble now.