AppleExposed

apple ][ said:

AppleExposed said:

davebarnes said:

We upgraded our iPads to the retina versions the day they were available.
Now, our iPads are "good enough" and we sit here with money [burning a whole in our pockets] waiting for the resolution to double again.
I don't care about: speed, camera, color.
I care about image quality.

Sorry to say but doubling the resolution would not make a difference in image quality unless you use your iPad less than 1 foot from your face

Color on the other hand IS image quality and the human brain is more sensitive to color than resolution. So an HDR iPad would be a worthy upgrade.

iPad Pros are HDR I believe. Even my 10.5 Pro is HDR.

davebarnes said:

We upgraded our iPads to the retina versions the day they were available.
Now, our iPads are "good enough" and we sit here with money [burning a whole in our pockets] waiting for the resolution to double again.
I don't care about: speed, camera, color.
I care about image quality.

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

At least here in Brazil, Samsung is giving watches away with every note 10 and galaxy s10 purchase. 

That’s why it’s growing. 

Apple is SELLING them. 

M68000 said:

I prefer and have used Bing for years.  Use Google only as needed.  With a name like DuckDuckGo I can’t take a childish name like that seriously.  It sounds like toy for young child. Sorry

avon b7 said:

thrang said:

These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.

I lived in a mixed economy. There are other aspects than pure capitalism involved.

Competition is one of those aspects and this might be a competition issue. The only way to know for sure is to investigate. 

There is nothing disgusting about the position. There are rules and regulations. There are safeguards.

If Apple doesn't represent an abuse of competition regulations it has nothing to worry about. Simply being better or worse is irrelevant. 

Competition is relevant.