kellie

The latest Apple announcements emphasized Apple’s focus on being green and carbon neutral.  The entire Apple product line is not upgradeable. You can’t argue that the lack of upgradability is unique to the iMac. Sure you can have a Mac Mini and throw it out and replace it and keep your display, which isn’t possible with the iMac. But it’s criminal that you can’t add memory or disk capacity to all Mac products to extend their useful life.  This is also compounded by component failures which require the whole Mac to be replaced.  If you have an SSD failure you can’t replace that component.  The whole system is junked because of it.  The system on a chip architecture makes RAM upgradability a challenge from a design perspective.  But SSD’s are separate components on the motherboard and they should be designed to be replaced and/or upgraded.  Lots of Android phones have upgradeable storage.  Apple is so hypocritical when it comes to being green. The only green they are really interested in is green backs. 

You can certainly identify the liberals in this audience based on comments.  All of these “big evil corporations” fund the profitability of virtually everyone’s retirement savings.  Ignorance is certainly bliss. 

dave2012 said:

9secondkox2 said:

So stupid. There is no antitrust when you have options. Apple provides them in settings. 

Google isn’t the only option. Enabled by default is fine. Let apple do business the way they want. 

Once the government starts dictating the minutiae of how an option is selected or how a default setting is set up, it has become a private sector micromanager and that is clear overreach. 

This isn’t the old internet explorer precedent where you had to find and use your precious dial up resources download a competitor to compete with the bundled browser (which was hooked into the OS itself. 

Apple already bundles these services and you have one conveniently enabled off the bat, with other choices ready to go at the touch of a button. 

A literal non-issue. And I say this as someone who doesn’t use Google. 

While what you say makes sense, it doesn't explain to me the reason for the massive payment.  The fact that the payment exists implies a cartel to me. 

The reason for the massive payment is because Google makes more than they pay Apple.  $20 billion seems high to me, but let’s assume that’s what it is.  

cincytee said:

The immediate effect might be the loss of $20 billion in payments to Apple, but Apple would clearly then institute its own search engine, which would generate billions in revenue, much like Google, so the overall impact would be much smaller financially and also put Apple in charge of its own search revenues. The question then would be whether that in itself would raise regulatory scrutiny.   

The Google deal yields pure profit for Apple.  There are no costs to Apple to generate this revenue.  For Apple to create and operate its own search engine would be very expensive and wouldn’t yield the net profit the Google deal produces.  It’s also potentially at odds with Apple’s marketing message about the importance of privacy.  

Should people stop using this hone cases which reduce the dissipation of heat from the back of the phone? Or should cases be modified to allow more airflow?