jdw

Jeff Williams has too much on his plate already.  So if indeed he does eventually replace Cook and take on more responsibilities, who will replace Williams in the position he has now?  This is an important consideration in light of Apple's amazing success under Cook.  Butterfly keyboards and bad mouse charging ports be darned, AAPL has done so well under Cook it lights one's pants on fire.  Naturally, we all hope their string of successes will continue into the foreseeable future.

Another politically "hot button" article under which comments are finally allowed.  Great work keeping the liberty going, AppleInsider!

Now, as to China gather info on "Americans," it should be understood that those Americans are not EVERY American, but instead younger people who throw caution to the wind for the sake of people popular.  I don't use TikTok and have zero intention of ever using it.  Heck, I don't use Twitter but once in a blue moon to enter a contest, although I do use FaceBook.  I also have a YouTube channel.  I don't use Instagram because I prefer Flickr.  And the list goes on. I doubt I am alone.  So it's not like the entire USA is moving to TikTok.  But let's say most Americans will eventually contract the same Brain Cloud as the younger generation and start the silly TikTok addiction.  Well, it's their choice.  It's like drinking alcohol.  I personally don't drink the horrid stuff but many do, and we know how the prohibition went in the past, right?  Ditto for smoking.  It's a stupid thing to do and it's even worse than alcohol because it is sadly breathed in by people around you, yet tobacco isn't banned completely.

So basically we have the US government stepping in and saying, "Americans are stupid because they use TikTok, and we must forcefully help them avoid the consequences of that stupidity."  Big Brother then tries to strong-arm US companies like Google and Apple into doing its bidding, which is in and of itself "weaponization."

I'm no fan of TikTok, alcohol or smoking, but I dare say it has series implications on individual liberty when you take the iron fist of government to step in and stop people from engaging in those stupid addictions.  While it may be an exercise in futility in light of how human beings love their awful addictions, we still need to preach the merits of not using TikTok, not getting ourselves drunk, and not smoking cancer sticks, for the good of ourselves and others around us.  We can do that without any new laws, regulations or punishments for non-compliance to the dictations of Uncle Sam.

Says "currently unavailable" on Amazon...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0BPJT1FWL/

Fascinating.  Yet another case of AppleInsider doing the right thing and allowing comment liberty under an obviously political post.  While I am very pleased about this, it needs to become the Rule, not the Exception.  Freedom has risks, but it's worth it.  Patrick Henry certainly understood that.

As to the article itself, I cannot help but muse at my fellow Americans constantly trying to bash and undercut their own homegrown business success stories, especially when many of those same people personally benefit from those business models and successes by way of stock appreciation and dividends.  Biting the hand that feeds you is clearly being done here with the fight against "big tech" — which interestingly has become "smaller tech" after significant losses in 2022!  But as is true of comments under political articles on AppleInsider, the same is true of American businesses.  A free market without the iron first of "for the greater good" meddling is the best approach, even when offenses come.

 If someone sells your data but you use the service anyway because it's free, even knowing your data isn't 100% secured and private, that's on you as a user, not up to Uncle Sam to regulate.  And if you as a developer don't want to pay Apple a large cut of your profits, just exist the Apple Store experience altogether, rather than try to get a political bully to strong-arm your wishes onto a private company.

Why should this surprise anyone?  This new camera tech is and shall remain "rumor" until the official public announcement by Apple, and of course Apple is known for bringing out the latest and greatest tech in the high end models first.  The tech then often filters down to lesser models over time.  Apple probably considers the periscope lens "bleeding edge" tech, which is why they would most likely add it exclusively to the large screen "Ultra" models, even knowing that not everyone wants such a large display.  But then a year later, in 2024, the tech would hit the iPhone "Pro" line too, which offers smaller screens and comparatively more "affordable" prices than the Ultra.

It's interesting that the "Pro" models are becoming the new mainstream model, whereas in the past it was the base model iPhone that was most popular.  But people buy Apple in spite of the price because they expect more "wow" features.  Remove the wow from base models, and people will flock to the higher end models, paying more as a result.  Apple marketing designed it that way.  And now we have talk of an iPhone "Ultra" to further that push buyers to the top.

With cost of living increases, high inflation and tech job losses galore, it's rather amazing to me how people don't cut back on their expenses when it comes to their iPhones.  Seems like no matter what the budget constraints are, millions continue to pay through the nose for the top end iPhone models.  Just amazing.  I know that advanced mobile phone tech is compelling, but it's another thing to go broke to get it.  Sure, I understand the way things are.  The iPhone is more than tech.  It's also a status symbol.  But the end result on consumers is hardly different than a drug addiction. Obtaining latest and greatest iPhone, regardless of cost, is their "fix."