tundraboy

ktappe said:

Would you buy a car for which you needed special equipment just to pop the hood? And then once you got it open, any part you replaced made the car refuse to run anymore? If not, why are we putting up with phones that have purposely been made like this?

No, I wouldn't buy such a car, though some people might.  Specifically those who never ever access the engine bay and just let the dealer do all the maintenance.  That said, no car manufacturer offers such a car because there is no significant market demand for it.
  
On the other hand, I would buy such a phone, and hundreds of millions of other people bought such a phone.  Obviously, they don't mind that the device is hermetically sealed.  And those who didn't care for such a phone bought a different phone.

Regulations on battery recyclability due to environmental concerns make sense, but beyond that, then the government, rather than the consumers, would be dictating how companies should design their products.  The last country that did that was the Soviet Union.  That worked well for them, didn't it?

Compact, complex (i.e. powerful/multi-functional) products just don't lend themselves to easy repairability.  That's the way it is in mobile tech:  Compactness, Power, Repairability -- choose two, you can't have all three.  To achieve the easy component accessibility that repairability necessitates you have to sacrifice compactness and/or complexity.  And give up on water and dust resistance if you want an easily accessible and replaceable battery.

chutzpah said:

Meh, I'm not sure what else you'd expect him to say. 

He could say what Steve Jobs said when the IBM PC came out: "Welcome IBM, Seriously."  Because he knew that IBM's entry just validated the personal computer as a legitimate product.  

But that's the classy way to go about it, and if there's one thing that Zuckerberg doesn't know how to do, it's to act with class.

Xed said:

eightzero said:

Xed said:

h4y3s said:

Remember folks, this is just an early prototype of the eventual "Apple iGlasses". This one built for programmers and developers to get their hands on something that works before they roll out the final product, which will look more like a pair of Ray-Ban's and you will wear all day!  Maybe in five or six years. 

1) They've moved away from i-naming scheme.
2) We are not 5 or 6 years away from getting an M-series chip (or any of the other HW) into something the size and weight of a pay of Ray-Bans.

In 1963 we were not 5-6 years away from landing on the moon.

Of course we were. Untess you're a conspiracy theorist, we landed there in 1969.

In 2017 we were not 5-6 from this device or a Mac Pro like they showed yesterday.

Clearly we were, and it was obvious since we already had the same SoC in a much smaller Mac Studio. All they did was effectively get PCIe slots in the chassis from the previous Mac Pro.

Or a camera like what it on the iPhone 14.

Sure it was as it's just a iteration.

Come to think about it, Apple does still seem to see a lot of iMacs, iPhones, and iCloud services these days.

Huh? Was that sentence suppose to say something?

Outside of your beyond ridiculous comparisons the bottom line is that your suggestions that VR goggles could be the size and weight of a pair of Ray-Bans in half a decade without anything to back up that projection is not just silly, but downright stupid. These aren't stand-alone AR glasses like Google Glass, but offer a fully immersive VR experience. Even if the tech could reasonably shrink to fit everything inside of a pair of lightweight sunglasses in a handful of years (again, it can't), you're still missing the fundamental issue with making a VR headset that is open around the sides, top and bottom as is the case with a pair of Ray-Bans.

Type "define irony" in your search box right this very minute!

Wait!  Doesn't Apple Photos on Mac automatically put copies of the My Photo Stream uploads in the main Apple Photos library folder?

chutzpah said:

zomp said:

 Curious to know the percentage of people who own and use any branded phone over 5 years old. The only reason why I'm so negative to this story is that I feel Europe would love to bring down success. I'm sorry, but if you don't like a brand, then buy the other brand. It's a simple as that - I haven't purchased a ford car since 2002 because they didn't last long, so I moved to Hyundai. Why doesn't France just say "don't like apple, buy Samsung" or visa versa. Back before apple, all phones were junk and didn't make it past a couple of years.

You're joking right?

Feature phones lasted ages.  Nokia phones in particular were famous for being basically unbreakable unless you went massively out of your way and threw them under an actual bus.  The software was simple and solid, so didn't stretch the hardware, battery life was measured in weeks rather than days, they just went on and on.

They were junk in terms of what they could do in comparison to a modern smartphone, but lots of them were built to last.

Seriously?  You're putting up Nokia and feature phones as an argument to prove that Apple is intentionally designing iPhones to be obsolete in 5 years?  Where is Nokia's phone business now?  Nonexistent.  Why? Because they were stuck on feature phone tech and couldn't innovate fast enough, well enough to the next level i.e. smartphones.

Smartphone innovation goes at breakneck speed.  There is no reason to build hardware that lasts well more than 5 years if it it won't be able to run the software and handle the data bandwidth that will come out in 5 years.