tundraboy

shareef777 said:

indieshack said:

Really…27”? 

This is just a replacement of the 27" Intel iMac. They've had those for over a decade.

I think the point is that with the screen size unchanged, it is now pretty close to the lower end 24" which increased from 21.5".  I myself had hoped that it would have been bumped up to 30".

So many experts claiming they know more than anyone, including Apple's own management, what would be best for Apple.

Somedays it gets really tiresome having to watch out for and read past these legends in their own minds.

Yes there are some reasonable measures being proposed like making switching platforms easier for the users.  Apple and Google can easily work together and do this and there is an objective test. --How many steps it takes to switch platforms.  If done properly, that certainly benefits the consumer.

That said, legislators should recognize that smartphones hold very private, personal, and valuable information and thus require a much higher level of security than desktops.  They should not do anything that compromises security and privacy.  The number one thing they should never do is to force the platforms to allow side loading and alternative app stores.  Governments that do this will face a deluge of complaints from iOS users. The security and privacy environment would markedly deteriorate if they allow this.  Phishers and scammers will have a vast new ocean to fish in and the increased vigilance that will be needed to confront this added threat will be a great nuisance and cost for users.

crowley said:

Do you think that comparing Apple to Costco and Walmart is painting a good picture?  Lots of business have issues with the way major stores enter into markets and use their competitive advantages to crowd out their own business partners.  This is the whole issue with operating a platform or store, when you start competing with the companies that you service you create a conflict of interest, and open yourself to criticism of anti-competitive behaviour.

Wait.  Apple was selling music even before Spotify was created.  Why should Apple make way for a competitor, especially one that it preceded?  You're basically saying anytime an app sells a particular product or service, Apple should not be allowed to offer a competing product.

And here's the thing that people keep missing when they complain about Apple's monopoly.  Apple doesn't have a monopoly!  If the iPhone was the only game in town, sure some major monopoly abuse could be argued.  But there's Android, which sells a lot more smart phones than Apple.  Sure, Android does not sell to the same demographic as the iPhone, but there is no such thing as a 'monopoly on the luxury end of a market'.

Spotify et al complaining about the iPhone App Store is like Tide, whose products are sold in both Walmart and Costco, wanting to generate more profit from higher-spending Costco customers so they petition the government to force Costco to make their terms more favorable to Tide.  Including banning Costco from selling its own brand of detergent.  That is how preposterous and ridiculous the Coalition for App Fairness is.  They don't really want fairness, they want a free and highly profitable ride.

lkrupp said:

Apple approaching the $3T market cap as of today, currently at $2.78T. When MSFT very temporarily “dethroned” Apple some weeks ago there were headlines trumpeting the news. Now? Nothing.

Apple supports hundreds of thousands of jobs around the world in manufacturing, retail sales, supply chain transport, etc. Has Apple become ‘too big to fail’ for the economies of the world? It would certainly make ‘a dent in the universe’ if those jobs disappeared. 

Yet the critics keep yammering about ‘peak iPhone’ and Apple ‘killers, apparently waiting for the decline to happen. But the predictions of doom have been around since 1976 and show no signs of authenticity to this day. Just a few days ago Bloomberg started yammering about slowing iPhone 13 sales and Apple telling the supply chain to reduce production. But then, it was Bloomberg so...

Funny these people who say that the smartphone replacement is on its way.  My reply to that consists of questions like:  How do you take a selfie using a (name your candidate smartphone successor here)?  How do you ask a friendly stranger to take your family picture on your (name your candidate ... ) while you're on vacation?  How do you zoom in on a map on your (name your...), by talking to it?  By gesturing on air like an idiot?

The problem with some of these pundit futurists is they still think of the smartphone as a phone.  It is not. It's a mobile, compact, computer that can make phone calls.  We may get AR glasses, all sorts of wearable thingies, even anatomically embedded devices but the flat rectangular brick with a screen will remain the hub of mobile computing simply because given our anatomy and cognitive style/abilities, it is still the most convenient and efficient way to do mobile computing.

Smartphones are like the codex and the pen.  Technologies that have lasted thousands of years because they got certain jobs done better than any other proposed replacement.