thrang

I have several HomePods, and do love the sound - I think Siri however is sometimes wonky, so perhaps an improved onboard processor is needed...

I own everything Apple, but I have a tough time with the use case for this. I'm not a gamer, but I would think from Apple's perspective, a gamer focus "mostly" would be a long-term failure.

I've thought AR for vertical business uses would be a great start - one example is the financial industry, where most everyone is looking at 2-4 large monitors. Imagine the space and cost savings (though would need to be 8k resolution minimum to start effectively replacing the real estate of multiple monitors I suppose). Medical, technical documentation, legal, security, etc. Many verticals, but will depend on strong developer support...

hodar said:

Pretty brave move, leaving Ford with 30 years experience.

Apple Fires 200 Employees From Its Electric Car Project (news18.com)

The article is from 2019, speculative, so so what?

xbit said:

thrang said:

So please amplify - if Apple or Samsung has a new charging port in development that they wanted to launch say next year, that offer demonstrably better performance or features, that was not USB-C based, how would they implement it?

They would submit their ideas to the USB-IF (or Wireless Power Consortium) for inclusion in the next USB standard. If it's demonstrably better, it'll be adopted without issue.

Then you wouldn’t have a universal standard which is what is being proposed. Apple or Samsung ( whoever “invents” the new tech would have it, while others would remain usb-c. So you’re back where you are now.

And who gives a hoot if some consortium thinks it’s good or not. That should be up to the company inventing and investing in the technology. Let the markets decide. Things like this are so poorly thought out when it comes to an innovation perspective. It’s really not saving anything. Everyone still needs a charger, regardless of what port it has. 

designr said:

If this part is true:

"also alleged that Apple delays paying invoices."

"It's a reflection of their corporate culture to stretch the terms of payment out as long as possible," said this one source. "It's really frustrating."

That is discouraging but not surprising. It is common for larger businesses—like Apple—to treat their suppliers like free lenders by paying a net/30 invoice in 60, 90, 120 or even longer days. This is common but unethical.

But, hey, it's Apple. So it's okay.

If it is simply done to everyone for no reason, Apple is wrong.

However...

As someone who has paid bills professionally, there are far too many instances of suppliers not doing the work contracted for. Incomplete. Out of spec. Missing deadlines. Poor or unsafe quality. Etc, etc. 

So it's meaningless (in the context of this article) to automatically have a snide reaction that people automatically "protect" Apple no matter how poor their behavior. There is no insight anyone has into any specifics to ascertain if there is a reason payments are sometimes delayed, or how frequently this is their modus operandi.

And yes, clauses to clarify payment terms, penalties, discounts, extensions, etc. are very common. To protect both sides.