thrang

zhuravlev said:

The font, which is written with the word PRO, is typed in the Myriad font, which Apple has not used for a long time, this indicates a low level of the designer. so I conclude that this is fake

Yes, the second I saw the image the typography of PRO didn't look very legit 

They knocked it out of the park with these laptops, anyone who tries to posit otherwise is a troll or a moron.

Personally I'll wait for the inevitable Mac Mini Pro as I'm not a mobile user beyond an iPad Pro... but I am intrigued...

This is a lower-cost (entry level) way for people who do not subscribe to Apple Music content to dip their toe in the water for a longer period of time than a trial. The bet is people will upgrade to the more full featured Music subscription if they like the content (and the new curated playlists they were talking about)

Obviously there will be some cost, as Apple has to pay the artists who's music is streamed.

It could have been presented better, but when they positioned the service to the left of the individual plan (at a lower cost) on the comparison slide, it began to make sense.

tehabe said:

thrang said:

Everyone overcomplicates, including government interventionists

Who cares what Apple charges? If they charge too much, developers should stop supporting them and users should not buy an iPhone (or buy apps). The market strongly indicates pricing is not an issue. Apple is a premium price company across the board, and they deliver an experience that many desire and appreciate. 

The app store is a feature of the iPhone, like BMW's Connected Drive is a feature of their cars. Should you be able to demand a Mercedes Command system be made available to your BMW?

A company can seek and must seek to maximize its profits. The markets will decide if they have pushed too far. There are cheap Android phones anyone can buy around the world. Go at it.

Should Apple be forced to provide free services to third parties? Why? Should Peloton be allowed to set up a kiosk in Dick's Sporting Goods to sell its bikes and treadmills direct to customers who walk into Dick's, with no compensation to Dick's? 

How would security be managed with sideloaded apps if it were to come to that dopey idea? Access to and transmission of private data? Does Apple have to give Cockamamie Email Plus access to your Contacts? Photos? Calendar? What about access to the larger ecosystem of devices and data? Permitted? Not permitted? What about unvetted poor coding (leading to perhaps overheating, battery drain, lock ups, ie a poor user experience). Who is responsible for supporting the grey area of shitty sideloaded apps making your iPhone unstable or slow? Who pays for the extra work in iOS coding, testing, support, investigations if it were even remotely possible to manage such a thoughtless concept of sideloading into an otherwise secure environment?

How can Apple maintain responsibility for its reputation in such a paradigm (and that is among the many critical considerations that governments and yahoos don't give a hoot about)

Does a company have a right to manage and protect against such dangers to its profit, reputation, brand, and, most importantly, protect a users trust in them? 

Who is forced to support Apple? No one. But it is readily apparent that customers and developers find it far more worth it than not to join and stay part of the Apple ecosystem. People love the product as it is. If Apple is missing the boat by not offering something different, that's there choice, and maybe their mistake.

There is a desire to hate on the successful in the world, at business and personal levels. It's a sad state of affairs really. No one will build a better mousetrap with that type of thinkin; they just want to steal the cheese off of someone else's...

I guess you would happy if Apple would close down macOS as they close down iOS, no more installing third party applications from the web, no more direct access to the file system. Btw Apple actively ignored several security vulnerabilities reported to them this year w/o fixing them in time. Or how they denied the privacy for their employees by forcing them to use their personal Apple ID/devices for work. Apple doesn't care for its users or security, they only care for their profit and share prices.

The only reason why I'm currently considering an iPhone for my next smartphone is that Apple supports them for a longer period of time than other manufacturers with actual updates.

The App Store is not a feature it is a market place, and capitalists should be lobbying for free access to market places, right?

Of course its' a feature of iOS. Try to use the Apple App Store on a Playstation or Xbox.

If you think that poorly of Apple's overall efforts, a slightly longer OS support timeframe doesn't seem to warrant buying into them as a company for you.

Everyone overcomplicates, including government interventionists

Who cares what Apple charges? If they charge too much, developers should stop supporting them and users should not buy an iPhone (or buy apps). The market strongly indicates pricing is not an issue. Apple is a premium price company across the board, and they deliver an experience that many desire and appreciate. 

The app store is a feature of the iPhone, like BMW's Connected Drive is a feature of their cars. Should you be able to demand a Mercedes Command system be made available to your BMW?

A company can seek and must seek to maximize its profits. The markets will decide if they have pushed too far. There are cheap Android phones anyone can buy around the world. Go at it.

Should Apple be forced to provide free services to third parties? Why? Should Peloton be allowed to set up a kiosk in Dick's Sporting Goods to sell its bikes and treadmills direct to customers who walk into Dick's, with no compensation to Dick's? 

How would security be managed with sideloaded apps if it were to come to that dopey idea? Access to and transmission of private data? Does Apple have to give Cockamamie Email Plus access to your Contacts? Photos? Calendar? What about access to the larger ecosystem of devices and data? Permitted? Not permitted? What about unvetted poor coding (leading to perhaps overheating, battery drain, lock ups, ie a poor user experience). Who is responsible for supporting the grey area of shitty sideloaded apps making your iPhone unstable or slow? Who pays for the extra work in iOS coding, testing, support, investigations if it were even remotely possible to manage such a thoughtless concept of sideloading into an otherwise secure environment?

How can Apple maintain responsibility for its reputation in such a paradigm (and that is among the many critical considerations that governments and yahoos don't give a hoot about)

Does a company have a right to manage and protect against such dangers to its profit, reputation, brand, and, most importantly, protect a users trust in them? 

Who is forced to support Apple? No one. But it is readily apparent that customers and developers find it far more worth it than not to join and stay part of the Apple ecosystem. People love the product as it is. If Apple is missing the boat by not offering something different, that's there choice, and maybe their mistake.

There is a desire to hate on the successful in the world, at business and personal levels. It's a sad state of affairs really. No one will build a better mousetrap with that type of thinkin; they just want to steal the cheese off of someone else's...