thrang

Just happened to me this evening - order the Watch Edition size 8 - I was between a 7 and 8 with the paper guide - but I find it too loose. Could not exchange the band only

I guess this is because each combination is a separate complete SKU? But they should manage this better. It's wasteful to return the entire Watch for a different size (Apple has to refurbish it and can't sell it as new, so figure it out Apple...)

My understanding (from Bank of America many years ago) is there is no true “joint” account; one user is always considered primary and is the basis for the official relationship with the institution - many allow “additional users” to be added but they are not germane to the relationship (nor do they undergo any credit check)

Chase recently told me the same thing - I was told separately that this has to do with clear legal responsibility of the account should there be issues in the future (if bill goes unpaid in a true joint account, who is responsible especially if there is an issue in the marriage and each one blames the other for delinquency? It could eventually be rectified but it’s easier to simple have a one to one relationship)

Even a joint checking account is based on a primary applicant afaik.

Should Nordstroms be prevented from selling their own clothing lines because they also sell Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein? Should a local deli not be permitted to sell food they make because they also sell packaged goods from Pepsi and Pepperidge Farms? You could have an near-endless list of examples...

Further, if she is talking specifically about app competition, Apple gives many of their apps away for free anyway.

In a an alternative reality, what if Apple never supported third party apps, and only developed their own? Would she be clamoring that this was unfair and Apple should open avenues for third parties to sell?

Along with her lack of understanding regarding the benefits of a walled garden approach (that users and developers can choose to support of not), this is a clear example of why this type of philosophy should not be supported regardless of candidate.

While I respect that true monopolistic endeavors should be monitored closely for abuse in the marketplace, Warren's position here reveals a complete mis-read of the larger competitive landscape and wants to limit success (if Apple wasn't as successful with the same exact model, she would care less).

To even think of meddling with any company's non-monopolistic effort to be successful, especially with the enthusiastic support of its free-will user base, is breathtakingly mystifying. She knows nothing of the business model, operational, support, and marketing costs, short and long term considerations, risk factors etc. of any of these businesses. The fact is users and developers may choose to leave Apple, or conversely, Android ecospheres to jump to the other if they become "fed-up."

This is pure pandering.

The mistake Apple made was orienting the camera and sensors in portrait mode. The iPad will be used in landscape mode nearly all the time by most people, so it’s very easy for your thumb to cover the Face ID sensors when holding the naturally. The sensors should have been on the hinge cover (long) side. And the pencil attachment / cover should have been designed to charge and store the pencil inside the cover, not outside. Otherwise I love the device...

Kuyangkoh said:

macxpress said:

On a separate note...I can't wait for people to take this story and run with it on how Apple doesn't really care about the environment as much as they say they do. 

Every large corporation private or public usually deals w contractors on disposal, but still it is Apples responsibility that is why they were fined.....

And that contractor just blew a relationship with the largest US corporation...nice job