emoeller

I would expect Bluetooth 5 to be implemented (Apple introduced BT 5 when it released HomePod in Feb).   This will help with latency issues and provide much better communications between devices.  To me this would be a huge improvement.

As for folks with poor fit issues, there are a number of third party solutions (Earbuddyz etc) to assist.  I found that I needed those with the older wired Ear buds but not with the AirPods.

We now have more than one data point, and this is very disappointing news.    My new MBP has the i9 and I will need to decide if I need to return and wait until next year when Intel will hopefully have their laptop chips out (and Apple utilizes the new DRAM spec).  For me $5k+ is a lot of money, but more importantly I needed that extra computational capability for field 3d renderings of block models.

I very much doubt that Apple will have imports restricted.   That tactic certainly didn't work for Apple in its suit against Samsung (which it won, multiple times!).

In other news California has just passed sweeping privacy regulations within the state restricting the sale of personal data.   It's going to be interesting to see how Microsoft, Facebook and Google handle this....

I've not seen a compelling reason for me to own a mini.  That said, and not straying too far from topic, I can't help but look around and see all of my various devices (iPhones, iPads, laptops, AppleTV's etc, etc) and wonder why I really need so many independent devices.    With the dramatic speed improvements in wifi/mesh networks ( and soon 5G) coupled with the huge increases in processing capabilities it just seems to me that if someone could come up with a way to share computing power between existing devices we would all end up with more efficiency and less duplicative hardware.  If each of the processors (many of which are already multi-core) could be arranged for parallel shared computing and that could also be shared with cloud computing power we could have small, highly efficient devices with limitless computing capabilities.  

Back in the day when the mini first came out I thought that was the way personal computing was going to go (smaller form factor with increased computational sharing via then early versions of wifi).

I have nearly this exact same problem.  I was early to sign up for Apple's zero percent financing in 2015 when they introduced their "World Phone" that could be used across the globe (they exclusively utilized Qualcomm chipsets).  The two yearr lease provided for annual upgrades, so in 2016 I upgraded but that was the first year that Apple utilized Intel chips (as well as Qualcomm), so the only true "world phone" was the Qualcomm chips (I have AT&T in the US but also use the phone internationally and it utilized the Intel chipset).  The local Apple store was able to provide me with the "Verizon" (Qualcomm) version) even thought I was on AT&T.  

However last year when I went to upgrade to the iPhone X the local Apple store manager advised they had no discretion to provide me a "world phone" and that because I had AT&T as my carrier I had to upgrade (which would be really a downgrade) to Intel chipset.  The advice Apple (both at the store and when I phone Apple) provided was that the carriers tied their hands and that no exceptions could be made.  However when I phoned both AT&T and Verizon they advised that this decision was solely Apple's as it was Apple who had arranged the financing program. Net was that I couldn't/didn't upgrade my iPhone 7 last year and will be forced to run the two year lease out.  Note that once "unlocked" iPhone X was available I was told I could upgrade at that time (but I've since been told that may not be the case).

I feel that Apple is ripe for class action lawsuits here as they clearly advertised "world phone" when I signed up for the program.  Apple minimizes information on the differences between the various phone versions they now sell.  Intel and Qualcomm chipsets are vastly different (I'm a geologist and I need the very best GPS which is only available in the Qualcomm chipset).  If a class action is filed the press it would generate on this issue could well damage Apple's case against Qualcomm.

The weird thing on all of this is that Apple's decision to not allow me to upgrade (or the gentleman in the article to purchase the phone he needs) serves no purpose for Apple or its carriers.  I have one of the participating carriers (AT&T), which I'm upset with over this issue and may now switch to over to Verizon to get a "world phone" and Apple doesn't make an iPhone X sale to me.  Furthermore I won't ever use their two year upgrade program going forward.   Everyone loses here.   It's stupid