rcfa

Kind of stupid to “diversify” to Chinese companies, amidst rising geopolitical tensions in that region, and an increasingly closed political climate under the current leadership there.

It would be better to diversify to China’s rivals in the area: Vietnam, India, Thailand, Philippines, or then away from that part of the world.

Obviously, these are non-trivial decisions and processes, but replacing reliance on a Taiwanese company with factories in China with Chinese companies with factories in China allows a little bit more pressure to squeeze Foxconn, which is already very cheap and frankly might deserve a bigger share of the profits, gives ever more rather than less power to the Chinese government over Apple.

What’s next? Moving Apple HQ to China? Would fit the AppStore policies...

Long overdue!

Phone locking is an incentive for phony calling plans with hidden costs, and allows carriers, even after equipment has long been paid for by correspondingly more expensive calling plans, to keep charging extra, or charge outrageous “unlocking fees”.

Obviously there’s no free lunch, but people should just pay a calling plan, plus either a phone rental fee or an installment plan payment for the equipment, if they are not willing/able to pay for the phone upfront.

It’s also more responsible to not pay more expensive a phone than one can afford, or have a plan that locks one in a financial responsibility that one my not be able to fulfill in an economically uncertain environment, which then may lead to bad credit with all the ripple effects thereof.

Best to get whatever phone one can afford to pay at once, and then have a plan without contract, one can change, suspend, or cancel at any time as circumstances change.

Corporations however don’t want consumers to make smart, good choices, but choices that entangle them in dependencies.

I hate to say it, but the woman has a point, and it’s Apple’s own fault:

Apple’s justification for its walled garden approach to the appstore is safeguarding users, retaining a family friendly user environment, etc.

I remember the brouhaha over ILLUSTRATIONS in a Kamasutra app that were too explicit, simply because they had a black dot where there’s supposed to be a nipple...

Now, please tell me someone with a straight face that gambling, which is a known addiction just like cocaine or heroin, is “safe” but even rather abstract illustrations of tits are not?

Heck, Apple banned Craigslist apps, not because the apps were objectionable, but because they might show web content that Apple deemed objectionable (never mind the same content was fully accessible with Apple’s own Safari).

So yeah, gambling does make Apple money, but so would an illicit drugs home delivery app.

To put it succinctly: Gambling is a known to be ruinous addiction, there’s nothing safe about it. In a curated appstore that claims to protect users, there’s ZERO place for gambling apps that take real money to play, aside from a one-time purchasing fee for the app.

If Apple wants to claim, they are not their users keepers, fine, I fully agree, but then stop censoring apps: if someone wants to sell e.g. porn on the appstore within the legal limits, then Apple shouldn’t interfere with that, either.

Apple cannot have it both ways.

Stupid to measure innovation by silly stuff like an L-shaped battery! 

If it’s not a glitch, then Amazon is clearly violating their agreement with MasterCard.
Some companies, questionably discriminate against pre-paid, foreign, or debit cards.

But it discriminating based on a bank or co-branding, that’s unheard of, and if that’s what they’re trying to do, it definitely is time for a lawsuit.