zoetmb

I don't understand why companies don't revolt and insist that Congress overhaul patent law.   Seems to me this would be a bipartisan issue.   These type of absurd lawsuits cost companies a fortune and in the end, probably raises prices to consumers.   As we all know, patents were not supposed to be issued for ideas and certainly not generic, obvious ideas - they were only supposed to be issued for an implementation of those ideas.  

I was involved in a lawsuit not too long ago because some companies were getting sued pretty much over choosing an index to search from a list (like subject, title, etc).  Totally obvious.  I was involved because I did it in a CD-ROM product in 1986, long before this other idiot company got a patent and I'm sure a ton of people did it before me.   And that same product also checked prior configuration when it ran updates.  Again, totally obvious.  

Didn't Apple (and other products) check for such factors as whether you had a joystick plugged in back in the Apple ][ days?   

In all the documentary footage that I've seen of Apple and other factories, individual workers are doing small repetitive tasks.   Circuit board assemblies are more than likely completely automated and assembling an iPhone from the few boards and battery is actually quite easy.   Now the individual parts may still need to be manufactured elsewhere, but the automated manufacturing and the assembly could be done in the U.S., in Europe and elsewhere if there's a will.    Due to the automation, it might not actually create all that many jobs. 

The real issue is that while Chinese wages have increased over the years, it's still cheaper than the U.S., there are no labor unions to contend with and workers work 6 day weeks and 10 hours a day.    So I think Apple is being disingenuous.   

I also think the "lack of skill" argument is bogus because of the above, because of the examples that Christopher126 gives and because manufacturing output in the U.S. actually peaked two summers ago, but it didn't result in a lot of job growth because so much was automated. 

I have always felt that manufacturing should take place near where the products are sold so that the communities where the products are purchased get the benefit of the jobs.   

And if Apple really cared about the environment, they wouldn't create products that can't be repaired by third parties and where end users can't replace/upgrade battery, memory and storage.   

I also think Apple is holding out to see if Trump isn't re-elected with the expectation that if he isn't and especially if the Senate flips, all of the tariffs will disappear with the next administration.   Or that Trump will change his mind again as he often does or that they'll actually be an agreement with China.  

StrangeDays said:

jdiamond said:

StrangeDays said:

bobolicious said:

...and so if one wants a new retail mac that can still run a more debugged macOS and 32 bit apps is time running out...? Will the iMac be locked down and T2'ed as well ?

Dude get over it -- 64-bit is coming and they’re not going to pull a Microsoft and bend over backwards to support legacy dinosaurs.

Uhhhh.... they've been doing that since 206, with zero cost. There's no reason they can't release a software emulator to help out users who need certain older programs. Many programs are still being released today in 32-bit, for no understandable reason.

Again.... Apple isn't going to keep 32-bit support forever to enable developers who are too lazy to update their apps, or even outright abandoned them. It isn't Apple's job to keep additional instruction set support around indefinitely because devs aren't supporting their users properly. 

It's a little more complex than that.  There's the issue of having to subscribe to an app in order to update and a lot of people don't want to do that, not just because of the subscription fee, but because of the need for the app to be connected at times.    Personally, I'm still using Adobe CS6 and Office 2011 not because I'm too cheap to upgrade, but because I want stand-alone versions.    In addition, there are companies that are slow to update apps.   Nikon, for example, is notoriously slow in updating their apps for new MacOS versions.   It's very easy to say "well, screw 'em", but it's the end users who suffer as a result, sometimes not being able to do their jobs.    I haven't figured out what I'm going to do yet once the change comes.   And really, the OS code is already bloated - how much bigger would it have to be to still support 32 bit apps?    

Back in the day, MacOS upgrades almost always went perfectly and everything just worked, even during the Intel transition.   But lately, each new version of MacOS seems to introduce more bugs.   Since a few upgrades ago, I can never open an Excel file from within Excel on the first try - it always works on the second try.    And in one of my Nikon photo importing apps, it used to recognize the iPhone and import those pics.   The app hasn't been updated, but MacOS has.   It does recognize that the phone is there, it just doesn't display any photos.    IMO, there's no good reason for those things to be happening.  They both used to work.   And considering all the resources Apple has, it's shameful that they introduce bugs that they don't fix.  

I also think that average non-technical users probably are ignoring those messages about the apps that sometimes display.   When they next upgrade the MacOS, I predict that all hell is going to break loose when many of their apps stop working.    Yes, Apple did give them warnings, but were they warnings that they could understand the ramifications of?   If Apple is smart, the next Mac OS installer will first check all the apps and present a list to the end user of all the apps that aren't going to work if they proceed with the upgrade and give them a chance to bail out of the installation.    But they probably won't because Apple is arrogant.  

As I've asked so many times before, WTF do all these people at Apple do?   It's not like we've seen major software upgrades or a new major line of products.   Most enhancements have been largely incremental and IMO QA isn't what it once was.   Siri is still largely crap and they've had years to improve it.   

When we read specifics about particular teams, it seems like the tech teams are far smaller than one would expect especially consider the huge increases in staff.

So Apple has Apple Park, they still have the original Infinite Loop location, they haven't seemed to have moved out of all the random office space around those buildings when they originally said they would consolidate (correct)? and they've got Campus 3, north of Apple Park and that's aside from all the other server farms and offices in other parts of the country and now they need even more office space in Cupertino?

So unless Apple has a ton of people working on some very secret project, I'm puzzled as to why they need all this staff and all these facilities.  

antoniofonseca said:

I'm sorry, but given Apple's direction in recent years, anything, including names and nomenclatures, lends themselves to justifying the increasingly expensive pricing.

Apple's current business model is that of luxury brands. There is no difference here whether the product is a computer, phone or a watch band.

Here's how it works: the luxury-brand companies sell a leather purse for the price of a car to people who want to imitate the rich and give the same purse to really wealthy people to consolidate status.

We saw this clearly happening at the time of the Apple Watch release. And we see today, with each product release, Apple giving influencers units for free so they can use and evangelize about the wonders and status that these products provide.

The watch was the test balloon. Bringing this expertise to Apple was the role given to Angela. And the instrumentation was done by Jony, turning the products into decorative objects (see the Butterfly keyboard and end of the utility product lines, like routers and monitors).

The next step was to stop advertising the sales volume of any product to focus solely on profit. Then we had an average 30% price increase for just about everything from products to AppleCare services. The stores have also been converted into high-end boutiques.

The transition from product company to luxury product company has been achieved. The current administration assumes this status openly and without any embarrassment.

Therefore it is important to understand that any action within Apple, including the adoption of nomenclature for products and services, nowadays will always be to reinforce and refine the luxury brand perception.

So when the first Mac (with just a floppy) sold for $2495 in 1984 ($6282 in current dollars), that wasn't a luxury product?   The Apple II+, without drives or monitor was $1195 in 1979 ($4241 in current dollars).   Sounds pretty luxurious to me.  

While prices have increased, Apple was never the low- or medium- cost leader.   Apple was always expensive.   It's up to each consumer to decide whether it was worth it.   And I say that as someone who was pretty frustrated with what I had to pay for my last MBP.