zoetmb

I can understand both sides.   In an ideal world, that library building would have been converted into a great public space.   But the city blew that over many decades and it seems pretty obvious that they weren't going to put in $30 million to renovate it (and if they had, being a Government deal, it would have cost $300 million and taken ten years).   On the other hand, Apple did indeed restore the building and even if one doesn't have the income to afford Apple products, one can walk into the building and use the computers.  I also assume that Apple doesn't occupy the entire building so the building is still being put to other uses.   

And if the City had come up with the money to restore the building, what kind of public use could the building of had?  Does D.C. really need any more museums?   Even if it had become a museum, most museums are quite expensive today, so I'm not sure how many of the city's residents would have made use (and even if they had, how often do people visit the same museum - once a year, maybe?)   I'm a big fan of public libraries, but the library had moved out years ago.   It probably doesn't have the appropriate configuration to have become a school.   

On a side note, while Apple products are expensive, when I'm on the NYC subways, I see lots of people who get on or off the trains in working class and low-income neighborhoods carrying iPhones.   I would assume they buy them on the monthly payment plan and they find a way to do it.   With the new NYC minimum wage of $15 an hour, three hours a month can just about pay for a phone.  Or maybe they're buying used or refurbished phones.   

And yes, it would be nice if today's industrialists got together and left a legacy like Andrew Carnegie did.   But we have to deal with today's realities and at least in the case of Bill Gates' charities, the kind of work he's doing to end diseases might be far more valuable and important than restoring an old building.  

"We find that older adults use fewer apps, take longer to complete tasks, and send fewer messages," 

Maybe they use fewer apps because they don't have ADHD and find a smaller set of practical apps that accomplish everything they need to and they don't always need to jump on the next thing.  And maybe they send fewer messages because they put all their thoughts together in a single message instead of sending a text every time some idiot piece of trivia pops into their head and because they don't gossip as much or maybe it's because older people still use email.   I bet they'd also find that older people take fewer selfies and don't post every trivial piece of their life on social media, like "I'm at McDonald's and here's a photo of my French fries".    And maybe they don't spend as much time on their devices because they have a life outside of those devices and still understand how to interact with real people.   

Maybe they do take longer to compete tasks (although I'm 68 and I don't), although I bet a higher percentage of older people know how to type properly.   

This sounds like so much b.s. and strikes of ageism.   What caused them to study this in the first place?  Sounds like they had a theory with a predetermined result and then interpreted their study to get that result.  

I think younger people also forget that it's the people who are now "older" who created this industry in the first place.   Most of the people who created the microcomputer industry and who developed the web for consumers and businesses are in their 70's now.  

If Apple is buying these companies in large part to acquire talent and staffing, I ask the question again that I've asked before:   what the hell are those tens of thousands of employees at Apple doing?    They don't produce that many products, most of the hardware updates are incremental, they still rely upon Intel for processors (although that might change in the future) and while their products are great in some respects, they're highly flawed in others.   They abandoned servers and network devices.   HomePod and AppleTV aren't exactly taking over the market.   They've had big problems with keyboards.   They seem to have abandoned their desire to produce a smart automobile.   They haven't made any obvious movies into AI and robotics, which I have always thought would be the future of Apple 10-15 years from now.   Siri still sucks.   Each new OS update decreases prior compatibility and seems filled with more bugs.    The long promised new MacPro still isn't here.   And their products (IMO) are far too expensive. 

Personally, I think Apple is making itself too large to manage effectively.    On a much smaller scale, I've seen this before.   I worked for a company that had over 100 developers working on an e-commerce project and little got accomplished.   We got rid of the contractors and knocked the staff down to 22 and because 22 people could be easily managed, far more was accomplished.   

Was the Beats acquisition really worth the $billions they paid?   Apple couldn't have instead produced headphones that competed with Beats and knocked them out of the market with superior marketing for far less money?    While Beats headphones are popular, it's not like they're actually any good.    They probably could have bought Sennheiser for a fraction of the cost or Grado for pocket change.   

I have to wonder that with the speed that Apple is acquiring these companies, how many of them are successfully integrated into Apple where Apple actually makes use of the tech.   If they're buying them just to acquire patents as a protection against lawsuits, that's another matter. 

With all of that cash and since Apple is emphasizing services because that's where the growth is, I also have to wonder if they shouldn't have attempted to buy 20th Century Fox (which went to Disney) or Warner (which went to AT&T).    

In order to actually hear Dolby Atmos, you need more than a TV that supports it - you need either a 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 channel setup via an A/V pre-pro or receiver.  Dolby Atmos for the home supports either 2 or 4 height speakers.   
5 channels = Left Front, Center Front, Right Front, Surround Left, Surround Right
7 channels = Left Front, Center Front, Right Front, Surround Rear Left, Surround Rear Right, Surround Side Left, Surround Side Right
.1 = subwoofer
.2 = 2 height channels
.4 = 4 height channels

The height channels can be speakers mounted in the ceiling, on the ceiling or speakers sitting on top of the front and surround speakers that fire up and reflect off of the ceiling.   

Apple CEO Tim Cook mentioned that Apple took about a five percent hit on Mac revenues because of constraints on Intel processors

That would imply that Apple is selling everything it can make and that is clearly NOT the case as there are plenty of prior year models on store shelves and almost always has been.   So I can't quite buy that comment.    As for more advanced processors, that's another issue, but Apple is not as good at compatibility as they used to be, so unlike prior transitions which went pretty well, I would expect a processor transition to be a chaotic nightmare.  

It's great that you like the ability to "remove a few screws" and etc. I do as well, but the much, much larger customer base does not,

Unless there's research of which I'm unaware, you would have no idea how the larger customer base feels about this, but I think it's pretty obvious that people resent having to buy a new computer or paying for service (or even the hassle of getting free service) if all they want is a replacement battery, higher capacity drive or more memory.   This is one area in which Apple's environmental stance is totally hypocritical because it is most certainly not environmentally friendly to essentially force people to buy a new computer when all they really need is a parts upgrade and one which Apple used to facilitate quite well.   You can't tell me that a company like Apple, with all its engineering and design resources, can't design a thin computer in which the memory, battery and storage can be swapped out.   They choose not to because it drives sales.   If actually asked the question properly, I would maintain that the vast majority of people would prefer a slightly thicker computer in return for being able to perform those upgrades (or have someone else perform them at a low price because it's so easy to do).  

Would you buy a car that forced you to return to the dealer to replace a battery, tires or windshield wiper fluid?   Apple doesn't even get to that level of service because even if you bring it to them and pay for service, they won't even upgrade memory or storage.  My late 2008 MBP enabled users to very easily upgrade, so as far as I'm concerned, we've taken massive steps backwards because Ive wants machines that are "social X-rays" (as Tom Wolfe once put it) and because many salaries at Apple are so high, they've lost all perception of pricing and what it means for an ordinary person to have to buy a new computer.