mark fearing

My guess is with all the tension between the countries that some in China may feel that 'sticking' it to Apple is a patriotic duty. The future for tech looks very confusing. It may be that countries only use and manufacture in country for devices or some such thing. This is rather ridiculous (will raise cost and delay progress) but it doesn't seem out of the question.

gatorguy said:

corrections said:

knowitall said:

I think, not being able to locally produce goods, was a self fullfilling prophecy of asshole (it) managers back then driven by squeezing the last penny out of almost loss making products.

But we have several examples of attempts to build in America that failed. It wasn’t because of profitability or margins, it was because of product quality and expertise in manufacturing, which the United States lacked because it refuse to invest in people and plant. Granting massive tax breaks clearly wasn’t enough. The US should have invested in tech and it didn’t. 

It should have invested in 5G but it didn’t. And now it should be investing in clean energy and it isn’t. Imaging how that will work out. 

Wouldn't that be the job of private enterprise rather than the "gubment" to invest in plant and people?

FWIW I think you're ignoring the valuable tech that our government has funded: Siri, GPS, the internet, Unix (Multics) to name some major ones, and the US agencies were early in on things like maps, the TOR browser, even a company who mitigates the damage from DDoS attacks.  Heck the US government had a hand in funding nearly all the root technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone from location (GPS) to its touch display, search and communication thru the internet, and creation of what became Apple's voice-activated assistant.

No. private business focused about the short term. They don't do anything that won't pay back intimate payoff the CEO and stockholders. It is the Governments role to look ahead and point us in new directions. It has never been private business. Never. The BS going around with this POV is frustrating. Certain big things cannot be accomplished well by the private sector. Like healthcare for instance where middle-men insurance companies take most of the money OUT of the system of actual care. Infrastructure can't be built by private companies or it will only serve their needs in the short term. There is a place for private companies but to idealize their role and expect them to have some greater good in mind is short sighted. Battling pollution, dangerous chemicals, keeping water clean ETC, ETC - that's what the government is for. private business only wants as much money as they can get right now. Regulation is needed. And with the really big issues only the Government can do that. 

gatorguy said:

wood1208 said:

Ipad is the best tablet all around. Amazon tablet market share is only due to dirt cheap price.

That, and there's a whole lot of people who don't need anything more capable than an Amazon tablet. All they do is browse the internet, visit Facebook or whatever, check email and pay bills, read their books, and play a few relatively simple games. No one really needs an iPad to do those things.

True. The iPad Pro is overkill for casual users. But the cost of the iPads on the low end is pretty darn good. But I think the money spent on even the entry level iPad is smarter than the savings buying into a Fire as the Fires just don’t last. The build quality is so low that it’s practically throw away tech. Can you even get a full year of use? 2? But I agree that if the goal is to just have some technology price allows for the Fire models to win. But I don’t think they inspire people to invest in the platform in a meaningful way. Ad supported technology does have a market.

If we are playing this card, then it better apply to everyone. Every company. Are they supporting China? Is Walmart? Can’t they protest the Chinese Govt? Should companies never follow requests from sovereign nations? Should they only if it’s a POV they support? 

Soli said:

1) Roku's CEO has been very clear that Roku is in the ad business, not the HW business. Consumer privacy is not something they care about. I didn't see this addressed in the review.

2) I don't think listing "A10X Fusion" and "Quad-core processor" are helpful for potential buyers. Even if you listed various performance values that show which is faster it still wouldn't detail how well their systems work on their respective platforms. In my experience tvOS is considerably more refined, faster, and with fewer hiccups and crashes than the Roku's I've set up and used.

Yup.

Roku's been passable in my experience but certainly NOT refined in speed, interface or management and yes, they really want to get info and sell your habits. As for which is better, there isn't really a debate about 'better'. If you don't like Apple don't buy it. It will let you watch streaming TV.  If you are in the Apple ecosystem it's pretty darn robust from that POV and Roku can't come close.