capnbob

Peza said:

crosslad said:

At least with an iPhone, I know I can get the battery replaced easily. One of my android phones just died completely overnight. The phone is a Lenovo, I have no idea where I can get the battery replaced so it is going in the bin. 

Well if you mean you can pay Apple to replace it IF they deem it necessary, you cannot just ask them to replace it for you, they need to tear it on their diagnostics software for confirmation first, hence these on going cases that rightfully sue and fine Apple for when their software stated their was no battery problem when there was, thus many bought new iPhones for no reason.
Plus if you have your battery replaced you will lose the water resistance the device had because the seal is then broken.

None of the affected devices (6/6s) had any waterproofing (only 7 onwards are WP) and I’ve had 10+ iPhone 6/6s/7 batteries replaced by Apple for family and friends on asking. Any Apple conducted battery replacement or repair maintains the waterproofing guarantee on those devices that have it.  Before iOS 11.3 offered Battery Health, there were free 3rd party apps that accurately showed health for anyone who wanted to know (before iOS 12 blocked them). Where is any evidence of Apple falsely stating that a failing battery was OK in order to fool a customer into buying a new iPhone? I’m all for consumer rights but this is paranoia and a money making scheme for penny ante lawyers.

Wow. If that’s what they do with the “failed” iPhone 8 what is the X going to do in this quarter? I imagine the only limitation will be how many they can make and whether they register the sale when they are ordered or when they are shipped. If the latter, then this big bump will be smoothed over the next 2 quarters so it will be a weird super cycle (which might make FY19 hard to match 18).

...They will add it to their rag tag HW assets that are mostly there to push the HW side of whatever advances their advertising and data acquisition ecosystem along.

the1maximus said:

While as a consumer I agree and find it uber creepy (and utterly stupid) that I get adds all over the web for things I've already searched for, remember, this is what keeps the internet "free". 

Not for nothing, but my MSO (ISP) does give me free internet access, I have to pay for it. The same also goes for my cellular connection. That shit isn't free either. 

So so the concept that the internet is free and advertising is what allows it to be free is bullshit. When a website like AI, give your free access, it's because it's relying on the advertising to make up for the free access, to that their site only.  

Amazon on the other hand, has a free account and a pay for account. If I have a non prime account advertise the shit out of me. But if I have a prime account, that should not happen. All searches should be anonymous. 

Saying the internet is free is accepted shorthand for most content is freely available. You know that your access to the pipe entitles you to no content so why bother using semantics to derail the debate about advertising (which is about the content). The internet IS the content to the vast majority of users, not the pipes and access infrastructure.

mpf541 said:

I feel real bad for the ad industry. They may not me able to send me all the crap I never wanted in the first place. 

While as a consumer I agree and find it uber creepy (and utterly stupid) that I get adds all over the web for things I've already searched for, remember, this is what keeps the internet "free". I don't think these Safari limitations will destroy the model we shouldn't knock it too much unless you want paywalls everywhere. The advertisers and the ad networks may suck but this is how the creators get paid. 

I was was a fan of Techpinions but as a niche site they decided to put up a paywall rather than rely on ads. $10 a month is to much for casual interest for one website for me but I assume it is working for them. 

It is just ignorant of the underlying business model of the web to wish for an ad-blocked world.