longfang

nubus said:

ducarmur said:

Apple owes no one an apology for any of their commercials.

Apple can do any ad without apologizing. As customers we can decide if we like the message or not.

The iPad "Crush" commercial was destructive, disturbing (destroying tools of art that people are passionate about), and negative. Apple is seen as an enabler. A company that allow us to do more, saves lives, protects privacy, and enables us to create, keep, and share moments. Car companies don't crush bikes and you don't incinerate stuffed toys unless you sell insurance.

"Destroy wonderful tools and go spend on iPad" - so off-brand. It passed all checks and ended up in a keynote. That is the problem.

The Thai-commercial was never in a keynote. Apple could have invented a country "Lambastian" or "Mid Nowheria". Toasting a real country is stupid but at least on-brand with how Americans are seen abroad.

Plunderkind said:

Hey everybody, what would you rather own: Apple’s slimmest iPhone EVER, or an iPhone 2mm thicker that has much longer battery life?

I thought Apple had gotten over the fixation on the thinnest phone…

mac_dog said:

I can’t imagine a use case for a foldable phone.

nubus said:

When MS agreed to this, the wording was very, very positive towards EU. Read the part about "Amendments to Security Features":

https://news.microsoft.com/2006/10/13/brad-smith-press-conference-transcript-announcement-regarding-release-of-windows-vista-in-europe-and-korea/

MS PR could have been professional and stayed silent. Now they say that the core of Windows is at risk and on a global scale! Add a full attack on authorities for an 18 year old agreement that MS "forgot" to implement. Attacking authorities might work in US. In most other regions this is a 100% PR disaster. MS should be happy that the EU Cyber Resilience Act is not yet in place or the fine would have been 2,5% of global revenue. Stupid PR team.

cg27 said:

charlesn said:

cg27 said:

And they spent ten years spinning their wheels on a vehicle program to no avail.

To no avail? Hardly. They spent years trying to develop an Apple Car and, having learned through that process that there wasn't a sufficiently profitable or successful business to be launched, shut down the project. Sometimes, that's how it goes and it's a helluva lot better fate than becoming another Fiskar, Rivian, Polestar or take your pick of EV also rans that probably aren't going to make it. (In Fiskar's case, It's already out of business.) Sometimes you have to be smart enough to take the loss and move on rather than continuing to throw more money at something that is unlikely to change its ultimate fate. 

No argument about not throwing good money after bad, but it does seem that ten years of effort and $10B was to no avail.  I think they finally realized they weren’t going to outdo Tesla.