retrogusto

If you have the patience, a safer plan is to wait until the thief parks it somewhere (unenclosed), then hop in and drive it away. 

The current iPad Air is kind of awkward in the lineup, given that the $599 base model only has 64gb of storage (which probably isn’t enough for most people, especially at that price), and the next level up only costs $50 less than an iPad Pro 128gb (which is enough for many people). And that $50 gets you a lot of extra stuff. It’ll be interesting to see the base storage for the new models—it’ll make a bigger difference for most people than a screen upgrade, unless the screen also makes the device significantly sleeker and lighter. 

Maybe it’s just a shout-out to Apple Insider. 

cropr said:

retrogusto said:

I may be wrong, but it seems like so many of these legal issues would be resolved if Apple offered a version of the iPhone hardware for sale without any OS installed, at a higher price that reflected the fact that the in-app purchases customers make help subsidize the hardware. Almost nobody would buy the hardware-only version, but it would help clarify the situation for lawmakers who may otherwise struggle to understand the bigger picture. 

This would assume that iOS os the issue, but probably this is not the case.    If a iPhone without iOS would become available, some companies might put Android on it, which would be a nice exercise if Apple would disclose the hardware documentation, but I don't believe Apple would like to do that.

I think that issue is much more the monopoly that Apple has on distributing iOS apps via the App Store.  And this monopoly does hurt some (but not all) app developers.  Being an ap developer myself, I don't mind that Apple is imposing technical requirements for apps, but I do not like the business related rules in the App Store guidelines.   E.g. it is quite beneficial for an app developer to integrate with a single, device agnostic, credit card payment system so the customer care becomes much more streamlined (and as a consequence more cost effective) 

Whether the end user would experience some benefits if this monopoly would be lifted, remains an open question.  Apple claiims not; Spotify, Epic, Meta and Microsoft claim it does.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. It seems to me that the hardware-plus-software model is obfuscating the fact that anything bought on the App Store and running on iOS is essentially an in-app purchase on Apple’s platform, developed and supported at great expense by Apple. Separating out the hardware by making it available separately at a higher price would clarify where the conflict lies, allowing a more direct comparison between iOS and other software platforms in wide use which may or may not allow third-party in-app purchases, like Spotify or Fortnite. Should everyone be required to allow third-party in-app purchases on their widely used platforms in direct competition with their own offerings, on terms stipulated by a government regulator? Probably not. The higher price would make clear the fact that Apple gives away the OS to support hardware sales, but also services, including the App Store, so if they lose some of that income they would want to get it in some other way, because they can’t be expected to give things away at a loss just because somebody would like it to be so. 

I may be wrong, but it seems like so many of these legal issues would be resolved if Apple offered a version of the iPhone hardware for sale without any OS installed, at a higher price that reflected the fact that the in-app purchases customers make help subsidize the hardware. Almost nobody would buy the hardware-only version, but it would help clarify the situation for lawmakers who may otherwise struggle to understand the bigger picture.