timmillea

There was a time when Apple always led with new technologies - mostly a deeply unprofitable time. In latter years, they work in secret, study what the competition is doing, innovates on top, patents to the hill, then embarrasses the competition. 

My first degree at Durham University starting 1992 was 50% in AI and 50% software engineering. Then no one I met outside the University had even heard of artificial intelligence nor believed in it when I explained what it was. Now AI is on the main broadcast news all the time. Even now, Nick Clegg of Meta was on the airwaves this morning explaining that the current generation of AI is simply predicting the next word or 'token' from big data. Back in 1992, Durham had a huge natural language processing system called LOLITA which was based on deep semantic understanding - an internal, language-independant representation based on semantic graphs. LOLITA read the Wall Street Journal everyday and could answer questions on it with intelligence, not parrot fashion. For my final year project, I worked on the dialogue module including 'emotion'. Then the LOLITA funding ended and that was the end of that. Had it been in the US, I can't help feeling that LOLITA would have morphed into one of the top corporates in the World. We don't support genius or foresight in the UK. 

It is truly depressing that 30 years later, the current state of AI is still neural nets trained on mediocre data sets. 

thedba said:

Personally I think a better program would be to charge an extra amount (say 50 euros) per device and at the end of life of said device you exchange it for a newer one and get reimbursed or apply that deposit to the new one. 

I this is about the most sensible comment made in this entire discussion. Modern devices, especially Apple's, are designed to optimise whole battery life to go beyond the expected lifetime of the device. Some would call this a 'disposable' device but having a deposit scheme achieves everything the EU in this regulation is trying to aim for. Forget about the politics of 'the right to change your own battery' and instead focus on environmental impact. If the purchase price of a device included a returnable deposit towards a new device or simply for returning it to recycle/refurbish then practically all the bad behaviour would be eliminated. 

One of the reasons the UK left the EU was this constant over-reach into every day affairs by people who made mediocre decisions. 

jimh2 said:

beowulfschmidt said:

Words are inadequate to express my bewilderment.

If you are unfamiliar with the high end audio world then the price of this product is a shock, but what you do not know is the high end audio world has no problem paying insane dollars chasing perfect sound. Interconnects and speaker wire costing thousands of dollars, supports for holding speaker wire above the floor, amongst a ton of snake oil. There is no question that as you move up the cost chain there are improvements but they diminish fairly quickly when you move much above $10K. The improvements are there, but most would not care. The craziest waste of money I have seen is a network switch being sold as an "audiophile" switch. It is a relabeled cheap switch that is sold for more than $500. You have to go to an audio forum to see how insane the claims are. 

The CD standard, 44.1KHz, 16 bit per channel, uncompressed, was chosen by committees of experts over many years as the 'perfect' reproduction (not recording) standard, vastly superior to vinyl in every way. Almost all adults can't hear anything above 15Khz and do not have 96dB (=16 bits) of hearing range. If you want the inferiority of vinyl, simply apply a vinyl filter to degrade the audio. Then, domestic wiring cable has solid copper conductors with a higher spec than 'high-end' speaker cable at a fraction of the price. Still there are the pretentious and those with more money than sense who will forever pay more for some advertised advantage or kudos. The king always has clothes in the audio world. 

I cannot imagine why some think it is fine for trillion dollar companies pay1-2% marginal tax when poorer members of society starting out in the jobs world pay marginal rates of tax approaching 70%, e.g those paying income tax, national insurance and repaying their student fees. These companies' behaviour needs be reined in across all jurisdictions. If they make a profit, they must pay fair tax. If they make a loss, let them go bust. 

"That claim was to do with how Apple acquired sound recordings, and a 1968 "Apple" trademark, when it acquired The Beatles' firm Apple Corps in 2007. "

Apple Computer did not acquire Apple Corps, only the right to use the name Apple with music.

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps)
______________

In 1978, Apple Records filed suit against Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with the payment of $80,000 ($260,748.95 in 2022) to Apple Corps. As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed to stay out of the music business. A dispute subsequently arose in 1989 when Apple Corps sued, alleging that Apple Computer's machines' ability to play back MIDI music was a violation of the 1981 settlement agreement. In 1991 another settlement, of around $26.5 million, was reached.[57][58] In September 2003, Apple Computer was again sued by Apple Corps, this time for introducing the iTunes Music Store and the iPod, which Apple Corps asserted was a violation of Apple's agreement not to distribute music. The trial opened on 29 March 2006 in the UK,[59] and in a judgement issued on 8 May 2006, Apple Corps lost the case.[58][60]

On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. took ownership of all of the trademarks related to "Apple" (including all designs of the famed "Granny Smith" Apple Corps Ltd. logos),[61]and licensed certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ended the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. continued using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential.[62][63] Apple Computer later relied on the Beatles’ first use in 1968 to establish ownership and priority of the trademark APPLE MUSIC prior to a 1985 use by a musician of APPLE JAZZ for musical concerts.[64]

_____________

...and lost again, as we now know. Apple Corps is going strong, as you might imagine with its catalogue, remains a private company owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Star, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison, and soon is to release 'the last Beatle record'.