- Last Active
But who carries their phone around (outside at least) without a case? These devices are way too expensive to risk dropping onto pavement without protection.
I suppose if you buy AppleCare+ and you’re rich enough to be able to buy a new phone on the spot or don’t care about the excess, then you mightn’t care. Booking service at Apple can take a week or two sometimes as well, so there’s a huge inconvenience factor to deal with regardless. My phone just took a hard drop onto tiling in the bathroom and without a good quality case it would’ve broken.
I’m pretty sure Apple only bothers with these batteries and many of their other accessories because they’re able to manufacture them for peanuts and sell them for huge markups.
@crowley is right.
For the others who replied above: so long as Apple and Epic do business in Australia--which they do--they are bound by the relevant local trade and other laws that apply here. If Epic wishes to argue for a breach of those laws that affects their business in Australia they have every right to have their case heard.
If Apple feels aggrieved or that Epic has broken their contract in the US, that's not very relevant here; if at all. They should file a claim against Epic in the US where the agreement was made. It's a completely separate issue. To suggest otherwise is to argue that individual countries/markets have no sovereignty over their local laws, which is plainly false.
Mike Wuerthele said:
There are no conditions "required and imposed" by Apple, other than an embargo time and date.
I prefer post-launch reviews where there's no agreements with Apple for early access, as I find them generally to be far more open, plain-speaking and willing to be critical. It's like, do you ever, when online shopping, jump to the most critical reviews and ratings to see if they're reasonable; affect you; or there's a common theme (because individual reviews can be spurious)? I find them generally to be far more helpful in my purchasing decisions than the glowing/positive reviews. That's why I like people to be critical, even overly so. I see the role of reviews and reviewers (in part) to be devil's advocate. So sorry if it seems I'm overly negative or critical, but I think that explains my position.
I gather that AI doesn't consider it appropriate or necessary to show more than the same old benchmarks on launch day, and perhaps you didn't have much time to do otherwise. I'm looking forward to seeing real-world performance for a variety of not yet ported or optimised apps. I'm very enthusiastic about the potential in this switch. It's really only day one of release today. I bet Apple's upcoming 16" ARM MacBooks will be very tempting!
I can only assume that since there's a lengthy review with professional photos ready on launch day, that AI (like the other big tech sites) manage to get review units early from Apple. As such, I don't personally care much for these launch-day reviews unless I can see in full the agreement and conditions required and imposed by Apple. I doubt very much that you're willing to show us this.
Having said that, we're in for some interesting times ahead. I think the target market for these first ARM Macs tend not to want or need Boot Camp or external GPU support, or run demanding professional software that hasn't yet been ported or optimised. For them, there are few if any reasons to hold back. I believe it that even a lot of software running in Rosetta 2 will feel or run faster with better battery life than the previous low-power Intel models, except perhaps for the Mac mini.