cia

lkrupp said:

cia said:

I actually had this done yesterday with my iPhone X that I've had since the device launched. It was showing 94% battery capacity. It wasn't busy at the store, but the process still took 2 hours so if you do go in for a swap be ready for a wait. They will swap your battery no questions asked no matter what the phone says regarding battery loss, $29+tax. /edit I should add my phone was saying my battery was in good shape and didn't need replacing, but they still replaced it.

Dumb, man. You wasted $29 and two hours of your time. Dumb.

My phone is 12 months old.  It might be working OK at the moment, but in 3 years, it will have a 3 year old battery.  This bought be another year as now my battery is brand new.  Unless Apple builds something mind-blowing, the X is a solid phone that will work fine for what I need for a few years.   So it took 2 hours and cost me $30.   It probably will save me from buying a whole new phone 1 year sooner then I need to thanks to this program.

Good article but one mistake. The article mentions that AAPL's 10K filing says the company bought back shares in the thousands, but they actually bought back shares BY the thousands, so the numbers reflect millions of shares bought back. I think on AAPL's side It's really a weird way of stating a number of shares bought back. From the article: "In its 10K, Apple reported that during September quarter, it bought up 26.9 thousand shares at an average price of $192.50 per share in July. In August, it bought another 36.6 thousand shares at an average price of $214.07. And in September, it kept buying shares—29 thousand—despite the average share price rising to $222.07. Apple shares peaked at $233 in early October." The 10K notes those numbers are thousands of thousands, not just thousands. So they bought back 26.9 thousand thousand shares, or, put simply, they bought back 26.9 million shares. If Apple had bought back under 100k actual shares, that wouldn't have made a dent in the outstanding share count which currently stands at about 4.75 billion outstanding shares.

anton zuykov said:

Also, they are not "tax incentives". They are simply lower taxes = you simply take away less from the business. Because you sound like you give a business someone else's money so they could come over and build stuff. In reality, you let them keep more of their money and call it an incentive.
Talking about newspeak ...

This is the one thing that gets me that most and people just can't wrap their heads around it.

WI did not "give" Foxconn any money.  They just said "if you build here, we will tax you less".   So they still are making money compared to if Foxconn had not built there, but just not taking in as much taxes.   

People be all like "We gave Foxscamm $3 billizillion dollaz!"    No, you gave Foxconn nothing but tax breaks.   Had Foxconn built elsewhere they would pay taxes elsewhere and brought jobs elsewhere.

digital_guy said:

How close are we to seeing a  solid-state battery  ?

Solid state batteries are here today, so asking "when will we see them" isn't really the right question. The correct question is: When will someone figure out how to make 50+ million of them every 3 months. That's the issue.

jkichline said:

I’m thinking based on changes being made in iOS 12 and considering a new 4K output resolution in the beta that USB-C is coming with the next iPad. Given the thinness and the USB-C port, it may be necessary to square the edges.

I also think it’s possible that Apple could develop and combination port to handle both USB-C and Lightning in the same port or have both, one on either end.

That would be tough as lightning cables are male, and USB C cables are female.