Apple Announces Next-Generation M1 Pro and M1 Max Chips

[ScofieldKid]

Big Sur already doesn't support 32 bit apps, they were dropped all the way back on catalina already

32-bit app compatibility with macOS High Sierra 10.13.4 and later - Apple Support

About the transition to 64-bit technology and how it affects 32-bit apps.

support.apple.com

Ah yeah, sorry. I meant Mojave.

 

[Tks]

when was the last time something you have from Apple broke?

My iPhone was stuck in an apple logo reboot loop. there is only one apple store in my entire country so it took two weeks to get an appointment with the 'Genius bar'.

The guy over there determined without even touching the phone that it was a software problem, and that he has to wipe out my data and flash the phone. I declined, he said i should search Google for 'not approved by apple' methods to get my data back.

Guess what? it was a loose battery connector.

if they can repair the device they made i don't care how tall they build these walls around their garden, but when the 'Genius' bar consists of morons who are not authorized to fix the phone then you lost all my respect points. We're all entitled to our own opinions.

Not much really, the worst are disastrous things that have product recalls, otherwise I'm personally doing fine.

I think you may have missed the point of my reply to you. It's actually irrelevant how reliable their products are. My point was to address the claim you made about how their repair-ability and how everything locked down is a bonkers idea. You don't get to be the most valued company on the face of the planet, by making products that last forever. In fact, the quicker they break down, the better. From a business point of view, you actually have great incentive, especially when catering to a mainstream market; to have those products you put out in fact be products you need to replace often.

This has been the case for a long time, but noticeably ramped in severity after the Industrial Revolution when for the first time in human history, we've crossed over into the paradigm of supply forever outstripping demand for anything that can be commoditized especially.

Likewise, people running the business of repairs - you don't actually want competent people (in the same way as a middle manager in a company, you don't want a worker more competent than you are, as they may be in line for a promotion to eventually replace you - you likewise don't want highly capable people going off the beaten path and knowing what they're talking about at a "Genius Bar"). The reason for this, is because you would then have someone overqualified, and eventually demanding higher pay for being such. And second, you don't want them turning away customers and telling them to do what that guy told you... You were going to be upsold a service because their repair protocol demands quick turnarounds by highly unqualified people. They are provide in-house tools for as quick of a fix as possible, with no accounting for what the diagnosis is. It would be like complaining of a headache, and being given sedative to put you to sleep. While it will handle your headache, they don't care that you had to lose an entire day of your life to sleeping for this solution (in the same way they don't care about you losing your data in this instance seeing as how their internal tools aren't meant to deal with "loose battery connectors" evidently). They don't even run proper diagnostics. What you usually have happen, even if you can prove you have a loos battery connector, they still won't fix it. They would rather harvest the phone for parts, and simply give you a new phone.

They don't actually have an actual repair center in-house (though they do have a farce of an "Apple Approved" sort of ordeal they said they would start with third party repair shops which has insane requirements no one will abide by). The only actual repair they do, is for high cost parts that can be replaced for lesser than giving you a new unit (so an entire logic board/motherboard swap on most products, and screens as well - while individual part repairs are sometimes offered on desktop and laptop products).

But again, this is all intentioned. None of this is something done by some bonkers set of players.

 

[_thelaughingman]

Not much really, the worst are disastrous things that have product recalls, otherwise I'm personally doing fine.

I think you may have missed the point of my reply to you. It's actually irrelevant how reliable their products are. My point was to address the claim you made about how their repair-ability and how everything locked down is a bonkers idea. You don't get to be the most valued company on the face of the planet, by making products that last forever. In fact, the quicker they break down, the better. From a business point of view, you actually have great incentive, especially when catering to a mainstream market; to have those products you put out in fact be products you need to replace often.

This has been the case for a long time, but noticeably ramped in severity after the Industrial Revolution when for the first time in human history, we've crossed over into the paradigm of supply forever outstripping demand for anything that can be commoditized especially.

Likewise, people running the business of repairs - you don't actually want competent people (in the same way as a middle manager in a company, you don't want a worker more competent than you are, as they may be in line for a promotion to eventually replace you - you likewise don't want highly capable people going off the beaten path and knowing what they're talking about at a "Genius Bar"). The reason for this, is because you would then have someone overqualified, and eventually demanding higher pay for being such. And second, you don't want them turning away customers and telling them to do what that guy told you... You were going to be upsold a service because their repair protocol demands quick turnarounds by highly unqualified people. They are provide in-house tools for as quick of a fix as possible, with no accounting for what the diagnosis is. It would be like complaining of a headache, and being given sedative to put you to sleep. While it will handle your headache, they don't care that you had to lose an entire day of your life to sleeping for this solution (in the same way they don't care about you losing your data in this instance seeing as how their internal tools aren't meant to deal with "loose battery connectors" evidently). They don't even run proper diagnostics. What you usually have happen, even if you can prove you have a loos battery connector, they still won't fix it. They would rather harvest the phone for parts, and simply give you a new phone.

They don't actually have an actual repair center in-house (though they do have a farce of an "Apple Approved" sort of ordeal they said they would start with third party repair shops which has insane requirements no one will abide by). The only actual repair they do, is for high cost parts that can be replaced for lesser than giving you a new unit (so an entire logic board/motherboard swap on most products, and screens as well - while individual part repairs are sometimes offered on desktop and laptop products).

But again, this is all intentioned. None of this is something done by some bonkers set of players.

Being a former “Apple” retail employee, majority of this is true of how apple does business. Sad reality is this is how consumer habits have been manipulated by companies to constantly put out new products and feed an ever prescient need to upgrade to next best thing

 

[Tks]

Being a former “Apple” retail employee, majority of this is true of how apple does business. Sad reality is this is how consumer habits have been manipulated by companies to constantly put out new products and feed an ever prescient need to upgrade to next best thing

If I could make the best faith defense for the sake of companies. I truly don't believe they have a choice, and because of that, I don't take them to be the core of the issue itself. You simply cannot be a trillion dollar company, and maintain fiduciary responsibility to shareholders while selling mainstream products built to last for a lifetime. For this to work, there has to either be a paradigm shift in the consumer, or the entire business side of the industry. What I mean is as consumers we would have to say something like: "Yes Apple & Friends, we accept that a yearly cadence with this much improvement between products is something we do not want, and we would be willing to pay the same prices or more than we do now for lesser upgrades, but with that, we just want products that last longer and are more reliable/repair friendly".

I haven't a shred of doubt in my mind, companies like Apple & Friends would have issues serving such a consumer base. I think it would be easier for them to make their products repairable, rather than having such rapid technological advances. The true problem is - consumers themselves would NEVER consent to this trade-off. And because of such, other companies would spoil the "stable" stadegy Apple might have in trying to provide slow-upgrade+better-repairability products, by those aforementioned companies offering better performing products than Apple EVEN IF consumers had a choice in the matter. Basically, I believe consumers would much rather pay more for a better performing device that's less repairable, rather than a lesser performing device with better reliability.

And if you take a look at companies that do try offering longer lasting devices, you can look forward to a massive price increase per-unit to offset the attempt at fighting against the ruling paradigm in business that necessitates adherence's to the practices of planned, and intrinsic obsolescence. I'm currently having this problem shopping for kitchen products. There's a ton of pans for instance on Amazon that I can buy that cost about $30 and will last about a year with a non-stick surface, and be great for such time... But I keep getting pulled into by a European made stainless steel pan that costs literally 10 times the price, and has no such non-stick utility.

The difference being of course, the company from Europe specifically says it's not in their interest to sell you a pan that you need to replace constantly, they want to give you a pan you can use indefinitely.

 

[elvisizer]

ever prescient

autocorrect having visions of Arrakis

 

[sarumbear]

If I could make the best faith defense for the sake of companies. I truly don't believe they have a choice, and because of that, I don't take them to be the core of the issue itself. You simply cannot be a trillion dollar company, and maintain fiduciary responsibility to shareholders while selling mainstream products built to last for a lifetime. For this to work, there has to either be a paradigm shift in the consumer, or the entire business side of the industry. What I mean is as consumers we would have to say something like: "Yes Apple & Friends, we accept that a yearly cadence with this much improvement between products is something we do not want, and we would be willing to pay the same prices or more than we do now for lesser upgrades, but with that, we just want products that last longer and are more reliable/repair friendly".

I haven't a shred of doubt in my mind, companies like Apple & Friends would have issues serving such a consumer base. I think it would be easier for them to make their products repairable, rather than having such rapid technological advances. The true problem is - consumers themselves would NEVER consent to this trade-off. And because of such, other companies would spoil the "stable" stadegy Apple might have in trying to provide slow-upgrade+better-repairability products, by those aforementioned companies offering better performing products than Apple EVEN IF consumers had a choice in the matter. Basically, I believe consumers would much rather pay more for a better performing device that's less repairable, rather than a lesser performing device with better reliability.

And if you take a look at companies that do try offering longer lasting devices, you can look forward to a massive price increase per-unit to offset the attempt at fighting against the ruling paradigm in business that necessitates adherence's to the practices of planned, and intrinsic obsolescence. I'm currently having this problem shopping for kitchen products. There's a ton of pans for instance on Amazon that I can buy that cost about $30 and will last about a year with a non-stick surface, and be great for such time... But I keep getting pulled into by a European made stainless steel pan that costs literally 10 times the price, and has no such non-stick utility.

The difference being of course, the company from Europe specifically says it's not in their interest to sell you a pan that you need to replace constantly, they want to give you a pan you can use indefinitely.

But what is the problem if you have Apple shares? After all any company's job is to enrich their owners, isn't it? It's not like they are a monopoly that is abusing power.

 

[Tks]

But what is the problem if you have Apple shares? After all any company's job is to enrich their owners, isn't it? It's not like they are a monopoly that is abusing power.

Not sure what this question has to do with the topic of contention, but the "problem" is the same sort of problem that arrises if you have moral predispositions against the behavior of any company. Also their market share and behavior has demonstrated monopoly suits are justified against them in many instances where they've settled cases out of court. Lastly, being a monopoly isn't the end-all for investment decisions, as the definition of monopoly is as varied as the person you ask, in the same way my investing in the Mafia isn't supporting a monopoly, but it would be supporting some pretty bad entity at the end of the day.

 

[sarumbear]

Not sure what this question has to do with the topic of contention, but the "problem" is the same sort of problem that arrises if you have moral predispositions against the behavior of any company. Also their market share and behavior has demonstrated monopoly suits are justified against them in many instances where they've settled cases out of court. Lastly, being a monopoly isn't the end-all for investment decisions, as the definition of monopoly is as varied as the person you ask, in the same way my investing in the Mafia isn't supporting a monopoly, but it would be supporting some pretty bad entity at the end of the day.

Apple, as any company are working for their owners, constantly producing new and better products that the market likes and consumers pay top Dollar. What is wrong with that? I am an Apple share holder, Apple user and I do not agree with you that there is a moral issue. As you said, the entire industry is acting the same. You think the world is amoral. So what is new?

You do need to check market share data if you think Apple is a monopoly. Here is a summary for US and one for the world.

 

[Darwin]

Not sure what this question has to do with the topic of contention, but the "problem" is the same sort of problem that arrises if you have moral predispositions against the behavior of any company. Also their market share and behavior has demonstrated monopoly suits are justified against them in many instances where they've settled cases out of court. Lastly, being a monopoly isn't the end-all for investment decisions, as the definition of monopoly is as varied as the person you ask, in the same way my investing in the Mafia isn't supporting a monopoly, but it would be supporting some pretty bad entity at the end of the day.

You don't know what a monopoly is. Let me help you with a simple google search.
mo·nop·o·ly
/məˈnäpəlē/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. 1.
   the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

 

[Tks]

You don't know what a monopoly is. Let me help you with a simple google search.
mo·nop·o·ly
/məˈnäpəlē/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. 1.
   the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

You know enough how to use a dictionary. Thus you should also know why there exists multiple dictionaries. Your witty one-liner was hardly comedic. Do you have an actual point to make or was it just to tell me how Apple doesn't satisfy your classical notion of a monopoly as an entity in its entirety?

Apple, as any company are working for their owners, constantly producing new and better products that the market likes and consumers pay top Dollar. What is wrong with that? I am an Apple share holder, Apple user and I do not agree with you that there is a moral issue. As you said, the entire industry is acting the same. You think the world is amoral. So what is new?

You do need to check market share data if you think Apple is a monopoly. Here is a summary for US and one for the world.

Nothing is wrong with it, if those are the only aspects you're concerned with (as long as a company makes money for owners + produces products consumers pay top dollar for). But since you seem to think all is well due to the fact "everyone is acting the same", then I suppose slave trade as an example over a century ago was also "fine" since "everyone was acting the same" and money was being made by companies employing slaves for which consumers paid top dollar for.

Also I didn't make a comment on "how the world is". Nor again do I see the relevance to the discussion. So I'll ask. What is it you want precisely in relation to the main topic of contention? I understand folks have a tendency to raise up in their chair once a comment strikes a nerve based on monetary decisions they've made in support of one idea/entity or the like. But if you want to argue the ethics of investments into companies like Apple, you're more than welcome to strike up a conversation with my through PM's. This isn't really the place for it.

 

[sarumbear]

You don't know what a monopoly is. Let me help you with a simple google search.
mo·nop·o·ly
/məˈnäpəlē/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. 1.
   the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Are you telling us that a company who have less than 15% of the market globally is a monopoly? If you are looking for a company that fits your definition look at Google. They control almost 80% of the global mobile market.

Read the data, not your heart. This ASR after all. We decide objectively here.

 

[sarumbear]

You know enough how to use a dictionary. Thus you should also know why there exists multiple dictionaries. Your witty one-liner was hardly comedic. Do you have an actual point to make or was it just to tell me how Apple doesn't satisfy your classical notion of a monopoly as an entity in its entirety?

Apple doesn't satisfy the notion of a monopoly - period.

You are free to disagree and I respect that.

 

[blueone]

Not sure what this question has to do with the topic of contention, but the "problem" is the same sort of problem that arrises if you have moral predispositions against the behavior of any company. Also their market share and behavior has demonstrated monopoly suits are justified against them in many instances where they've settled cases out of court. Lastly, being a monopoly isn't the end-all for investment decisions, as the definition of monopoly is as varied as the person you ask, in the same way my investing in the Mafia isn't supporting a monopoly, but it would be supporting some pretty bad entity at the end of the day.

Let's be clear, the question of Apple's so-called monopoly power is restricted to their App Store. The questions are, do they have a right to regulate the apps allowed in their own Store, restrict IOS application installations to apps from the Store, and can they show any sort of preference for their own apps? I'm not a legal expert, but in my opinion these questions are farcical, from companies who want to claim a right to dictate terms to Apple about their own proprietary products. As an iPhone owner, if I had a problem with Apple's management of the App Store, I'd just buy a different brand of phone.

 

[Tks]

Apple doesn't satisfy the notion of a monopoly - period.

You are free to disagree and I respect that.

Well sure, perhaps under your definition the company isn't a monopoly, which is fine, though then again if that's the case, monopolies don't exist in America at all (which by the classical definition, they seemingly don't - but that's natural because only a stupid company would prop itself up to that position and have itself torn to pieces by government mandate and dilution - and is why you see the rise of duopolies and it's multiple derivatives, which is why Silicon Valley corporations are under constant scrutiny and have been nailed for collusion. Off the top of my head, cases pertaining to e-book price fixing, and also cold calling gentlemens agreements to not poach employees between one another).

What you seem to misunderstand is, in essence, the only thing that really matters when addressing your question is that a company like Apple & Friends exhibit monopolistic behavior to a troubling degree. That's the actual problem with supporting them especially from an investment perspective which you asked about initially. Oh and the guy you replied to before, was on your side, he posted a bog standard definition of what a monopoly is in the dictionary. Presumably as a knock against me as if I am unaware or something to that effect.

Let's be clear, the question of Apple's so-called monopoly power is restricted to their App Store. The questions are, do they have a right to regulate the apps allowed in their own Store, restrict IOS application installations to apps from the Store, and can they show any sort of preference for their own apps? I'm not a legal expert, but in my opinion these questions are farcical, from companies who want to claim a right to dictate terms to Apple about their own proprietary products. As an iPhone owner, if I had a problem with Apple's management of the App Store, I'd just buy a different brand of phone.

No, their litigation rap-sheet is long enough to not only have the most recent ordeal pertaining to the App Store be the only anti-trust contention. As for questions about what "rights" they have with respect to their own ecosystem is irrelevant from a legal perspective, since legality is fluid and determined eventually by cultural norms, and overruling feelings of a collection of people. If for instance one day people get sick enough of X company's behavior, even if currently legal, it may eventually become illegal. The question you need to be asking yourself is, what threshold will you grant Apple with their "but it's our ecosystem" argument. Me personally, I can't pinpoint an exact line in the sand, but things like limiting third party repair shops from having availability to parts and schematics for repairing people's devices like virtually EVERY single other consumer industry is/was able to is one of those lines in the sand where I wouldn't grant Apple their ecosystem argument (mostly becaue their argument fails from a logical perspective when they invoke things like security and safety).

I could go on with countless examples over the years. But without making this post too long, I'd like to just quickly address that eye-rollingly annoying comment you closed off your post with. First, my entire family and I have iPhones, (and MacOS devices). So I speak as an iPhone owner as well (since you seem to take this as some sort of entry pass that is required to make further comments). But when I have a problem with Apple's management of the App Store, I can't simply "buy a different brand of phone", because I don't buy an iPhone for the App Store offerings, I buy it for completely other reasons relating to UI/UX. And so even if I have 100% issue with the App Store, and Apple as a company, my choices are nonexistent.

Finally, I'd like to just say, since none of us are legal experts, there's no need to talk and come to conclusions about the legality of what Apple is doing because all we'd be doing is playing armchair courtroom judge. What is more interesting would be to hear when folks talk about this sort of stuff is what their stance would be if they were actually in a position of authority to decide what should be legal or shouldn't with respect to the behavior of company's. Like it would be interesting to hear if you subscribe for instance to Apple's unprecedented claim about the hardware they provide as intrinsically linked to their App Store ecosystem by being the ecosystem itself (meaning the entire phone itself is proprietary, even though it's assembled with non proprietary parts to a large degree). So if Apple says that makes the iPhone you buy, not a device you have any right to alter or even open to even look at the internals of. Would you affirm in the positive to such a claim they make about what you can and cannot do for a physical device you paid to have in your possession? Is that something you would say is a good thing to support and something you would like for more companies to follow in example from?

 

[blueone]

No, their litigation rap-sheet is long enough to not only have the most recent ordeal pertaining to the App Store be the only anti-trust contention.

What is that rap sheet? Everything I'm aware of pertains to the App Store. How could it be any other way? Apple does not have a dominant market position. It just has most of the profits, and the largest share of affluent buyers. Neither of those positions are against the law, they're the result of the perception of a superior product (and design and production efficiencies, but that's beside the point).

As for questions about what "rights" they have with respect to their own ecosystem is irrelevant from a legal perspective, since legality is fluid and determined eventually by cultural norms, and overruling feelings of a collection of people. If for instance one day people get sick enough of X company's behavior, even if currently legal, it may eventually become illegal.

As Yogi Berra said, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

I could go on with countless examples over the years. But without making this post too long, I'd like to just quickly address that eye-rollingly annoying comment you closed off your post with. First, my entire family and I have iPhones, (and MacOS devices). So I speak as an iPhone owner as well (since you seem to take this as some sort of entry pass that is required to make further comments). But when I have a problem with Apple's management of the App Store, I can't simply "buy a different brand of phone", because I don't buy an iPhone for the App Store offerings, I buy it for completely other reasons relating to UI/UX. And so even if I have 100% issue with the App Store, and Apple as a company, my choices are nonexistent.

I did not make iPhone ownership an entry pass to this discussion. I used to work for an Android phone manufacturer, as it happens.

I know that we become attached to certain products and technologies, and then some people think they have the right to dictate the future of those products. It may be that in the future US legislation will exist that dictates what Apple does with their ecosystem, but in the US that's not clear-cut. I am watching with interest as the EU uses environmental impact to regulate external power supplies. Very innovative. It is annoying how computer companies and Apple use specific connectors for their DC power supplies, which force you to have specific models.

Finally, I'd like to just say, since none of us are legal experts, there's no need to talk and come to conclusions about the legality of what Apple is doing because all we'd be doing is playing armchair courtroom judge. What is more interesting would be to hear when folks talk about this sort of stuff is what their stance would be if they were actually in a position of authority to decide what should be legal or shouldn't with respect to the behavior of company's. Like it would be interesting to hear if you subscribe for instance to Apple's unprecedented claim about the hardware they provide as intrinsically linked to their App Store ecosystem by being the ecosystem itself (meaning the entire phone itself is proprietary, even though it's assembled with non proprietary parts to a large degree). So if Apple says that makes the iPhone you buy, not a device you have any right to alter or even open to even look at the internals of. Would you affirm in the positive to such a claim they make about what you can and cannot do for a physical device you paid to have in your possession? Is that something you would say is a good thing to support and something you would like for more companies to follow in example from?

I'm a strong supporter of private property. Apple's ecosystem is private property. That they became successful and are trying to protect and expand their value in it, and arguably the security of IOS, is an inconvenience and sometimes annoying, but I don't like when one price of success is that everyone thinks they now have special rights.

It is interesting that none of Apple's software would likely exist without open source code with loose licensing rules. Mach and BSD Unix come to mind. There are probably many, many more examples. Soon, open source hardware, like RISC-V, will be another factor, allowing companies to make something proprietary out of what isn't proprietary.

 

[Tks]

What is that rap sheet? Everything I'm aware of pertains to the App Store. How could it be any other way? Apple does not have a dominant market position. It just has most of the profits, and the largest share of affluent buyers. Neither of those positions are against the law, they're the result of the perception of a superior product (and design and production efficiencies, but that's beside the point).

Two they got explicitly nailed for is the cold calling collusion with other Silicon Valley giants, and the well known e-Book price fixing.

As Yogi Berra said, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

You should have said that before making statements as if legality is the end-all be-all discussion with respect to when it's fine, and when it isn't to support a company through investments and such.. And not the thing you said prior.

I did not make iPhone ownership an entry pass to this discussion. I used to work for an Android phone manufacturer, as it happens.

Then there was no point in making your ownership apparent and then making a claim right after that what one ought do if they don't like a particular policy Apple may have.

I know that we become attached to certain products and technologies, and then some people think they have the right to dictate the future of those products. It may be that in the future US legislation will exist that dictates what Apple does with their ecosystem, but in the US that's not clear-cut.

The first sentence here is a throwaway. What are you trying to say, that people don't have the right? Even if they didn't have "the right", they will have an impact in dictating that future, in the same way any demand will have an impact on future supply trends of an offering. Second, in the US it's not clear cut, but it's becoming more clear cut when the latest ruling even from a bias judge now forces Apple to allow linking of secondary payment methods. And the earlier legal pressure that made Apple come down on lower earner apps by lowering their share to 15% instead of the usual 30%. Even though people have no "right" to dictate these things, this is what working from a legal and economic perspective allows by force. Which conveniently also addresses the witty post about what "Yogi Berra said". Individuals eventually make their own rights.

I am watching with interest as the EU uses environmental impact to regulate external power supplies. Very innovative. It is annoying how computer companies and Apple use specific connectors for their DC power supplies, which force you to have specific models.

Wait, but you say we have no right to tell them what they should do? Seems you sympathize with forcing Apple to do something with their private property now? But it's not 100% certain (which is why I concluded my prior post with a question about what you would desire, and not so much the pointless discussion about current legal states of affairs).

Apple being forced to use USB-C is going to happen even without this incoming deliberation on the matter. They can't stay with Lightening forever, and have already made an idiotic product with this iPhone 13 Pro Max I got sitting here. Able to record ProRes footage (with 4K chewing up around 6GB of data per minute) but still stuck with the retarded USB2 transfer speeds of Lightening.. There's no about of libertarian meme'ing that one can posit that will override the need to get Apple off this idiotic interface.

I'm a strong supporter of private property. Apple's ecosystem is private property.

Has an odd ring to it, since ecosystems are comprised of parts and entities involved that don't control an ecosystem, otherwise it wouldn't really be an ecosystem, if one could own and control all of it's aspects. It would simply be their property. Unless you want to posit all the vendors on an ecosystem belong to Apple as well, if they one day declared on-paper "if you sell in our ecosystem, we own you and your products".

That they became successful and are trying to protect and expand their value in it, and arguably the security of IOS, is an inconvenience and sometimes annoying, but I don't like when one price of success is that everyone thinks they now have special rights.

The security arguments are the most hilariously pathetic meme argument in their arsenal. The fact one posits it's even "arguable" is silly enough (and goes without saying the ones that buy into the argument entirely, are a lost case if they still hold to such an idea in the year 2021 and the average technical literacy of this time period).

While sure you may not "like" that everything thinks they now have special rights, those people are making the claim that Apple behaves in a way where they assume THEY have special rights. Case and point being, all those things I mentioned prior (quelling repair industry, saying their hardware is part of the ecosystem, thus making it a proprietary product in it's entirety, dictating what people are allowed to do with devices they've purchased, decision making that forces everyone under their App Store to behave a certain way, etc..). Funnily enough, you believe in freedoms, but Apple behaves like a dictator. The meme argument of "if you don't like it, then leave" is about as silly as telling someone "if you don't like America, leave". So due to a preference, someone should upend their entire flow of life, when instead all consumers would benefit by having a single entity change their mode of operation.

So yeah, people thinking "they have special rights" makes complete sense when the ire of the many is at stake compared to the ire of a single company. No one is proposing changes that would kill them. With the reach they have in society, no one cares about supposed infringement on their "property". Corporations are idiotically treated like living beings in this country. If that isn't "special rights" that need to be abolished as much as possible, idk what is.

It is interesting that none of Apple's software would likely exist without open source code with loose licensing rules.

It is, isn't it.. In the same way Apple couldn't exist in totality, if we didn't have roads, or a relatively healthy society to sell their products to.

Soon, open source hardware, like RISC-V, will be another factor, allowing companies to make something proprietary out of what isn't proprietary.

Sure, but most people aren't against this practice. They're against the choice deprivation (like a small example being now on my phone, I can't enable or disable HDR mode when taking pictures that I had in my prior phone). Are you going to buy Apple's argument it's their ecosystem, and due to security their decision to remove such an option is justified? Do you think I'm positing "special rights" for saying I should be given what I've already been provided before? Does my Apple Music have to be also hampered so hard on Windows machines? Etc..

You don't actually have to answer any of this, it's just food for thought. Though what I would hope to get an answer to, is the question I concluded my prior post with.

 

[blueone]

You should have said that before making statements as if legality is the end-all be-all discussion with respect to when it's fine, and when it isn't to support a company through investments and such.. And not the thing you said prior.



Then there was no point in making your ownership apparent and then making a claim right after that what one ought do if they don't like a particular policy Apple may have.



The first sentence here is a throwaway. What are you trying to say, that people don't have the right? Even if they didn't have "the right", they will have an impact in dictating that future, in the same way any demand will have an impact on future supply trends of an offering. Second, in the US it's not clear cut, but it's becoming more clear cut when the latest ruling even from a bias judge now forces Apple to allow linking of secondary payment methods. And the earlier legal pressure that made Apple come down on lower earner apps by lowering their share to 15% instead of the usual 30%. Even though people have no "right" to dictate these things, this is what working from a legal and economic perspective allows by force. Which conveniently also addresses the witty post about what "Yogi Berra said". Individuals eventually make their own rights.



Wait, but you say we have no right to tell them what they should do? Seems you sympathize with forcing Apple to do something with their private property now? But it's not 100% certain (which is why I concluded my prior post with a question about what you would desire, and not so much the pointless discussion about current legal states of affairs).

Apple being forced to use USB-C is going to happen even without this incoming deliberation on the matter. They can't stay with Lightening forever, and have already made an idiotic product with this iPhone 13 Pro Max I got sitting here. Able to record ProRes footage (with 4K chewing up around 6GB of data per minute) but still stuck with the retarded USB2 transfer speeds of Lightening.. There's no about of libertarian meme'ing that one can posit that will override the need to get Apple off this idiotic interface.



Has an odd ring to it, since ecosystems are comprised of parts and entities involved that don't control an ecosystem, otherwise it wouldn't really be an ecosystem, if one could own and control all of it's aspects. It would simply be their property. Unless you want to posit all the vendors on an ecosystem belong to Apple as well, if they one day declared on-paper "if you sell in our ecosystem, we own you and your products".



The security arguments are the most hilariously pathetic meme argument in their arsenal. The fact one posits it's even "arguable" is silly enough (and goes without saying the ones that buy into the argument entirely, are a lost case if they still hold to such an idea in the year 2021 and the average technical literacy of this time period).

While sure you may not "like" that everything thinks they now have special rights, those people are making the claim that Apple behaves in a way where they assume THEY have special rights. Case and point being, all those things I mentioned prior (quelling repair industry, saying their hardware is part of the ecosystem, thus making it a proprietary product in it's entirety, dictating what people are allowed to do with devices they've purchased, decision making that forces everyone under their App Store to behave a certain way, etc..). Funnily enough, you believe in freedoms, but Apple behaves like a dictator. The meme argument of "if you don't like it, then leave" is about as silly as telling someone "if you don't like America, leave". So due to a preference, someone should upend their entire flow of life, when instead all consumers would benefit by having a single entity change their mode of operation.

So yeah, people thinking "they have special rights" makes complete sense when the ire of the many is at stake compared to the ire of a single company. No one is proposing changes that would kill them. With the reach they have in society, no one cares about supposed infringement on their "property". Corporations are idiotically treated like living beings in this country. If that isn't "special rights" that need to be abolished as much as possible, idk what is.



It is, isn't it.. In the same way Apple couldn't exist in totality, if we didn't have roads, or a relatively healthy society to sell their products to.



Sure, but most people aren't against this practice. They're against the choice deprivation (like a small example being now on my phone, I can't enable or disable HDR mode when taking pictures that I had in my prior phone). Are you going to buy Apple's argument it's their ecosystem, and due to security their decision to remove such an option is justified? Do you think I'm positing "special rights" for saying I should be given what I've already been provided before? Does my Apple Music have to be also hampered so hard on Windows machines? Etc..

You don't actually have to answer any of this, it's just food for thought. Though what I would hope to get an answer to, is the question I concluded my prior post with.

You make some points that might get me to continue this discussion, but you seem angry, and I don't find discussing things with angry people fun.

 

[Count Arthur]

I stand corrected.

Like a man in orthopedic shoes.

 

[preload]

It really surprises me how Apple can be so ahead of the curve sometimes but still have jackshit completely bonkers practices regarding repair-ability.

Apple products are for people who want to change the world and can think differently. These are people who think outside the box and aren’t confused by the need for repairability.

 

[Tks]

You make some points that might get me to continue this discussion, but you seem angry, and I don't find discussing things with angry people fun.

I'm well, though thanks for the divination attempt on my emotional state. The offer stands to you as it did for the other forum member (open PMs for anyone for that matter to discuss anything they wish, always).