I already gave my theory on that. For all we know Apple was going to release a USB-C iPhone this year anyway, but now if it happens it will look like it was because of the EU.
I like the mini phones, so I’m screwed no matter what they do, as I doubt they’re going to bring it back. I think that was a marketing failure on their part.
I agree with that. I have not been a fan of everything Cook has done, and he is clearly not a product person. That being said, there have been several long overdue features in macOS that came after Jobs was gone that customers begged for for a long time. The MacBook Pro is another example of where Apple clearly listened to the customer and not their initial vision. They brought back some ports, made it thicker, and brought back the old keyboard.
Like I said, I think the removal of lightning for the iPhone was on the roadmap, they just aren’t being given the time to see it through. I’m sure they’re planning 5 years ahead internally.
I think the distinction needs to be more clearly made, which is why I was trying to make it. A lot of people talk about opposing bad speech, and while you and I may believe that should only be at the social level, not a legal one, 40% of Millennials are missing that distinction, as it’s one that is rarely called and and just assumed people “get it”. Those assumptions lead to poor conclusions, those conclusions lead to action, and we lose our rights. I don’t think being clear about where the line is drawn is ever a bad thing.
People with less than pure motives can make a very compelling argument for suppressing speech to people who aren’t aware of the pitfalls. Schools used to teach this, but based on the statistics, it seems like the message is getting lost.
I don’t see why it’s them or us. If Apple (or any company) can make the customers happy, people will by more products and create more positive word of mouth, which is good for Apple. Generally the most successful companies aren’t the ones sacrificing their customers for a couple extra cents. That may work in the short term, but not over decades.
I just always hear people talk about systemic racism, but never point to anything specific which can be changed or fixed. How can anything be fixed if it can’t be defined? That’s isn’t bad faith, ignorant, or idiotic, it’s how you solve problems. Step 1… define it. You’ll never be satisfied if you don’t know specifically what you’re upset about, because you’ll never know when it’s been resolved. Are you just parroting others; is that why you resorted to personal insults instead answering the question for yourself? Instead you sent me to an article I assume you also haven’t read, since it’s behind a paywall.
I’m not saying there aren’t things in society that can be improved. Everything can always be improved. But if you want any improvement to happen you need to know what those things are and be able to explain it. This shouldn’t be a hard question for someone who claims to care.
I can probably get you started… can we assume gerrymandering is on the list? So then what would the solution be? I’m not an expert on political districts, do we just make in a grid across all the states, maybe scaling the size of the grid up or down to account for population density? I don’t think there is a law that requires gerrymandering, but I’m on board with redrawing the districts to eliminate the madness there.
That’s an alarmingly high number. I’m not “pro” offensive speech against anyone, but having the government limit it… that’s a whole different conversation. I think a lot of younger people aren’t making that distinction and are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That worries me. Free speech is there to protect ideas from whatever the prevailing status quo at the time is… Galileo was found guilty of heresy, was banned from teaching, and sentenced to house arrest, because he said the Earth went around the Sun. Without free speech, how would people speak out against and challenge what they see as wrong with those in power?
I think I’d be more accepting of side loading than full blown 3rd party app stores (of course one will inevitably lead to the other, unless there is a lot of sandboxing going on). Something you need to enable in the settings and jump through some hoops to do. It would open up things for some interesting use cases, but be enough trouble that no developer would do that unless it was absolutely necessary.
Back on the v1 iPhone I installed Cydia and messed with all that. As the platform matured it seemed less and less of a thing. I do agree with you on the AppleTV. Allowing things like Xbox Game Steam, or various other things like that, would put it into a whole new class of device. It could be what OnLive wanted to be, but more.
One thing that I find kind of funny is the first iPhone didn’t have 3rd party apps, as you mention. The answer for them was web apps, which everyone rolled their eyes at. However, here we are 16 years later and frameworks like Electron are essentially just wrapping web apps to run on the desktop. Maybe that web app thing wasn’t totally wrong, but just a little ahead of it’s time. I don’t like Electron apps, but I will say they have made Linux on the desktop a lot more viable for the average user.
I guess I have a lot of mixed opinions on this. I just like my phone to be a tool. A portal into some things while I’m away from a proper computer. I don’t use it as my primary device like so many do these days. It’s my link to the outside world, my life line while away from home, and thanks to all the 2FA stuff, proof of my identity. I just want it to work, be reliable, and stay out of my way. Complicating the App Store threatens that simplicity. I’ve often said that if I was 16 I’d probably love Android, or the idea of 3rd party everything on iOS, as I’d have the time to tinker and no real risk if something breaks. Not being 16, I have different priorities and I like that there is an option in the market that serves those priorities rather well.
the only explanation possible is that using Lighting is profitable for them
I gave you another possible explanation in the comment you replied to. They have a whole product line to move and the left iPhone for last, because it has the most impact, and if they leave it for last, it will have less consumer impact. Why not assume good intentions when there is a reasonable explanation?
If it was all about the money, why would they have used the Qi standard for their wireless charging? Why would they have gone all in on USB-C on MacBooks, facing a ton of backlash, to push that port when everyone else was hedging by just including 1 USB-C port at best? Sure they make money from Lightning, but it’s likely a rounding error on their bottom line.
It’s also not a bad thing to have some cable certifications. I’ve seen tear downs of cheap 3rd party charging bricks, or tests of cheap cables, and they’re all really bad and out of spec. They’re cheap for a reason. Maybe that will lead to device damage, maybe it won’t, but I’d rather not risk a $700 phone over saving $10 on a non-certified cable/charger that cuts corners. It happened to my sister, I went against my judgement and bought her a 3rd party cable she asked for instead of the Apple one I thought she should get. A few months later she called me crying because he phone wouldn’t charge anymore. I felt like shit, even though I technically just got her what she wanted.