Apple hasn’t claimed it is banning Facebook or Google from their enterprise program. They are simply revoking the certificate that was spread to consumers. Those certificates can be re-generated.
I actually think Apple’s repair system is one of the reasons they have success. Most customers can’t repair their stuff so having a trustworthy place to go to is a really nice safety blanket. Compare that to most other phone or computer manufacturers where you have to ship your stuff or do it yourself and risk voiding warranties. I imagine eventually Tesla will offer an Apple-esque “Certified Repair” service option to increase their ability to help customers with non-Tesla employees.
I think the biggest issue with Apple's "repair" model is the amount of repairing that actually goes on. As a result of the increasing board integration of Apple computers and Apple's repair policy, a single resistor kicking the bucket means a full board replacement that will set you back a good fraction of what you paid for the computer in the first place, at an Apple certified repair center. Even worse is the outright hostility to 3rd party repair shops who instead opt for (more difficult), but ultimately less expensive (for the custom and the environment) component-level repair. You won't be getting any documentation or spare parts from Apple.
While I agree the lack of repair documentation and available spare parts is a concern, Isn't the whole point of integration (at least on a chip/board level) to increase reliability?
I'm a mechanical engineer masquerading as a software developer so I could be talking out my ass, but I'm fairly sure that board failure rate is proportional to the amount of discrete components on said board.
I picked a component off the top of my head. Water damage is almost always the culprit in these repairs, which doesn't affect most servers (except for these [0] maybe?) Louis Rossman's channel on Youtube [1] can give you better information than I can.
Haha, of course you did -
It's always a capacitor![1]
These mature cheap reliable mass-produced electrolytic capacitors of which we rarely see fault today, sure had quite the rebellious stage[2] [3].
Interesting, from the announcement on badcaps.net[3]:
"Back in April 2002, I had an idea to start a business (actually spinoff of another business) servicing motherboards at component level amid the mass capacitor failures plaguing the PC industry."..."The store boomed from its launch all the way up until about a year ago. Over the last 6 months or so, I have sold very few capacitors. Once my stock depletes, I will be shutting down the Badcaps.net store."
At work we started doing private project-specific channels for whatever initiative we're working on that's cross functional. As soon as that project is complete, we archive the channel and move on the next thing. It's worked out really well surprisingly. Our public channels rarely get activity now because their subject matter is so vague but the private channels are incredibly active and productive.
This would be a bad PR move. A giant insanely-rich company suing news publications?
Apple has dealt with overblown controversies before (Antennagate, etc.) and the best way to deal with them is to do what they're doing: communicate better, improve their software, make repairs or returns more affordable.
Yes, if they want to be petty about bad publicity, there's other effective strategies like denying access to the publication as they did to Gizmodo back in 2010.
I don't think it's an either/or. They should do what they announced today and sue for defamation. When they announce the suit they could state that they intend to donate any awarded damages/settlement to charity to counter the "Big Company sues blogger" stories. But I think the reputation damage is very real and it would give Apple the opportunity to testify under oath (if it went to trial).
Even if they took publications to court, the public opinion would not change for the better because people stop paying attention to any story within two weeks of when it's revealed. The damage has already been done. The only potential reasonable argument to do something like this is for Apple to scare off other publications from publishing damaging headlines in the future. But the benefit of this strategy would be little when balanced by the negative PR hit it would take by every other news publication writing articles and OpEds on Rich Big Corp vs small, struggling, important-for-democracy news organizations. There's no faster way to torpedo your public approval than to go after news publications.
I think you’re both overstating how widely known this controversy is and understating how bad suing a tech blogger would look (see: Streisand Effect). I’m a techie and have barely heard about this. People who went and bought new phones will be pissed, but the majority of users won’t care.
This response owns the responsibility of countering misconceptions. The huge majority of Apple users won’t remember this in a month.
Puerto Rico is the 29th most populated state/territory in the country. They basically have the same number of citizens as Connecticut. It would _definitely_ make a difference for one of the parties - though it would likely be the Democratic Party. However, Puerto Rico has been voting on statehood for a very long time and has historically voted against it. In the past couple years they did vote for statehood - twice in fact. But they did so while republicans controlled congress and since republicans know giving Puerto Rico statehood wouldn't benefit them they will never prioritize it while in-power.
> However, Puerto Rico has been voting on statehood for a very long time and has historically voted against it.
That's not entirely true; pro-status-quo groups have boycotted all or part of ballots, or advocated voting for some other option than continued territory status to avoid clear wins for Statehood. That was true in 2017 where they boycotted the whole ballot, in 2012 where they boycotted the second (alternative status) part of a two part ballotmarking that called for a vote up or down on current status and then a separate vote on what the replacement status should be; in 1998 where they called for a vote for “none of the above” so their votes would be added to genuine NOTA votes.
It's true that Commonwealth (territory) status won in 1967 and, narrowly, 1993, but it's clearly been declining over time, which is why that faction has been trying to deny clear results since 1998.
Yes, but he is consistent. So you can always read his reviews and peg it down a notch if you regularly slightly disagree with him. I don't mind biases in reviewers if they're consistent in their takes.
I'd argue that writing is influential and can strengthens cognitive biases. If someone is poor and teetering on the edge of buying a luxury Apple watch they're going to be looking for that one shining article that goads them into doing it. When society accepts such influencers as role models and people to listen to / follow then we have a problem.
Wow that's messed up. I didn't realize it extended beyond video.
On the plus side it's only gonna be an easy software upgrade to fox this for video and the web although it remains to be seen whether apple will accept they're wrong.
No, the text stays in the center portion only. The guidelines say that content covers the screen in landscape unless it’s text, in which case it’s inset.
What part of the guidelines are you referring to? [1] says "Adhere to the safe area and layout margins defined by UIKit", and the graphics show a "safe area" which excludes the notch at the top.
Do you have an example of where they don’t follow their guidelines? In my experience they’re pretty good about it; it’s Google that can’t get it together and follow Material Design or whatever their new guide is.
Having to create and track separate identities for each app, particularly transactional/infrequently used apps, does indeed seem dated. But I think it’s a mistake to confuse the identity issue with apps as a whole.
AI won’t solve every use case. There will always be a need for experiences tailored for niche needs in productivity/creativity, utilities, entertainment, etc.
