roc

Admit? Like it's a secret he's trying to cover up?

Apple people simply don't care. They know Apple's "late." (Inasmuch as someone else has done a similar thing, or used a similar piece of tech "first".) Because Apple is almost always late.

Late to touch. Late to smartphones. Late to fingerprint readers. Late to face identification. Late to attention detection. Late to wireless charging. Late to big screens. Late to music streaming. Late to video services. Late to the TV. Late to the wrist. Late to the wireless headphones. etc.

Let's assume some measurable number of people might do this, purely for arguments sake. Why does the resale value of old iPhones not reflect these devices being "unusable?"

Good.

Now add a distinction between IAPs for consumables vs features vs content.

The whole problem is that the batteries can't deliver that performance.

They can throttle the chip to what the battery can deliver or it will crash. Maybe Apple's more conservative on the throttling, and some amount of performance could still be achieved without a crash, but there's zero chance Apple's putting a "make my phone unstable" switch in Settings.

I'd say "your notification tray", but it seems like the majority has already lost that one.

Apple needs to do way better at informing the user when the battery is notably degraded, and when that degradation is leading to notable throttling.

Particularly, when as the throttling is severe (more than 25% or so) and when the user is encountering it with any frequency.

Who in the world would run right out and buy a new iPhone if their last one became unusable in one year?

People switch to the iPhone because of their longer usable life compared to the competition. People pay more for old iPhones compared to the competition because of their longer usable life. Not only is it not in Apple's interest to make self-destructing phones, to even accuse them of that requires ignoring the entire history of iPhone adoption and resale value.

Further, there is no "one year" for batteries. Batteries with more charge cycles degrade faster. Batteries that push peak performance more often degrade faster. Batteries that spend time in extreme heat and cold degrade faster. Because of this, a simple anecdote of "throttling after a year" means even less than usual.

No-one has data on how much throttling is going on, but Apple. The best proxy we have is the aggregate purchasing decisions of people who had iPhones, and the prices of used iPhones. And people with iPhones overwhelmingly keep buying iPhones. And the prices of used iPhones aren't going anywhere. This "Apple makes self-destructing phones" theory needs a rest.

I don't think you can have such a number, as it hinges so heavily on unknowable future usage and environmental factors.

And frankly now that sudden shutdown isn't a thing, I don't think it matters much. Apple just has to communicate the situation better when processor throttling reaches severe states.

I don't think geeks get to throw stones on shorthand.

For Mb vs MB vs MiB alone we've lost any and all credibility.

Good old fashioned junk mail, background check services, and consumer research?

Even if they keep their literal word and don't sell your actual history, and you use SSL so they can't see specific content, they can certainly make money by identifying traffic profiles by domains/times/frequencies/etc.

Through leaks like this one. Leaks that can be partially validated or corroborated, but which (by their nature) cannot be entirely proven true.

And those leaks were very transparently beneficial to a person/group who are also going to benefit from this one.

I don't trust the CIA at all. But I don't trust Wikileaks either. I see way too many self-described "skeptical" types who aren't approaching any of this with any shred of skepticism.

The problem with this comparison is that, while it's not remotely easy, it's far easier to compete with Facebook or Google than to compete with an ISP.

Facebook barely existed 10 years ago. And it wasn't until maybe the last five years that it was recognized as a competitor to Google.

Compare that to Google Fiber's 7 year slog.

It would make perfect sense if they'd bundled a controller (and/or made it more straightforward to have ipads/ipods/phones usable as controllers) and put an A8X in it.

It would've been the middle ground. Not just streaming, but not as hardcore as an XBox/PS4 (which weren't $250 when the AppleTV launched.)

The big mis-step of the 4th gen AppleTV is that they didn't pick any direction for it. It's a bit like the first-gen Watch. They just threw a bunch of crap at the wall and expected the early adopters to sift through it.

I would guess:

1. Because the mindset of work > leisure is rewarded in the U.S., so wealthier people aren't choosing work because they're wealthier, they're wealthier because they choose work.

2. Because they have more leverage not only in how much they work, but in what work they do. If you draw a stark line between your job and what you enjoy, naturally you'll want to minimize that work and maximize your leisure. But if you actually enjoy your job...

It didn't? I distinctly remember the same sort of FUD progression with regards to the ozone hole.

  1. It wasn't actually happening/a problem. 
     (It's hippy nonsense. [insert sarcastic comment about saving butterflies])
  2. It was happening, but it was natural, not caused by human activity 
     (The ozone hole grows and shrinks naturally throughout the year! And its been bigger and smaller in the past!)
  3. It was happening, caused by human activity, but there wasn't anything we could do about it 
     (We can't force the other countries to change, and if they won't change it'll keep growing anyway!)

There's really no difference in the playbook between it and global warming. It's just the financial incentives to delay are much stronger with carbon.

Even the "equivalent replacements" for CFCs were widely regarded as overpriced and far worse at the time. (I still hear people bemoan the loss of freon AC to this day.) It's not so different from solar/wind vs fossil fuels.