1. I don't see a problem. I don't mind companies advertising stuff to me in order to try and get me to buy it. I do have a problem with them taking my data as part of that process, aggregating it, selling it on to others and generally making money of stuff that belongs to me and doing god knows what with it in order for them to advertise to me more stuff that I might want to give them money for. If Apple can do the same thing without doing all this then I'm in. Even if they do collect some information, to the best of my knowledge it's not shared with anyone so I know just who has, and doesn't have, the info I provide.

  2. No one shares raw data with anyone. The difference between Apple and all the complainers (mostly Facebook), is that Apple's ATT regulates third-party tracking. This was never going to be a problem for Apple because they never did it in the first place. All of Apple's search ads or Apple News ads are first-party. And now that they ask for permission to personalize ads on their first-party apps, they've gone a step further than Facebook or anyone else. The equivalent would be getting a prompt when you open Instagram and they ask you for permission to do ad targeting.

  3. The only way Apple is going to make a phone in China and deliver it worldwide, and have it be carbon neutral is through carbon offsets. And the reality is, paying someone else to be environmentally responsible on your behalf is not the same thing as being environmentally responsible yourself.

  4. Those references were removed weeks/months ago and apple still refused to approve it. It wasn't until it became public that they changed their mind.


  6. They "listened" on the Mac Pro but there's no evidence that "listening" influenced anything else they did. The prices of their products went up when NAND/DRAM prices went up, and they went down when they went down. The keyboard on the Macbook Pro could be an example of that, but it's more easily explained by the fact that an unreliable keyboard costs them money in warranty service. The fact that the Touch Bar hasn't been removed shows that they aren't going to just respond to what some cohort of customers say they want. AirPods Pro is a logical extension of the audio engineering work Apple has been doing years and one of their most popular products in years. Getting around to updating some products after years like the iPad Mini or Mac Mini doesn't suggest anything has changed, other than they were due for updates.

  7. The fact that Apple themselves were unable to dispute a single fact from Project Zero's report says all there is to know about its validity. Meanwhile, regarding their own, would you like me to repeat my criticisms? Some salient points would be inventing an "implication" not in the original report, and disputing Google's accurate use of the term "en masse". Unless you claim that we should be using some special Apple PR version of the English language.

  8. You write as if Project Zero is above reproach when they've also been criticized heavily by Microsoft.


  10. Here is the thing - this sub likes when Apple is in the right, as a fan, I do too. When Apple is in the wrong, some fans will try to defend them some way, even if it means suppressing posts about Rossman whenever he talks bad about Apple. Some fans (like me) actually want Rossman to succeed so the company I’m rooting for does better

  11. One video from someone who regularly engages in disingenuous and self-interested arguments about Apple, about something everyone knows Apple has been a leader on for about a decade?

  12. They didn't lose the case because it's a lengthy process, wait till the judgement. Even now new class action lawsuits are being filed regarding the issue. They did change their stance however because of the bad press it generated. Why do you think the subsided battery replacement programme came about? Out of the goodness of Tim Cook's heart?

  13. Again what class action lawsuit is there related to this particular issue?

  14. The weird thing is this article tried so hard narratively to tell a story that is clear the reporting doesn’t actually back up.

  15. Seems like they decided that’s how they wanted the article to read, but the reporting didn’t actually back it up.

  16. Did you also feel the Voice Access app Google released over a year ago with identical functionality / user interface was empowering?

  17. No because we know it's Google and so the implementation will be half-baked and not as good as Apple. Apple has a virtual monopoly on users who need accessibility.

  18. Why wouldn't it be posted here? Apple is a major part of this story.

  19. they were seriously considering creating a censored search engine to re-enter China recently

  20. They weren't just "considering" it. They were actually building it in secret until it got exposed by The Intercept in some well reported stories, then the pressure from employees and politicians made them put it on hold. I don't think they've come out and said that they're never going back to China.

  21. I like how this sub holds Apple as the bastion of integrity and shits on google for caving to China. Then when Apple caves to authoritarian regimes, it’s ‘law is law’.

  22. If this is the only reason why not also remove support from other similar devices (Chromecast, AndroidTV, Roku, etc).

  23. The other reason is that Apple announced their own streaming service and will be competing with Netflix.

  24. This is just someone's hot take and doesn't actually add anything new. China has a data localization law and that means the data centers need to be local and owned by Chinese companies. That's not any different than Apple using Google Cloud or AWS (

  25. Yes it seems like that's your standard answer after being refuted by everyone.

  26. I know, right? What's with all the strawman replies? LOL it's ridiculous how little people read.

  27. The gross margin shows us exactly why you're wrong, which is of course why you don't talk about it. That's obvious in all your comments in this thread.

  28. I'm usually pretty skeptical about the "shot on X smartphone" ads to begin with, so I'm not super shocked.

  29. Apple's "Shot on iPhone" ad campaign are real iPhone photos from actual customers. You can read about how they pick them here.

  30. The battery throttling cases are broadly similar to this case (which was also dismissed):

  31. Not quite. There was no proof that Apple intentionally fucked up the 3G performance with the update.

  32. They throttled the iPhones to prevent them from randomly shutting down. The courts (at least in the US) are going to dismiss these cases.

  33. I work in K-12 IT and you're overlooking one critical thing; Apple can't afford to play the very long game with education because if you have millions of kids who grow up with Google products instead of Apple products, what do you think they'll prefer to buy when they graduate and move on to the workforce? At that point, Apple would not only lose out on educational sales, but future personal and business sales as well, so yes Apple does need to care.

  34. This might have been true in the 80s and 90s but it's not true anymore. Chromebooks are just going to become what Windows was, the thing that runs your work computer. All these kids have iPhones and iPads at home. No one is growing up using Chromebooks and then transitioning to Chromebooks in the workplace.

  35. Wow this is a mistake. It absolutely should not be an option. Apple should not cave to fake concern trolls. It's just going to make everyone who doesn't understand this issue at all turn it on because their uncle told them it increases performance and create a support nightmare.

  36. Class action lawsuits are a dime a dozen (well at least announcements of them).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin