Reliable cellphone

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by Bowie

Apple are some of the biggest offenders when it comes to being anti consumer and the pioneers of planned obsolescence. When the EU created right to repair legislation, Apple knew the writing was on the wall so they created a marketing campaign to appear as if they were into consumer rights. Meanwhile, they've been attempting to get around it at every step. This is in the tech news. I don't expect everyone to follow tech news or right to repair legislation but I have for years and apple is known in the tech world as being the ugliest offenders of consumer rights. And, I'm not brand bashing either. My wife just got the newest iphone and I'm not loyal to any device or platform. As someone who follows tech news, it's just wild to me how marketing money can buy a shiny reputation.

That is equal parts true including about other companies, and nonsense. They are among lots of firms who want and wanted to protect the margins in repair business and with Google better than popular competitors achieving that. I've already stated here they were and are ahead of others with longer product life cycles. Same for breadth of their used products and support for older devices.

It is not logical to think they have their high satisfaction and market share from being anti-consumer. Their success makes them a popular target. Just from the period when I was a certified field engineer and tech for for several platforms including IBM servers I was sleeves rolled up in knowing the obsolescence and life cycle matters. It is still an issue with lots of products and complicated by security.

Long product lifecycle and support is a lot of how Apple has become an enterprise player too.

Trying to be fair, I also understand the perceptions people get. For example they for sure know these major brands but don't likely now the problems in other niches. Some of the products we deal with in food which we all consume and payments are more extreme about having customers locked in.

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by Bowie

As someone who follows tech news, it's just wild to me how marketing money can buy a shiny reputation.

Enough marketing money invested the right way can buy you almost anything, and I don't think that's hardly new or limited to corporations/consumerism.

Plus, what company selling con- and "pro-"sumer grade products would advertise openly about self-repairability if the Joe and Jane Users out there would probably interpret that as "oh, so they break down a lot"?

Back in '92 I had a 2y old Mac IIx at the lab. It succombed to an apparently common issue when I had to move offices: the on/off relay failed. We took it in to the nearby Apple dealer, who had it repaired quickly enough ... by swapping out the entire motherboard for IIRC 1500 Dutch guilders. A *lot* more than the replacement of a simple on/off switch as the PCs of the day used would have cost, but undoubtedly a lot faster than an actual repair would have been. So, "happy" customer, and probably even happier dealer.
(In all fairness, we had a much worse experience of the same vein with a very professional HP system a few years later.)

Apple long had a scientific programme, which was on their site but not in a way that "normal consumers" would stumble upon it too easily. I think that disappeared at about the same time their server line was discontinued, and undoubtedly also because it meant having to provide long-term support for products (preferably in the form of parts for in-house repairs).

Fun coincidence in this context: saw this yesterday:
Japan is slowly but surely moving away from the floppy disk: 'People are stuck with it'

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by imwjl

That is equal parts true including about other companies, and nonsense. They are among lots of firms who want and wanted to protect the margins in repair business and with Google better than popular competitors achieving that. I've already stated here they were and are ahead of others with longer product life cycles. Same for breadth of their used products and support for older devices.

It is not logical to think they have their high satisfaction and market share from being anti-consumer. Their success makes them a popular target. Just from the period when I was a certified field engineer and tech for for several platforms including IBM servers I was sleeves rolled up in knowing the obsolescence and life cycle matters. It is still an issue with lots of products and complicated by security.

Long product lifecycle and support is a lot of how Apple has become an enterprise player too.

Trying to be fair, I also understand the perceptions people get. For example they for sure know these major brands but don't likely now the problems in other niches. Some of the products we deal with in food which we all consume and payments are more extreme about having customers locked in.

You like to dismiss my words as "nonsense", but then said that line about satisfaction and market share somehow being proof against anti consumerism... I'll leave you with some facts to chew on. It's today's news. Then, you can feel free to call it nonsense if you like.
" (Reuters) -The U.S. Department of Justice and 15 states on Thursday sued Apple as the government cracks down on Big Tech, alleging the iPhone maker monopolized the smartphone market, hurt smaller rivals and drove up prices."

These are dangerous times when a big tech company can create a loyal army that publicly defends their abuser.

[Gitfiddlemann]

Originally Posted by Bowie

" (Reuters) -The U.S. Department of Justice and 15 states on Thursday sued Apple as the government cracks down on Big Tech, alleging the iPhone maker monopolized the smartphone market, hurt smaller rivals and drove up prices."

These are dangerous times when a big tech company can create a loyal army that publicly defends their abuser.

Those Android users at the Justice Department. They just refuse to accept their status as "Green Bubble" Text messagers....

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by Bowie

You like to dismiss my words as "nonsense", but then said that line about satisfaction and market share somehow being proof against anti consumerism... I'll leave you with some facts to chew on. It's today's news. Then, you can feel free to call it nonsense if you like.
" (Reuters) -The U.S. Department of Justice and 15 states on Thursday sued Apple as the government cracks down on Big Tech, alleging the iPhone maker monopolized the smartphone market, hurt smaller rivals and drove up prices."

These are dangerous times when a big tech company can create a loyal army that publicly defends their abuser.

In my defense, it is to me nonsense when people think firms and products that are much changed still fit old stereotypes.

Google has parallel if not identical challenges we can see following their app store related lawsuits, and their payment schema is also has elements very similar to Apple's. Especially so when you look at the merchant and payment networks parts so it will be really interesting to see how this will work out.

This will also be really interesting beyond what lawyers do because of the power the major credit cards have and their PCI DSS compliance standard.

Another thing to think about. When all of you go shopping at grocery, department and larger chain stores not just using a Square or Toast tablet you'll see the same lack of competition. NCR and Toshiba rule making self-check machines and conventional POS systems. Something interesting in that dominance is Google and Apple have payment/wallet products that are actually superior in important ways.

Consumer sentiments will be an interesting element. If someone has their first tier Android or Apple phone managed and set up right they also have something that works better that people like if we think about the history of monopoly power.

All this smart phone and changes in how we do commerce is fairly mature now. Even the large scale payment wallet tech is 10 years old. When other concentrated players were maturing - autos, telecom, some elements of computing - mediocrity was setting in pretty fast. It seems opposite of that with at least Google, Microsoft and Apple.

We're going to have some really interesting stuff to watch here.

Something else that will be really interesting is we have areas as consumers where competition getting so cutthroat or subsidized by unhealthy debt and finance mechanisms has also made it hard to get good service even for those willing and able to pay.

My core posse of friends with tech pros, a historian, economist, carpenter, and staff attorney for supreme court will have conversations get more interesting than ever.

[Gitfiddlemann]

It's hard to believe that a successful company like Apple is getting sued by our own.
Because it makes products that people like too much? Come up with a better and cheaper breadbox that people want to buy if you want to hurt Apple. No one's doing it, so:
You are hereby not allowed to make products that people willingly pay more for because they work so well. Please dumb down your products to make them more equal to the inferior competition. Make them fully open source like Android and Google. We're sorry if that makes them more vulnerable for cyber thievery and competitive shenanigans.
And let's not forget you-know-who, who is the dominant maker of smart phones worldwide. They must be beside themselves with incredulous joy after hearing about that internal lawsuit. Licking their chops, not having to lift a finger. Now just waiting for the day when Apple is forced to open its doors and allow them access to all that coveted intellectual property.
It seems sometimes that we're afflicted with a self-mutilating behavior syndrome.

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by Gitfiddlemann

It's hard to believe that a successful company like Apple is getting sued by our own.
Because it makes products that people like too much? Come up with a better and cheaper breadbox that people want to buy if you want to hurt Apple. No one's doing it, so:
You are hereby not allowed to make products that people willingly pay more for because they work so well. Please dumb down your products to make them more equal to the inferior competition. Make them fully open source like Android and Google. We're sorry if that makes them more vulnerable for cyber thievery and competitive shenanigans.
And let's not forget you-know-who, who is the dominant maker of smart phones worldwide. They must be beside themselves with incredulous joy after hearing about that internal lawsuit. Licking their chops, not having to lift a finger. Now just waiting for the day when Apple is forced to open its doors and allow them access to all that coveted intellectual property.
It seems sometimes that we're afflicted with a self-mutilating behavior syndrome.

It is completely understandable to be concerned about the competitiveness when players in an area are highly concentrated which no doubt Google and Apple are in some areas. It is credible to be concerned with things such as how the giants can scoop up talent many firms cannot afford to hire.

You for sure have a point on a foreign competitor but my head spins over other areas where we have little or insufficient competition and those players are not doing the good job of your point on satisfying customers.

When I'm in rural and smaller areas I worry and feel challenges from being a food, beverage, gasoline and telecom/ISP customer more than from a briefcase that has the big 3 (Apple, Google, Microsoft) products in it.

This will be interesting for sure but for things I consume with costs that do add up and services or selection that can be poor, I worry more about other stuff. There are food and health care things that to me are a bigger mess.

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by Gitfiddlemann

Make them fully open source like Android and Google.

All of Google open source, or do they play like Apple and keep key bits to themselves?

Going open source doesn't mean your products become more repairable automagically, nor does it mean that everyone can all of a sudden start installing whatever they want on their devices. The fact that you can sideload applications on Android phones is a feature AFAIK, not an inevitable result of having open-source code.

What worries me mildly about the US government attacking Apple is that in case of a win they may have leverage or precedence to try to force Apple to build in backdoors allowing much easier unlocking of phones. If they haven't already achieved that (I haven't followed this TBH).

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by RJVB

All of Google open source, or do they play like Apple and keep key bits to themselves?

Going open source doesn't mean your products become more repairable automagically, nor does it mean that everyone can all of a sudden start installing whatever they want on their devices. The fact that you can sideload applications on Android phones is a feature AFAIK, not an inevitable result of having open-source code.

What worries me mildly about the US government attacking Apple is that in case of a win they may have leverage or precedence to try to force Apple to build in backdoors allowing much easier unlocking of phones. If they haven't already achieved that (I haven't followed this TBH).

Google, Apple, Microsoft plus others all use and produce open source but they also have a lot of patents, trademarks and proprietary products. You have a really good point on the privacy matter. Overall Apple has been really good and also good such as their handling when they detect the software nation states have used to compromise and spy.

On side loading, that's also big InfoSec matter that needs to be considered. One of the big services the big 3 signed & vetted stores achieve is security and not just convenience. Everyone here who knows digital keys management and checksums raise their hands? The Google and Apple app stores are ensuring the integrity and authenticity of software for billions of people.

There are only 3 of them but Google, Microsoft and Apple in some ways seem more competitive, consumer focused and innovative than other big stuff in our lives.