Slashdot Mirror

At least one aspect of an electric car is affected, cooling. As altitude increases, the efficiency of heat-sinks decreases. I hope they added some over-sized cooling fans, Apple didn't.

But who would do that?

A: You should NOT be giving the impression that either Google or Apple use Qt because you found a few independent developers how make apps for Android or iOS which happen to use Qt.

B: The OSX VLC GUI is written with Cocoa/Objective C, the only platform than I know is Qt is Linux.

I haven't used them much on Windows, but Qt apps on OSX are always a train wreck, nothing feels write, everything looks fake (because it is fake, all the controls are emulated), nothing lines up, and all look like a warmed over Win3.1 app with a cheesy emulated OSX skin. Linux is usually the only platform where Qt apps work well.

You could of course a popular SDK that works on desktops as well. But who would do that?

http://store.apple.com/us/brow...

Now that that's out of the way... I've got devices from 2009. I can't find any way to even trade them in.

Back in 2011, I had an iOS device failure out of warranty, and I got a $50 value for bringing in the back cover of my previous device. Didn't need to bring in the rest, just the back cover, and I got $50 off the replacement. This probably kept me from going with an Android device at the time, and now I'm locked into the iOS App walled garden.

So not sure about how they've adjusted the program now, but the old way definitely has affected my buying decisions.

Forcing you to go to a store to pick one up is pretty much a PITA.

That's why they have this convenient website where you can order one and have it delivered to your home.

I am pretty miffed to read this. Nothing like paying a load of cash for a shiny new laptop only to find out a couple months later that you'd have been way better off waiting.

OK, that's like being butthurt after buying a new 2014 car and hearing there's a better 2016 model out. If you didn't get what you thought was a good deal on it, why did you buy it? Time marches on...

For those who don't know, "mid 2014" is not someone's estimate, that's what the hardware is officially billed as in the OS About screen. Note there have been nine updates in the past six years...

Secure boot could be a good thing if the user was allowed total control, but microsoft shows their true goal here, which is to take total control of the PC market.

I know of at least one PC hardware OEM who won't likely play that game...

And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.

Opera Mini, released 2010, and Opera Coast, released 2014
Google Chrome, released 2012
News regarding Firefox, due for release at some point soon

iOS requires that if you use a browser engine in iOS, it must be their version of WebKit for iOS, which is how Chrome and Coast work, but there are ways around even that, and there's nothing stopping you from building a better browser than theirs on top of their engine, which is exactly what others have done. Additionally, Opera Mini gets around the engine issue by moving the rendering to cloud servers. No idea how Mozilla is approaching it.

Have we forgotten the whole MS Antitrust fiasco? You remember that Microsoft WAS FINED because they bundled a fucking WEB BROWSER with their OS and made it the default, right? MS didn't force anyone to use it.

The distinction that people always seem to forget is that it generally isn't a matter of what you're doing, but is rather a matter of how you're using it. Going off your own example, there's nothing inherently illegal about bundling a browser with your OS. We see devices do this all the time; most of the console manufacturers have built-in browsers with no way to change them, for instance. And there's nothing inherently illegal about doing so well in business that you end up dominating a market; Amazon controls something like 90% of the eBooks market, for instance. But, especially as you get larger, you have a responsibility to not engage in practices that stifle or cripple competition. The market is supposed to be an even field to compete on. You're not allowed to rig the game.

In the case of Microsoft, there were allegations that they were intentionally rigging APIs in Windows to cripple competing browsers. On top of that, downloads back in the day took quite awhile to finish, so the fact that IE was bundled on the disc for a unrelated product that had a dominant market position (Windows) provided them with a seemingly unfair advantage over the other browsers (I don't know that I agree it was unfair, but whatever). The biggest issue, however (at least in the US case), and the piece that everyone forgets, is that they had reached a settlement back in '94 with the FTC that explicitly disallowed them from bundling other products with Windows, since the FTC had accused them of abusing their dominant position in the OS market to gain illicit advantages over their competitors.

THAT'S what made their bundling of IE illegal. Were iPhones in a similar market position and being used to allow Apple to push out competition in related markets, you can bet that Apple would have regulators breathing down their neck too. As it is though, Apple may be a big company, but their influence is no greater when it comes to these areas than that of their primary competitors.

LOL. And Microsoft is still evil.

Well, yeah. So is Apple. So is "don't be evil" Google. Suggesting Microsoft isn't evil like the rest of them is just naive. They just took it a step too far and got slapped.

And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.

Opera Mini, released 2010, and Opera Coast, released 2014
Google Chrome, released 2012
News regarding Firefox, due for release at some point soon

iOS requires that if you use a browser engine in iOS, it must be their version of WebKit for iOS, which is how Chrome and Coast work, but there are ways around even that, and there's nothing stopping you from building a better browser than theirs on top of their engine, which is exactly what others have done. Additionally, Opera Mini gets around the engine issue by moving the rendering to cloud servers. No idea how Mozilla is approaching it.

Have we forgotten the whole MS Antitrust fiasco? You remember that Microsoft WAS FINED because they bundled a fucking WEB BROWSER with their OS and made it the default, right? MS didn't force anyone to use it.

The distinction that people always seem to forget is that it generally isn't a matter of what you're doing, but is rather a matter of how you're using it. Going off your own example, there's nothing inherently illegal about bundling a browser with your OS. We see devices do this all the time; most of the console manufacturers have built-in browsers with no way to change them, for instance. And there's nothing inherently illegal about doing so well in business that you end up dominating a market; Amazon controls something like 90% of the eBooks market, for instance. But, especially as you get larger, you have a responsibility to not engage in practices that stifle or cripple competition. The market is supposed to be an even field to compete on. You're not allowed to rig the game.

In the case of Microsoft, there were allegations that they were intentionally rigging APIs in Windows to cripple competing browsers. On top of that, downloads back in the day took quite awhile to finish, so the fact that IE was bundled on the disc for a unrelated product that had a dominant market position (Windows) provided them with a seemingly unfair advantage over the other browsers (I don't know that I agree it was unfair, but whatever). The biggest issue, however (at least in the US case), and the piece that everyone forgets, is that they had reached a settlement back in '94 with the FTC that explicitly disallowed them from bundling other products with Windows, since the FTC had accused them of abusing their dominant position in the OS market to gain illicit advantages over their competitors.

THAT'S what made their bundling of IE illegal. Were iPhones in a similar market position and being used to allow Apple to push out competition in related markets, you can bet that Apple would have regulators breathing down their neck too. As it is though, Apple may be a big company, but their influence is no greater when it comes to these areas than that of their primary competitors.

LOL. And Microsoft is still evil.

Well, yeah. So is Apple. So is "don't be evil" Google. Suggesting Microsoft isn't evil like the rest of them is just naive. They just took it a step too far and got slapped.

And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.

Opera Mini, released 2010, and Opera Coast, released 2014
Google Chrome, released 2012
News regarding Firefox, due for release at some point soon

iOS requires that if you use a browser engine in iOS, it must be their version of WebKit for iOS, which is how Chrome and Coast work, but there are ways around even that, and there's nothing stopping you from building a better browser than theirs on top of their engine, which is exactly what others have done. Additionally, Opera Mini gets around the engine issue by moving the rendering to cloud servers. No idea how Mozilla is approaching it.

Have we forgotten the whole MS Antitrust fiasco? You remember that Microsoft WAS FINED because they bundled a fucking WEB BROWSER with their OS and made it the default, right? MS didn't force anyone to use it.

The distinction that people always seem to forget is that it generally isn't a matter of what you're doing, but is rather a matter of how you're using it. Going off your own example, there's nothing inherently illegal about bundling a browser with your OS. We see devices do this all the time; most of the console manufacturers have built-in browsers with no way to change them, for instance. And there's nothing inherently illegal about doing so well in business that you end up dominating a market; Amazon controls something like 90% of the eBooks market, for instance. But, especially as you get larger, you have a responsibility to not engage in practices that stifle or cripple competition. The market is supposed to be an even field to compete on. You're not allowed to rig the game.

In the case of Microsoft, there were allegations that they were intentionally rigging APIs in Windows to cripple competing browsers. On top of that, downloads back in the day took quite awhile to finish, so the fact that IE was bundled on the disc for a unrelated product that had a dominant market position (Windows) provided them with a seemingly unfair advantage over the other browsers (I don't know that I agree it was unfair, but whatever). The biggest issue, however (at least in the US case), and the piece that everyone forgets, is that they had reached a settlement back in '94 with the FTC that explicitly disallowed them from bundling other products with Windows, since the FTC had accused them of abusing their dominant position in the OS market to gain illicit advantages over their competitors.

THAT'S what made their bundling of IE illegal. Were iPhones in a similar market position and being used to allow Apple to push out competition in related markets, you can bet that Apple would have regulators breathing down their neck too. As it is though, Apple may be a big company, but their influence is no greater when it comes to these areas than that of their primary competitors.

LOL. And Microsoft is still evil.

Well, yeah. So is Apple. So is "don't be evil" Google. Suggesting Microsoft isn't evil like the rest of them is just naive. They just took it a step too far and got slapped.

In Europe, many taxi companies have mobile apps that allow customers to call a cab. The apps show available cabs and allow the user to select features (e.g. smoking/non-smoking), check the cost etc. Uber-taxi, I might say.

It's a little difficult to prove direct correlation, as is the usual case with Apple product releases, but if you recall the original announcements for iPhone specifically called for it to run only Web 2.0 applications through Safari. For example. It wasn't until after the first jailbreaks and unofficial third party apps that the App Store came along after weathering objections from Jobs. It's hard to conclusively say whether it was directly in response to jailbreakers or not, but it's likely it sped up their plans.

After reading the 9 to 5 Mac article linked above, I conclude that it really wasn't USER backlash, but DEVELOPER (and Apple-internal) pressures that caused Jobs to embrace the idea of an SDK and App Store. But that article also makes it clear that forces inside Apple were trying to convince Jobs that it was a good idea even before the iPhone launch. The App Store officially launched in July, 2008; so there wasn't too much time wasted.

OTOH, Google Play was launched in March, 2012 (yeah, I was surprised, too!) ; so, I'd still say that Apple's App Store can safely be said to have "come first"...

I think that a lot of people buy one system and stick with it because of the integration. Either you use hangouts, gmail, google calendar etc,

Google was kind enough to provide most of those things for the iOS ecosystem as well.

It's a little difficult to prove direct correlation, as is the usual case with Apple product releases, but if you recall the original announcements for iPhone specifically called for it to run only Web 2.0 applications through Safari. For example. It wasn't until after the first jailbreaks and unofficial third party apps that the App Store came along after weathering objections from Jobs. It's hard to conclusively say whether it was directly in response to jailbreakers or not, but it's likely it sped up their plans.

Dual core should be fine for most day-to-day use. An SSD is almost a must-have. But most importantly: a good high-res display for looking at stuff.

This should be about right if you're going for a mac: http://store.apple.com/us/buy-...
This is more lightweight, but the CPU might be too slow: http://store.apple.com/us/buy-...
This should be OK if you can live without the apple: http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-1...

Dual core should be fine for most day-to-day use. An SSD is almost a must-have. But most importantly: a good high-res display for looking at stuff.

This should be about right if you're going for a mac: http://store.apple.com/us/buy-...
This is more lightweight, but the CPU might be too slow: http://store.apple.com/us/buy-...
This should be OK if you can live without the apple: http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-1...

In typical MS fashion it didn't get good until 3 versions later, IE4, before getting proprietary vendor lockin with that piece of shit IE6.

If IE6 was such a piece of shit, as you put it, that implies that the other browsers at the time were much worse than that. You've inadvertently made a profound statement about the browser landscape of the day. IE6 rightfully earned infamy in its unnaturally long life even more repugnant is rampant revisionism. IE introduced a feature that is the foundation of today's web, some of you might be aware of the XMLHttpRequest object, for the non-developers it's like the force now, all around us. JavaScript support and performance, CSS support. Unfortunately this period had to occur, and it will occur again once these lessons are forgotten; Without the stranglehold IE6 eventually obtained, and more importantly stagnated the web with, the choices we have today wouldn't exist.

Their stupidity of not being able to down-grade IE or simultaneously install different versions so web developers could test ALL the various versions, forcing people to rely on hacks like SandBoxie, was absolutely retarded.

As much as it pains me to say Microsoft wasn't unique in this regard, as an aside, try installing multiple versions of Safari. Even the easy mode package managers don't support multiple versions of browsers out of the box (not to say it's difficult). Internet Explorer 6 released in 2001 following the launch of Windows XP. For those unfamiliar with their history, Web Development of that era revolved around IE and Netscape. With IE being the Chrome of its day (as in "works here, onward!") since the browser market was 90%+ IE and IE6 was supported on Windows 98, NT, and 2k. Low usage for potential targets results in a chicken and the egg problem. Low single digits just aren't a priority for many shops, see Opera.

Sandboxie came out in 2004ish and has its uses, especially on 32bit machines. However, for web development involving IE it's much easier to use MultiIE which has been around since 2006. IETester is worth another mention. Not to mention there are alternatives due to the ever growing number of devices and variants released year after year, requiring a different approach such as farms that show screenshots from targeted browsers. Regarding the hassle of Sandboxie, limiting yourself to one tool is pretty silly.

This is a little off topic. Since this criticism is being framed as a Microsoft issue you might be shocked to discover how apps and to a lesser extent websites, are developed and tested in 2015 on devices manufactured and supported by multiple vendors. This process requires physical devices, in many cases multiple to support the popular OS versions on them (there are other OS, but they're less than 8%). Think it's a hack to wrangle Sandboxes or multiple installations, try wrangling devices that let you only upgrade! But what about device simulators, one might ask? Oh yes, they do exist and they're improving but there isn't a substitute for deploying and testing on device. IE variants are a dwindling piece of the very large fragmentation pie.

Microsoft writing the browser from scratch, is too little, too late.

Too late for whom? W

You seem to think approximately 100% of what an OS does is the shell. Take a look at, say, these Apple docs, and look at how many of the services provided by iOS are specifically geared towards working on a simple/mobile/touchscreen style of device. In contrast, very little of what is described there is specific to any particular UI.

For example, having an OS where the process model distinguishes a single foreground process and multiple background processes has nothing to do with whether to move an app to the background you swipe, push a Home key, or throw your tablet to the ground in frustration. Such a process model is likely to be relevant to a tablet or smartphone, but probably not to a desktop or server OS.

don't the shared libs need to be signed.

I was under the impression that as of MacOS/X 10.9.x, all distributed shared libraries in your .app directory needed to be signed as well, or Gatekeeper would treat the app as if it was unsigned. (See the "Code Signing Changes in OS X Mavericks" subsection at this link)

Is the vulnerability described in the article applicable only to older versions of MacOS/X, or has the researcher found a way around that test?

If you're the old-school type, it's hard to go better than Das Keyboard.

However, if you're willing to experiment, I'd recommend trying out the current Apple Keyboard. I was squarely in the Model M demografic and for my life wouldn't have guessed that I like the Apple Keyboard and it's flat keys, but ever since I got one I've been using them almost exclusively. My typing speed has increased and I've come to like the laid-back lightweight and minimalist approach these take.

I recommend you try an Apple/Slim Keyboard for a few days before you decide what to buy. Could be that you're suprised just like I was.

No user of any popular tablet or smartphone today, Android or otherwise, is exposed to the kinds of internal implementation details you mentioned. The APIs provided by both iOS and Android are very much geared to the per-app/sandbox model used by apps on those systems, and even on Android, you wouldn't normally be messing around with a FHS-style directory tree the way Linux desktop or server applications would.

Anyway, I don't know whether you are wilfully missing the point just to troll or you really can't understand that there are fundamental differences between tablet/smartphone and desktop/laptop use cases beyond the cosmetic details of their shells, but further discussion here seems unlikely to get us anywhere useful.

You didn't say what platform, but this has been an on-going emphasis for both Apple and Microsoft for a long time.

For OS X and iOS, see

http://www.apple.com/accessibi...
http://www.apple.com/accessibi...

For Windows, see

http://www.microsoft.com/enabl...

Hope this helps.

--Paul

You didn't say what platform, but this has been an on-going emphasis for both Apple and Microsoft for a long time.

For OS X and iOS, see

http://www.apple.com/accessibi...
http://www.apple.com/accessibi...

For Windows, see

http://www.microsoft.com/enabl...

Hope this helps.

--Paul

the ability to just grab files from my local NAS, work with them, move them, that's something sorely missing on the iPad.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/remote-file-manager/id608738784?mt=8

that Apple would never release a flagship product that didn't rely exclusively on proprietary technology! Just look at the new MacBook, and it's utter dependence on proprietary chargers ... oh, wait ...

Yes, and their completely closed source operating system.

Compared to incandescents, they use a lot less power, and feel a lot less fragile. Haven't had one burn out on me yet.

But there's something about LED's that causes eyestrain in many people, including me. There's no way I'd want a bulb made from this unnatural source of light. There's even a 3-year long thread about eye strain from LED screens on Apple mobiles and laptops. Apple and other manufacturers refuse to even acknowledge the issue. I wish they'd keep CCFL screens as an option for people like us.

No it isn't.

Sure it is. It's not just "gold coloured," it's a solid 18 carat (yellow or rose) gold case.

No it's not 24 carat, four nines, or even five nines gold, but 18 carats exceeds the minimum fineness of 8 carat required for a metal to be considered "gold." "Solid" means that it is gold (>8 carats) throughout, not merely plated. Ergo this case is "solid gold."

Bigger issue: You can't drive an external display and charge at the same time. Eventually you'll run out of power and have to unplug your monitor to recharge.

Why not? Apple's HDMI adapter has another USB-C jack that lets you charge the laptop.
This adapter should have been in the box instead of as an $80 addon, IMO.

(1) Longer term reliability

That may be true, but it comes at the expense of repairability.

(2) Lower initial purchase cost

I bought my 2012 Mac Mini with 4GB of memory, then paid OWC $114.99 for 16GB for which Apple wanted $300. (Or maybe it was $400.)

At least OSX Yosemite was a free upgrade.

I really like the new Macbook but the lack of a dedicated USB port makes it a non-starter for me, it's a really simple thing and not the sort of thing you would think a company like Apple would consider as a power-user feature.

They did. It's call the MacBook Pro. Same Price. Three times as heavy. More CPU. Better GPU (I think). Many more Ports. That's why I have one instead of wanting this ultraportable.

But, as far as providing for those who want/need extra ports while NOT on-the-go, Apple has that covered.

So, it looks like Apple has in mind that you use the little USB-C to USB dongle when on-the-go (yes, you will have to unplug from power temporarily), and use one of the "docks" when in a more stationary application.

And I am sure that there will be a USB dongle that also lets you charge very soon now, probably by the time the MacBook is actually available.

I really like the new Macbook but the lack of a dedicated USB port makes it a non-starter for me, it's a really simple thing and not the sort of thing you would think a company like Apple would consider as a power-user feature.

They did. It's call the MacBook Pro. Same Price. Three times as heavy. More CPU. Better GPU (I think). Many more Ports. That's why I have one instead of wanting this ultraportable.

But, as far as providing for those who want/need extra ports while NOT on-the-go, Apple has that covered.

So, it looks like Apple has in mind that you use the little USB-C to USB dongle when on-the-go (yes, you will have to unplug from power temporarily), and use one of the "docks" when in a more stationary application.

And I am sure that there will be a USB dongle that also lets you charge very soon now, probably by the time the MacBook is actually available.

I really like the new Macbook but the lack of a dedicated USB port makes it a non-starter for me, it's a really simple thing and not the sort of thing you would think a company like Apple would consider as a power-user feature.

They did. It's call the MacBook Pro. Same Price. Three times as heavy. More CPU. Better GPU (I think). Many more Ports. That's why I have one instead of wanting this ultraportable.

But, as far as providing for those who want/need extra ports while NOT on-the-go, Apple has that covered.

So, it looks like Apple has in mind that you use the little USB-C to USB dongle when on-the-go (yes, you will have to unplug from power temporarily), and use one of the "docks" when in a more stationary application.

And I am sure that there will be a USB dongle that also lets you charge very soon now, probably by the time the MacBook is actually available.

My knowledge of computer components these days isn't that high, I typically just buy what is good enough but not too expensive. That being said, how is the Apple not overpriced vs a Lenovo? Lenovo has higher resolution (me want, my laptop has way less than that...), both have same speed processor, same memory, I prefer the 1TB HD to the 500GB SSD but I don't think giving Lenovo the SSD would bring the price up much, I think the Lenovo has a better graphics card. Prices? Lenovo under $1200, Apple almost $2500. Sorry, please to explain? http://store.apple.com/us/buy-... http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/l...

For anyone who might have had a doubt...The new MacBook (MSRP $1300.00) requires an $80 dongle to connect to anything.

The Apple Store for Education does, however, suggest they market directly at students.

The App Store/iTunes sells games, movies, and books, even more people are fond of those than students. Students also don't have lots of disposable money, if you're following the student debt crisis. The vast majority of spending is on entertainment, ~90% of Google's store revenue in 2014 was games, I'd imagine entertainment vastly dwarfs education on the Apple platform.

Particularly since the new MacBook is sold to students at a discount.

Implying only the new ones, or MacBooks are discounted? Nearly all mac products are discounted if you're involved in education.

Shop the Apple Store for Education, save up to $200 on a new Mac, and up to $20 on a new iPad. Education pricing is available to college students, students accepted to college, parents buying for college students, faculty, homeschool teachers, and staff at all grade levels.*

They're not unique in offering discounts, nor is this a new trend - what people learn with is very important when becoming a professional. Additionally, how do you explain all the Apple devices in movies? They're not used by students exclusively there either. It's a fashion statement, which applies to significantly larger monied demographics.

Apple takes care of this for you.
https://www.apple.com/batterie...
https://www.apple.com/batterie...
https://support.apple.com/en-i...

Apple takes care of this for you.
https://www.apple.com/batterie...
https://www.apple.com/batterie...
https://support.apple.com/en-i...

Apple takes care of this for you.
https://www.apple.com/batterie...
https://www.apple.com/batterie...
https://support.apple.com/en-i...

Yeah sure, waste your money on a solid gold watch that's going to be obsolete in a year.

Of course, the computer is totally encapsulated so we may be able to just upgrade that part alone. It would allow for upgrades at a lower price and a lower environmental cost.

Yeah, especially odd that the systemd folks didn't just adopt it. There'd be a LOT less to bitch about in the Linux "community" if they'd simply ported an already-stable daemon.

It would have been if they were simply developing an init system. However, systemd isn't one.

But launchd is much more than simply a replacement for INIT.

Prior art.

Not saying they're delicious. They've always given me heartburn, and they bind you up something terrible, but technically this concept is already on the market.

Objective-C is an ugly, clunky language, and the only reason Apple uses it is to intentionally make your code incompatible with other platforms.

Actually, they use it for its dynamic binding and loading, but don't let facts get in the way of your FUD!

That and C++ was horribly immature at a time when Objective-C was not and the Next guys were developing NextStep.

I think they were contemporary. They were young and immature together. Both born in 1983.

Objective-C is an ugly, clunky language, and the only reason Apple uses it is to intentionally make your code incompatible with other platforms.

Actually, they use it for its dynamic binding and loading, but don't let facts get in the way of your FUD!

That and C++ was horribly immature at a time when Objective-C was not and the Next guys were developing NextStep.

Objective-C is an ugly, clunky language, and the only reason Apple uses it is to intentionally make your code incompatible with other platforms.

Actually, they use it for its dynamic binding and loading, but don't let facts get in the way of your FUD!

Did you know you actually have to follow special instructions just to remove this one "Gift" album, since it registers as a purchase in your iTunes library? You can't just delete it as you suggested.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201396

Similar to how you have to opt-out of iMessage when you quit having an iPhone through some obscure form on Apple's website, I can tell you I have actually heard people tell the story of how frustrating it is to "lose all of your messages" when giving up your iPhone. Every time you have an expectation of regular people to perform some minimally technical menial task, be prepared for 90% or more of those people to give up and fall off the edge of the funnel instead. This is not even a discussion of "the intelligence of Apple's targeted market segment."

You already know how that conversation ends, every time. "I just gave up and got another iPhone." And... wait for it... Apple's scheme really works! They (lusers) never ever connect it on their own as being "something bad/anti-competitive that Apple did," and something that Apple ostensibly should be punished for (with market forces moving away.) Network effect = gravity. Seems that Apple is well past the critical mass.

https://selfsolve.apple.com/deregister-imessage

That page honestly could not be any simpler or easier to find, but I don't know anyone who can say they actually used it. Most people won't even connect the dots for the first two weeks and realize they are not receiving iMessage or any messages from any of their friends with iPhones anymore. If they can even find someone who will explain it to them, they will usually just hear "bad user, should have stayed loyal to Apple; Apple good, new phone problem."

Did you know you actually have to follow special instructions just to remove this one "Gift" album, since it registers as a purchase in your iTunes library? You can't just delete it as you suggested.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201396

Similar to how you have to opt-out of iMessage when you quit having an iPhone through some obscure form on Apple's website, I can tell you I have actually heard people tell the story of how frustrating it is to "lose all of your messages" when giving up your iPhone. Every time you have an expectation of regular people to perform some minimally technical menial task, be prepared for 90% or more of those people to give up and fall off the edge of the funnel instead. This is not even a discussion of "the intelligence of Apple's targeted market segment."

You already know how that conversation ends, every time. "I just gave up and got another iPhone." And... wait for it... Apple's scheme really works! They (lusers) never ever connect it on their own as being "something bad/anti-competitive that Apple did," and something that Apple ostensibly should be punished for (with market forces moving away.) Network effect = gravity. Seems that Apple is well past the critical mass.

https://selfsolve.apple.com/deregister-imessage

That page honestly could not be any simpler or easier to find, but I don't know anyone who can say they actually used it. Most people won't even connect the dots for the first two weeks and realize they are not receiving iMessage or any messages from any of their friends with iPhones anymore. If they can even find someone who will explain it to them, they will usually just hear "bad user, should have stayed loyal to Apple; Apple good, new phone problem."

" it's not $99 for a replacement battery."

OK. "Apple offers a battery service for $79, plus $6.95 shipping, subject to local tax."

$99 vs. $85.95 doesn't change much.

And, just to make if completely fair, let's compare with the most expensive option - an OEM Samsung battery from Verizon is $40, still less than 1/2 the cost.

And before you argue this - sure, some people have the skill to tear apart their iPhone and replace it themselves. Perhaps even many people on /. But, most people wouldn't even consider it. Plus, the battery itself is still more expensive and then you have to go through the time and effort.

First off, not all "pods" are iPods. "pods" here is an overly generic term for any portable music player.

Secondly, Apples highlights FaceTime video calls as one of the selling points of the iPod. Nice try with that one.

So how many times did iTunes ask you for your credit card number?

Once. But is not required to hand one over. You only need to do so if you want to purchase things from the iTunes store.

Create an iTunes Store, App Store, or iBooks Store account without a credit card or other payment method

The way it SHOULD work is that I put my phone over the NFC reader, it asks me for fingerprint, and done. Reality bites.

Not for users of Apple Pay. In fact, that's EXACTLY how Apple Pay works. No, in fact, it's even EASIER, because you don't have to WAIT to get "prompted" for your fingerprint.

You'll also notice that Apple didn't try to make it look faster than it really is. They didn't edit-out the brief delay while the NFC initialized the transaction. Even with that, and the "cashier" stating the total, the entire video is only 7 seconds long. The Apple Pay part was on the order of 3 seconds.