Mid- and high-end Android phones (e.g. Google-owned Motorola era) used to have a soft-touch plastic casing which was incredibly grippy, and felt and looked great. Then some phone reviewers decided that in order to be "premium", a phone must be made of slipperiest materials known to man. And so here we are, with everyone covering up their "premium" phones with cases, so they're both uglier and thicker than they used to be when they had soft-touch casing and headphone jacks. Progress.
Yes! I didn't need a case with my iphone 7 since it had a metal back that created friction in my pocket. My iphone x is glass and slips out of my pocket constantly so i had to start casing it.
One could also ask the question "how many people would prefer to have a phone that didn't --need-- a case"?
Given the choice between a thin phone that needs a case and a phone that is as thick as a thin phone with a case that is more durable, possibly has a headphone jack and a slightly larger battery, I would personally go for the latter.
If a phone is designed so the screen always breaks when it hits the ground unless it's protected by a case, it would make more sense to manufacture the phone inside a case already, no? I.e. make a raised rubber bezel around the screen's edge part of the standard design.
I've never had a phone come with a case? Strange. But these days I just use the 10$ minimal rubber cases. It's enough to protect were the screen and case meet which is the source of all my breaks.
I’d never used a case until I got the iPhone 8 and had to buy one because of how slippery it is! Unless you put it on a perfectly flat surface it will just slide off on to the floor.
From my perspective a large proportion of people in the UK have at least one 4K TV, (unfortunately) most of which are 'smart'. Carrying apps for Netflix, Prime, BBC etc.
Add to that that the majority of houses contain a current generation games console. From my perspective 4k in the UK has permeated most age groups and economic groups.
It is easy enough for most households to obtain speeds that can support 4K in the UK. The UK (as well as most of Europe I think) don't have data caps, means there is very little concern about streaming 4K.
I think the BBC did a really good job in the earlier days of 4K in releasing fantastic sports (Olympics & Football) and nature documentaries with David Attenborough.
However, I appreciate that this is a small section of the overall Netflix user-base and based on my somewhat bias viewpoint. I'm sure there are subsets of the UK that would disagree.
>From my perspective a large proportion of people in the UK have at least one 4K TV, (unfortunately) most of which are 'smart'. Carrying apps for Netflix, Prime, BBC etc.
Having a 4K TV with Netflix won't give you 4K Netflix. You need to actually pay extra for it, about a third more.
If they’re sharing logins, maybe. I bet most families that manage to stream four things at once almost never try to do so on a single service at the same time. Can’t you still get Disney+ for about the price of upgrading to 4K Netflix? Or some-ads Hulu.
Of course, that's the point of the account to share logins, you still get your own user with your own lists, recommendations and all that. Though, Spotify handles it nicer where you can add your own account to the family group plan.
Not often, but often enough to become a nuisance with 2 TVs or so, some tablet/laptop for school work/gaming/whatever and a mobile device per person.
Regarding the rate of testing, since the whole country is in lock down the rate of testing isn't actually that helpful. It's more about damage limitation. The UK, and most countries, are no longer in a containment phase that ship has sailed. Now it's more a case of reducing burden on the NHS. So the rate of testing only has a limited use at this point. I gives a guestimate about the total infection rate, and it is probably essential for hospitals to ensure containment of patients, but in terms of testing the general public, not that helpful.
The US might get more use out of it at the moment in the remotely located populations such as towns that currently have limited infection rates Then testing is extremely helpful postponing infection. By doing so, it bides time for stock of medical supplies to increase after the significant burden that infected cities will have in the coming months.
I mean they did stick the figurative middle finger up to the FBI when asked to provide a backdoor into a terrorist's iPhone. Which I would say is one of the main stories that sticks out to my somewhat bias perspective of tech giants standing up for their opinions.
This may be more a reflection on the what flex the residing government provides for a company in a given country rather than the companies appetite to stand up for their opinion though.
One has to wonder though. Apple refused to provide the FBI a backdoor, which people speculated would be due to setting a precedent for Apple to make these backdoors standard
How likely is it that everything Apple sells in China is backdoored as mandated by the CCP?
What about the infamous browser attack publicized by Google’s project zero that seemed to be perpetrated by the Chinese government in order to target the Uighur Muslims? If true that would seem to imply the CCP did not in fact have backdoors already right?
Ah, interesting, "Diaspora" meaning Uighurs outside of China? In that case though, what evidence is there that it was geographically targeted? My understanding was that the attack apparently focused on websites likely to be visited by Uighurs, so how would we know what the geographical target was?
The FBI doesn't have the ability to prevent Apple from selling phones in the USA. There is no law I know of that would allow the FBI to do that. China does have the ability to prevent Apple from selling phones in China.
The FBI doesn't have the direct ability, but they do have the ear of multiple powerful people who can move policy & trade law around to apple's disadvantage. They did just lose multiple requested tariff exemptions in the trade war.
Are you suggesting a Federal law enforcement organization, that maintains files on certain private individuals, would collectively come together to approach politicians to do blacklist a company?
Because that would be illegal on about 97 levels. Right out of the gate it would be seen as potential blackmail.
Personally, I've replaced many components on iPhones through the ages. Often the replacement parts I've ordered have been sub-standard and that was the risk I've accepted as I was purchasing from unknown sellers. Sometimes the parts have been on par with the original components and I've been very pleased with my purchase.
The right to repair should be protected. When I am no longer able to fix my own purchases then I no longer feel I own the device.
This is especially true given Apple present themselves as an environmentally conscious brand. Often people don't have the opportunity to get parts replaced by Apple directly, or they don't have the means. Ensuring there are options for everyone promotes reuse and recycling. Additionally it limits the extent that a given company can build in planned obsolescence.
However. My opinion is that in purchasing a second hand device I want to know which components are from the OEM. This is especially important for components that are not easily validated, i.e. the battery. I can then take the risk of price vs quality at face value.
I get the impression here that people are very vocal about one side or the other, but I feel there is a balance to be made.
You stopped "owning" your device the monent you accepted locked bootloader and no root. It is weird that it is the battery replacement that triggered that feeling.
It’s not about owning. It’s having trust in the device that it will do what it says it will. Buying from Apple there is generally a trust that the device meet’s Apple’s bar and hasn’t been tempered with.
Just a thought about a potential mechanism, off the top of my head (which I'm sure has many issues).
Opening blinds is generally a morning thing, and ideally would want to be the quiet option if you could only have one option which was quiet (theoretically speaking). What if the electric motor drove the blinds down by pulling a counter weight. That way in the morning to open the blinds it would only need to release the weight, which wouldn't require any substantial movement and therefore limit noise...?
A similar effect could be achieved by replacing gravity/counterweights with a simple spring or hydraulic cylinder.
My standing desk operates similarly to assist in raising it.
I'm still rocking my MBA form 2010, it wasn't even top spec at the time, but the keyboard, size, weight and battery are all great. The screen is pretty terrible I'll be honest, but if I'm working on it it doesn't bother me much. Plus it has one of those ever so rare HDMI out ports (no accessories necessary). I just replace the battery every so often.
I'm currently weighing up the option of installing Linux onto it as I'm more inclined to move away from the Apple ecosystem, but I have reservations on what that will do the battery life :/
There is a significant community in the (biological) sciences that are reliant on the Mac platform as an intermediate between Windows based applications such as Office and, importantly, the often highly specific programs/scripts/applications created for Unix platforms for analysis. Ignoring these users would be a mistake.
Personally, after 13 years of Macs any computer I'm buying in the near future are going to be Linux based because of the current trajectories Apple have decided to take.
Wouldn't running Windows 10 and the Microsoft Subsystem for Linux make way more sense for these users? Seems more like inertia that is keeping some on the Mac.
In academic environments there is often no dedicated IT department, so all support is done by the technically versed colleagues. Replacing machines with Macs has always resulted in an enormous reduction of these support calls, in my experience. Moving back to Windows would destroy all of that.
I agree, the Microsoft subsystem for Linux will draw many more users away from macOS in the future. When I was starting post-graduate studies/research there was no such support from Microsoft officially. However, now that there is I wouldn't be surprised if academics are more likely to consider Windows in the future for this reason. Good move from Microsoft.
As a Mac lover of 15+ years, at least put PCs under consideration. I bought a Lenovo X1 Yoga to replace my dead MBP. It has a touchscreen, fingerprint reader with U2F support, folds into a tablet, and I do all my development in windows VSCode linked into Ubuntu on WSL. The only thing I miss is having iMessage on the desktop.
> touchscreen, fingerprint reader with U2F support, folds into a tablet
None of that is a compelling enough reason to switch, when the OS is the primary reason I jumped ship to Macs in the first place.
It's not just about being able to run this or that app, but the overall comfort of my everyday work environment, while still giving me the room to occasionally step out of my comfort zone on lazy afternoons.
As long as macOS retains the ability to run emulators, I think I'll be fine with its growing number of security-based restrictions.
However, whenever I have occasionally peeked back in on the state of Windows (the last time being a year ago, to run some games), it still had many of the same annoyances, frustrations and archaic encumbrances that made me wish for a better world and try out Macs around 10 years ago, and I still don't agree with the overall philosophy of Microsoft (as I perceive it.)
Apple/macOS remains the "lesser evil", at least for me.
I've had my iPhone 8 for almost 2 years and now I'm working from home I've taken it out of it's case to fully enjoy the design.
Honestly, probably easier to hold a live fish than this bloody phone.