dann0

When was the last time you rebooted your phone?

This anti-Apple commentary is getting boring. We don’t have all the information and we definitely can’t guess Apple’s motivations. They definitely aren’t focused exclusively on maximising profits: they already have all the money, and they make plenty of things that don’t start life as a cash cow (Apple TV, AirTags, even iPads for a while).

If you don’t like Apple’s approach, use one of the other brands instead. The problem is no other mainstream manufacturers can be trusted to provide a device as secure and private as Apple’s.

I am a strong supporter of the right to repair, and it informs my decisions, but in many cases, I am willing to pay a premium for known, trusted and secure platform with hardened components from a trusted and secure supply chain. That includes the labour of installing those parts. There are cheaper options around if that isn’t important to me.

But how would you know someone hasn’t accepted the additional keys for you? You’re making the system weaker while making it appear stronger - that’s the worst possible outcome.

I don’t want that. It would have to be a persistent warning of the person that compromised my phone could dismiss the warning.

But most of these anti-Apple comments can be overcome by buying a different device. They have different trade offs.

In a teaching lab in 1995, I had to make a digital thermometer using a mcu. I wrote code that dynamically read the voltage drop on the sensor and calculated the temperature. It was fast enough and easy to calibrate. The code was small and easy to understand.

I didn’t pass because the point of the assignment was to use lookup tables, even though that was a more complex approach in this case :(

I support RTR. I find Rossman annoying and abrasive, but he makes good points.

However, we are never going to live in a world of repaired devices. Feature development and performance increases happen too quickly.

Most people buy new phones every two years and upgrade not because the device isn't working or its become unusuable.

The better path, the one that Apple is pursuing, is improving the reclaim-ability of materials in devices.

I'd rather trade my old laptop in and buy a new one that has been made from the reclaimed materials of my old laptop, than have my older, slower, less capable one repaired.

I love the idea that you have designed and made your own headphones. I'm also glad that these work for you.

However, your argument about reducing environmental waste is flawed. AirPod, in total, weigh less and use far less plastic than your design.

Given the scale of production, the raw material to final product path will be short and relatively low impact. Your process involves much more packaging, transport and middle-man costs.

Feature set wise, your design is also significantly less.

I'm very supportive of people making product that is better suited to them, but the idea of this approach being somehow less wasteful is completely ridiculous.

No, a very good Chinese made RMS objective can cost less than $25 at lower magnification. Plan Achromatic objectives cost a little more, but will give flatter, clearer images than cheaper ones.

It seems a tube lens is used anyway, so the advantages of infinity system objectives are not as obvious. I’d stick to DIN160 or so called Olympus compatible objectives.

Wow! I lived through that and do not have any nostalgia for tape shenanigans!

A free market approach also places focus on the wrong performance indicators. Why is “very low cost” even a consideration when it leads to under investment which in turn results in significant power outages for significant periods of time.

The low cost of delivery is irrelevant if there is a strong chance that I’ll freeze to death because my service provider tries to be efficient and profitable instead of trying to be 100% online.

I understand the desire to avoid waste and inefficiency, but free market approaches tend to ignore the human factors and prioritise the financial. That’s not the correct.

I appreciate your effort in fleshing out your arguments, but you’re still conflating multiple factors. You also seem to to have an ideology against Apple and/or it’s approach. While that’s fine, it becomes impossible to have a conversation based on fact or reason.

Your claim of offering only one software distribution platform as being morally reprehensible is absurd. All Apple phones can run any web app. No consumer is forced to only purchase an Apple phone. Apple hasn’t done any more than follow the law that they have to follow given other decisions they have made.

You’re right that they made an explicit choice, but not for the reasons you’re suggesting. The App Store wasn’t created to enforce CCP policy. One could argue that allowing the uncontrolled distribution of apps that violate that security and privacy of the user is far worse.

You seem to have an intense dislike of Apple for other reasons. That’s fine, no issues there. But it is causing you to misattribute blame. They are far from a perfect company, and the App Store is problematic for many other reasons.

However, you seem to ignore the same behaviour when conducted by other businesses. Why is it ok for other phone makers, movie producers, and game distributors to censor or alter their products for the Chinese market, but it’s the height of evil for Apple to do so?

If you are truely concerned about morality, look deeper. You should direct your outrage at the CCP and less so at Apple.

No, that’s not right. You’re confusing the owner of the distribution channel and the manufacturer of the device. In Apple’s case, it’s the same company. In Android’s case, it is not. You are further confused by the difference in channels available to each platform for installing apps.

Apple allows one channel. It owns that channel. It is responsible for the content on that channel.

Android had many channels, and Google’s App Store has the same apps banned, but an android user can simply use another channel.

Since Apple is responsible for the apps in the Chinese App Store, they’ll remove apps that expose them to liability. Google does the same.

You’re welcome to your view. But do keep in mind that one needs to follow the laws of each jurisdiction in which they operate, regardless of your opinion of that “rightness” of the laws.

Your breathless rhetoric is pointless too. When was the last time you actually bought or used an Apple device? You formed this view well before now, and now you’re just posturing.

The ease or difficulty of re-flashing is dependent on the hardware. Some (most?) still need soldering, or at least a steady hand to hold wires in place, but the soldering on some things is far easier than others.

I've managed to flash half a dozen Sonoff light switches, as many power outlet switches, a whole bunch of Wemos D1 Minis, and even my kettle. Its generally straight forward and the first one is always the trickiest.

Initial OTA flashing might be a thing on some devices, but hasn't been on the Sonoff thing I have for a while. Once flashed though, you never need to touch the hardware again.

It's been a fun project or two.

You make a good point, but obviously different datasets and scenarios require different methods, and the detail of any approach is less important than starting out with valid assumptions.

True. Value to an economist is an aggregate of all the individual’s values. Your individual value is likely to have not influence on the market value (unless you’re buying a lot at a different price).

It’s knowledge of settlement that causes the “dislocation” of price. Actual settlement has minimal affect.

Price, at equilibrium, is a true representation of value. But other market forces ensure that equilibrium is seldom met. Tax, tariffs, subsidies on the product and its components skew price away from value.

Also, this kind of analysis only works at market level. Individual actors all have different values. It has to be viewed in aggregate. Think anecdote vs data.

This is a faulty argument.

Value to an individual is very different to value to a market.

Value in this sense is the aggregate of the individual values to all of the buyers and all of the sellers.

Price and value only match when supply and demand are at equilibrium.

Marketers view: the website has lots of buzz words, so it’ll probably do ok with gaining organic search traffic. However, I can’t really tell what the product does? Is it a CRM or is it a way to send messages to my clients?

I think you need to review what your product is, determine what your features are, then work out what your points of difference are. Feature Advantage Benefit model is a simple way to start this.

It’s hard to tell what you do. “Try it now”, to me at least, is a step after looking at screen shots and feature lists. Puretext looks like it has a narrow feature set - this might be an advantage in certain use cases, but you don’t tell me anything about what the product does, how it works, and who would benefit most from this product.

Also, you need to match your language to you clients. If you’re aiming for enterprise customers, don’t use colloquial language. Use simple, concise and clear language. I dislike the use of “Y”. Reading your other comments, I get the impression that this might be your personal style, and that’s great, but your product needs a different voice.

Finally, your prices are high for what appears to be a messaging service. There might be benefit in looking at your competitors (not necessarily the established, bigger players) and review your price strategy.

Good luck, you’ve got some good ideas here!

Thank you. I understand that part, but is the line supposed to be at the same point above the earth?

Forgive my ignorance, but if the moon orbits around the earth (ie not geostationary), how can the end of a line attached to the moon stay in one place above the earth?

I’m not trying to be a dick, I’m genuinely interested. Why would you make a product for a platform you don’t support? Feels like a vegan owning a hamburger shop.

Is it the market size that keeps you in the iOS space? Are you on other platforms? What are the revenue/cost/effort ratios for each? Does it make sense to focus on non-iOS options?

That’s not what a monopoly is. It isn’t a misuse of market power to have a lot of customers.

It’s ok to not like Apple or any company that doesn’t match your values, but it’s important to argue using the right terms and definitions, otherwise you sell yourself and your argue short.

There are alternatives to offering an app for iOS. Web apps are an example. Releasing only for Android is also a valid choice.

I don’t like paying for using a toll road, but if I want the benefit of a nice road, and a shorter travel time, I have to pay. If these benefits aren’t worth the price, I can use an alternative.