It's cost Apple nothing. They're selling every iPhone 6 they can produce.
Here's what could end Apple's winning streak

Apple PR flacks are talking this risk down, but other than smart watches, Apple doesn't really have room to grow in the USA.

That doesn't sound like this situation at all.

Apple loaned GT more than half a billion dollars to build the plant. When GT failed to deliver, Apple stopped giving them money. When GT ran into financial difficulties, Apple offered to give them more money and defer repayments to keep them afloat.

What did you expect Apple to do? Just keep on giving them more money indefinitely without getting anything in return?

The trust usually comes because the small company assumes the big one wants to make money by completing an actual product line and selling it - normally the way just about everybody thinks Capitalism works. The small company says to itself, well, they've got to have X (like Sapphire coatings for screens) to make money - they can't actively want us to fail and take steps to make us fail or they take a hit too. So what we have to do is deliver the component at the price where they still make money, and as long as we do that, we're on the same side. So the small company focuses on distrusting the contract clauses it thinks are rational to distrust, in ways that it thinks might allow abuses a rational but dishonest actor might try..
      It's like buying a car and thinking you can't trust the salesman to tell you the truth - only you should have somehow known the salseman wasn't the real salesman but a psycho-killer who had just slain the real salesman and the big thing he wanted wasn't to make too much money selling that car, it was your home address so he could pop by at 2 AM with his skinning knife collection. Most people don't go through life checking with NASA in case the persons they are dealing with are secretly space ailens.
            From the summary, Apple seems to have had control over the decision to install back up power supplies, and to have chosen to save money on them instead. That sounds like an Apple executive brought in a good quarterly bottom line and then got out before the product couldn't be made as specced, and to heck with whether Apple still looks good five years down the road. The big company takes a small hit, the little one goes bankrupt. Apple is by this definition exceptionally untrustworthy, just because they won't take as much damage as their smaller subcontractors, or individuals, but if that's true, then Capitalism is a system where the bigger a company gets, the less it should be trusted, just for sheer size, and smaller businesses and customers should rationally start distrusting sheer bigness. How about that, free-market types and Randroids, do we need stronger Anti-Trust laws? The other solution seems to be extreme paranoia. If great market share or rapid growth mean everyone should regard that company as exceptionally untrustworthy, they why doesn't it make sense for consumers to always pick a smaller competitor for everything?

I guess that's why they call it "nitpicking".

"He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future." - Orwell, 1984

It's not finished yet. They have the clock and the delay line memory working, but it can't run programs.

Make the ballots out of hemp, problem solved.

RFID bracelets are fairly cheap.
If a little thought is put into the readers' placement, authentication should require minimal/no interruption of the workflow.

Try reading the paper.

/all spelling mistakes are in the original text

So there's about 15000 to 18000 votes to count?

Paper ballots. Electronic sounds awesome, but it's a lot of hassle for a small amount of votes.

Say you've got 5 polling stations with 4 people at each one, so 20 people. 350 or so ballots per station, each person has to tally up 100 votes at the end of polling.

You could count the entire lot twice in an hour at 4 ballots a minute per person.

So your 5 voting machines cost, what, $5K each? So $25K all up?

You can pay those 20 people $500 for that one day and spend $10K on wages.
You print 30,000 voting forms (at 5 cents each that's $1500) and getting some nice locked boxes ($2000) and storage of ballots for 12 months ($1000) in case of recount.

Oh look, you've got $10.5K left over. Use that to make a park nice and pretty somewhere.

Nope. Lived in a subdivision in the 80s with all buried lines. Power always went out during big summer rain storms. You're not going to find magical waterproof cunduit anywhere that doesn't cost an outrageous sum.

It'd be way safer to get a fan going to circulate the air than to crack the windows open. You really want car makers to open themselves up to having cars stolen easier?

Most cars cost multiple thousands of dollars

Dick Cheney in 1994

Dick Cheney in 2007: "Look what's happened since then. We had 9/11."

It's not a few that are really developing and a lot that aren't, but the contrary. For example, if you look at how well Nigeria has dealt with the current Ebola crisis, you pretty much have to acknowledge that they have improved a lot since the 1960's. In the same way, Uganda today is not sliding downhill from some Idi Amin glory days, quite the contrary. We could fairly describe a few states as failed - that's not a racist term per say, it's a rational assessment if used correctly, but when people talk about developing nations like 9 of 10 are never going to develop instead of the contrary, that's an abuse of terms like 'developing' and 'failed state'. There's also this meme that foreign aid is just pumping money into corrupt regimes that will never actually improve the lot of their populaces, and again, that's more the exception than the rule.
      There's also a difference in comparing a failed state with a successfully developing one in 21st century terms and comparing it to its colonial past or some general colonial era. You can take the real numbers for famine deaths caused by the British raj in India and Irish potato famine deaths of about the same time, and with fair statistics, nobody should ever complain about anything Stalin did to the USSR again,unless they are prepared to compare Queen Victoria with Hitler and Stalin, to her disfavor. That's your colonial era, without even knowing the figures for Africa and how much they would make the totals worse. Somalia today probably has it about as bad as they did in the colonial era, but not worse. That's bad, a drastically failed state - there's no need to claim that somehow it's even worse than what Belgum did to its colonies or other cases which were unimaginable hells - by the time things get any worse than that, everyone is dead.