Prime Music does not shove songs onto your phone using your data plan.
By default, Apple does.
Nope. Automatically download purchases using your data plan defaults to off. If it used your data plan, it's because you went into Settings and switched that option on.
If this album is 100 Mbytes at AT&T's roaming price of $19.95 per megabyte, this is going to cost me $1,995.
It's not going to cost you anything unless you went into Settings > iTunes & App Store and told it to use mobile data for automatic downloads. That's off by default, which means it only performs these kinds of downloads if it's connected to the Internet by WiFi.
If you buy a product from Apple, it's not really yours.
It's not about the product, it's about the account. People with "download new purchases automatically" switched on aren't forced into it by Apple, it's a user preference. The problem here is that Apple marked the album as purchased for their iTunes account, and that kicked off the normal download that happens when the user deliberately buys music.
It's a side-effect of how the system is supposed to work according to the user's preferences. It just fucked up badly because it wasn't designed with this use-case in mind.
The user getting the album downloaded automatically is just a symptom. The real problem is that instead of setting the price to free, Apple added it to people's iTunes account automatically. It's really got nothing to do with a product "not being yours" at all. It's working exactly as the user set it up to work - the problem is with the account, not the product.
I think you've misread "not much to mention" as "not much that is unprecedented". These are two very different things. There's a lot to mention about the iPhone 6. You yourself have already mentioned quite a bit about it.
Why would any intelligent creature want anything to do with us?
If we found lower forms of life on another planet, would we roll our eyes at them and ignore them? Or would we be fascinated by them and study them?
there's not that much to mention about the iphone6 except nfc.
That's a ridiculous thing to say.
it costs less for apple to make the 6 than what it cost for them to make 5 when 5 came out. much less.
What's your source for this? The profit margin on the iPhone 6 is lower than for earlier iPhone models at the time of release.
A customer is someone who receives a service from a company, even if the (monetary) price for that service is zero.
Would you describe yourself as one of Slashdot's customers?
I would settle for 3 days
I think this is just the 80/20 split. Almost everybody goes home and sleeps almost every night. For the vast majority of cases, taking your watch off to charge it once every three days is no better than taking your watch off to charge it every night. And the tradeoff to get to three days is either a) a battery three times larger, b) a watch that is three times more power efficient, or c) lesser capability. A three day battery life isn't worth the sacrifices you'd have to make to get it.
I don't want to charge a watch every night!!
Why? What's so much better about taking your watch off every three nights instead of every night?
What exactly is the reason to have this as well, as opposed to pulling your phone out of your pocket?
I'm not inclined to wear a watch either, and I'm going to get one. My reasons are:
Essentially, the company refuses to ban subreddits for being âoemorally badâ but will if they break any laws or any of the websiteâ(TM)s own rules.
Basically, they treat Reddit like DNS. Setting up a subreddit is like registering a domain name. What that domain name is used for is up to the owner. I'm sure if you asked registrars, they wouldn't feel obliged to be the moral police for people who use their services either.
That's not right at all. I've had that article pointed out to me before. The author is clueless.
iPhone sales are highly seasonal. A new iPhone gets released towards the end of the year, there's a big spike in sales, which tails off throughout the following year until the next iPhone is released, when the cycle starts again.
What articles like that do is point to the spike at the end of the year, when new iPhones are out and holiday sales are boosting the numbers as well, then point to the following three quarters which are naturally lower (including immediately before a new iPhone is released), and say that sales are "tapering off".
It makes no sense to do that. You aren't comparing like to like. You're comparing the most profitable time of year to the least profitable time of year. Of course sales are going to be lower if you look at it that way - it's true of any product that's seasonal. Would you assume that a suncream company is failing because you looked at their sales in winter and realised that they were selling a fraction of what they do in the summer?
The only sensible way to evaluate sales for seasonal products is to compare year-over-year sales. You compare this year's busy period to last year's busy period. You compare this year's quiet period to last year's quiet period. When you look at the iPhone sales like that - i.e. in the only way that makes sense - sales have never fallen. They have grown every year.
Here's the real thing (read more on http://www.naturalnews.com/031...):
Why is some random naturalnews.com website I've never heard of and which is run by a single person more legitimate a source than Greenpeace?
More to the point, why haven't you read the sources I provided? Part of the point of the Greenpeace article I linked to is that Apple are making stronger pushes in this area and being more transparent. That article was published in 2014. Your article was published in 2011. So Greenpeace says that Apple are the leaders in the field and have strongly improved, and your article points out that they weren't always as good or open years ago. There's no contradiction there. All you are doing is showing that Apple have taken action and improved.
When somebody says 'the cloud', mentally replace it by 'somebody else's computer'.
Also, when somebody says "It's unclear how the images were obtained, but anonymous 4chan users said...", replace it with "It's unclear how the images were obtained."
Come on, since when are anonymous 4chan users a reliable source?
Supporting gay rights.
Almost everyone does that and it does not cost them a single cent.
They spent money commissioning a video celebrating gay pride.
They spent money on lawyers to petition the Californian government on Prop 8.
They donated $100K to the No to 8 campaign.
Their supplier responsibility reports have been auditing their suppliers for discrimination for years.
It is just public relations.
Again, like the other guy I responded to, you're setting up a no win situation. They don't support gay rights? They are unethical. They do support gay rights? It's just marketing.
Their CEO is widely believed to be gay and I'm sure a hell of a lot of their employees are gay as well. You're asking me to believe they aren't doing this out of principle at all? That's not the most plausible explanation here.
Enforcing worker rights in their contracts abroad.
Again, this is mainly a PR thing. People got upset (for the wrong reasons -- Apple's contract manufacturers may be bad employers by European or even American standards, but people in China appear to be happy to work for them) and Apple had to repair damage.
Nope, they actually started internal audits of their supply chain and generating public reports several years before all that happened. You can go and download them on their website and see for yourself.
Making their products environmentally friendly.
When will they be doing that?
They've been doing that for many years. Here's the info, specifically the products. Even Greenpeace are singing their praises, specifically, saying: Apple has put its money where its mouth is: Greenpeace's report, "Clicking Clean," found that the company's embrace of renewable energy is genuine, and is leading the technology sector.
Their entire product portfolio is based on planned obsolescence. They may be very proud of how much material they are saving by making critical parts as flimsy as possible, but in reality the reduced lifespan hurts the environment more than the minor savings help it.
This is just FUD. Apple hardware lasts a lot longer than the equivalent from their competitors. I've lost count of the number of laptops, PCs, and non-Apple smartphones I've seen people around me churn through while Apple users with the same needs just buy once or twice in the same time period.
Improving the privacy of their users
By storing all their personal data in a country that has effectively declared war on privacy? By secretly tracking their customers? Apple is doing the exact opposite of what you claim.
By forbidding abusive behaviour in the App Store. By removing application access to identifying information several times. By providing an alternative to third party analytics like Google Analytics that isn't driven by a market need to sell that data. By encrypting a whole bunch of things they aren't compelled to.
Apple has done many unethical things in recent years.
I won't argue with that. What I will argue with is somebody who says that their ethics are non-existent. They perform positive ethical acts on a regular basis. They clearly have ethics, even if they fail to live up to the standard you demand of them.
You're really setting up a no win situation here. If they don't perform positive ethical acts, then they are unethical. If they do, then it's just "brand management bullet points".
It's funny though, how we have two people here - one calling them unethical, and one pointing out ethical things that they have done - and you perceive this as "there's somebody here worshipping the brand". Not two people with different opinions. One person with a suspect opinion. That's an odd perception.
Also, if anybody is astroturfing, I'd lay my money on the anonymous coward and not the person with a Slashdot account that is several years old with excellent karma.
Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.
