Yes, but in the provided hypothetical they presented the only difference offered is price.

Sure, if they were offering different items. We don't have that here. One of the communications even suggested that they specialize:

Psychologically, one cent can make a big difference. Sure, in this instance, it isn't the difference of $2 vs $1.99. I do agree that it wouldn't be 100% of people. However, it would depend on the definition/interpretation of near. Most people aren't going to walk a block over $0.01, but the majority would pick the cheaper machine if they were next to each other. I also imagine many would walk the extra block, if it ultimately wasn't out of their way.

Functionally, there is little wrong with this offering. You're not paying more than the price of the phone. The final payment at the end is roughly equal to the trade-in value of the phone at the time. As such, opting to upgrade would function similarly to trading the phone in. It's not as good as some of the carrier upgrade options, but that isn't unique to Apple.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with this plan is the fact that you're locked into signing up for one of the big three post paid plans. The phone just isn't locked to the carrier. That said, Apple's previous upgrade offering had similar restrictions. It doesn't make the restriction better, it just shows it's not a new thing for them.

It's not bad, but it's also not great. The only people that can easily make use of it are likely to see comparable or better offers through their carrier.

The problem then was the lack of choice in the matter. If you wanted a landline, you had to lease the phone from them. I'm not going to try to dissuade you of feeling that this is also predatory, as it can be. It's just for other reasons, and ultimately avoidable if one wishes.

They do make the screens out of glass. The issue is that when the glass is that thin, around 45-60 microns, it doesn't have the same hardness or durability. They need to reinforce it with a "plastic" screen protector. From what I've read, it also sounds like the protector also helps minimize the crease.

It's a computer that can take calls.

Trade Secrets have their own legal protections. The information itself is not protected outright, but the methods of legally acquiring it are restricted. Developing it yourself, or reverse engineering it, is perfectly OK. "Stealing" the information is not. Why it's relevant here is that Apple believes OpenAI poached employees and got them to provide NDA'd information and more. It's claimed that one of those employees took a laptop when he left and used an auth bug to download additional information.

No, I'm only saying I think most Linux users don't bother with changing whatever it defaults to. I have no idea what mine is at home. However, I've dealt with a couple sites this year (bad memory, so not sure which and might technically have been Nov/Dec) that gave trouble for not being on Windows. I only recall coming across them, and then deciding I don't care enough about them and moved on.

I agree that most non-Windows users aren't actively playing with their user agent string. However, is earlier this year such a long time ago? It still is a problem, if not widespread.

They price fixed in the past. They only might have price fixed now. I don't like the state of the market but I don't think they're technically price fixing, at least based upon the information publicly available right now.

The offered reasoning for the current price hike is due to demand, and it seems to at least be superficially true. If demand is high enough, you don't need to price fix. You just charge as much as you can get the companies to pay. When the other manufacturers do the same, it looks similar to price fixing.

While it's true there should not be an expectation of privacy in public, mass surveillance and tracking has at least situationally been found to encroach upon our civil liberties.

I'm not saying I love subscriptions, but in general charging a subscription for the internet/AI features with an ongoing cost at least makes sense. The part that overly annoys me is that features that aren't internet connected are being restricted as well.

Unlike other similar lawsuits, this is based on California's law requiring explicit disclosure. The wording of the law is such that it requires the notice to be clear and conspicuous, saying the notice needs to draw attention to itself. Just having it be in a legal disclosure does not meet the requirements. The screenshot in the article, assuming it's accurate, does not in fact meet those requirements.

Grow up.