[chotu]

Some people here like Apple too way much. It be like a style statement and life choice for them. I never use so I never know how good. I get to use from friends. don't like restricted use of everything on Apple system device. So no dont buy dont use for me. Very costly.

Every company here to make money more money. Apple high life company like. You buying a yatch like. So luxury. So you choose to give them your money. I don't . Very very simple thing here.

[tryp4vps]

it can be done in china with decent quality ofc it will lack some top notch technologies, any one with enough money can produce  decent mid range phone i assume

The fact is that those decent mid-range phones made by China cannot be comparable with Apple's products at all.

Not now at least, or may be never.

That is the main reason why Apple can still be so greedy.

[tbelldesignco]

i dont think you get what you pay for android phones  have ridiculously over powered cameras  compared to iphone android dominates fairly   , android have ridiculously  more ram more storage space more apps and more freedom over the phone you bought with your own money, plus iphone put  silly hardware and software restrictions and dont forget that apple intentionally slowed their olders versions of iphones to pressure its own customers to buy the newest also they intentionally injected their ios with battery leaking codes!!!!!!!

They have since rectified the battery issue, when you look at issues like ram and storage, Apple has such finite control over every element of the phone that they do not need 8gb to make sure that the apps, hardware and operating system have enough memory to get up and go. I think the camera is a matter of opinion, my dad has the Note 10 and my camera on my 11 Pro Max blows his camera out of the water.

[xdude]

I heard Apple won't let phones to be repaired by third parties. Means from iPhone 12 you can only get parts replaced or phone repaired by Apple itself.  No longer you can replace parts with another broken Apple phone. Another way for Apple to increase their profits but forcing users to send phones to be repaired and pay whatever Apple says. I  had heard rumors about it but didn't think it's all true till I watched this video.

[deanhills]

I heard Apple won't let phones to be repaired by third parties. Means from iPhone 12 you can only get parts replaced or phone repaired by Apple itself.  No longer you can replace parts with another broken Apple phone. Another way for Apple to increase their profits but forcing users to send phones to be repaired and pay whatever Apple says. I  had heard rumors about it but didn't think it's all true till I watched this video.

My experience with Apple batteries a couple of years ago was that of a third party, but with the "label" authorized Apple dealer.  That gives the third party extra business and puts them under control of Apple, but doesn't mean they are Apple in the strictest meaning of our understanding.  It's just another Apple con.  The third party "authorized dealer" at least tries to live up to what Apple is expecting it to do for its grand "Authorized Apple Dealer" title, but I don't think I got anything better than a third party doing the job of testing the battery.  I'd imagine the third party also had to pay for this honor through some or other license and license fee.  Another grand rip off for Apple gain.  Is Apple greedy?  Not a doubt about it.  

[fitkoh]

I heard Apple won't let phones to be repaired by third parties. Means from iPhone 12 you can only get parts replaced or phone repaired by Apple itself.  No longer you can replace parts with another broken Apple phone. Another way for Apple to increase their profits but forcing users to send phones to be repaired and pay whatever Apple says. I  had heard rumors about it but didn't think it's all true till I watched this video.

It's been a while since I was in school, but lets see if memory still serves me.

I recall learning about "The Great Depression" which was caused mostly by greedy companies using business practices which make it difficult/impossible to compete and creating monopolies which could run rampant and do whatever they wanted, because there was no competition.

As it was taught, there's two types of monopolies: vertical, and horizontal.

A horizontal monopoly is a business which owns all the businesses of one type. The example of this in history class was the Vanderbilts and their railroads. If you wanted to ship something quickly across the country, you had to use the railroads, and the Vanderbilts owned all of them.

A vertical monopoly is a business which owns all aspects of its business from top to bottom so it doesn't need any resources from any other commercial entities to conduct its business. An example of this would be the Carnegie steel business, which owned the quarries the ores were mined from, the transport systems to move the raw materials in and the refined materials out, as well as the refineries themselves.

In the case of Apple products only allowed to be serviced by Apple, this seems to me to be a vertical monopoly practice. So how, when in the US (Apple's home country) we have antitrust laws, is this sort of practice still allowed? Is it because the government cuts deals so the politicians can pocket money? Microsoft lost it's case against the Department of Justice in 1998, but was never disbanded. A similar case was brought against Google last month (Oct 2020). Which makes me wonder what good are the laws if they aren't going to be enforced? I wonder if Google will be disbanded as Microsoft should've been, or if history will repeat itself and Google will make some corrupt politicians a little wealthier.

[tbelldesignco]

It's been a while since I was in school, but lets see if memory still serves me.

I recall learning about "The Great Depression" which was caused mostly by greedy companies using business practices which make it difficult/impossible to compete and creating monopolies which could run rampant and do whatever they wanted, because there was no competition.

As it was taught, there's two types of monopolies: vertical, and horizontal.

A horizontal monopoly is a business which owns all the businesses of one type. The example of this in history class was the Vanderbilts and their railroads. If you wanted to ship something quickly across the country, you had to use the railroads, and the Vanderbilts owned all of them.

A vertical monopoly is a business which owns all aspects of its business from top to bottom so it doesn't need any resources from any other commercial entities to conduct its business. An example of this would be the Carnegie steel business, which owned the quarries the ores were mined from, the transport systems to move the raw materials in and the refined materials out, as well as the refineries themselves.

In the case of Apple products only allowed to be serviced by Apple, this seems to me to be a vertical monopoly practice. So how, when in the US (Apple's home country) we have antitrust laws, is this sort of practice still allowed? Is it because the government cuts deals so the politicians can pocket money? Microsoft lost it's case against the Department of Justice in 1998, but was never disbanded. A similar case was brought against Google last month (Oct 2020). Which makes me wonder what good are the laws if they aren't going to be enforced? I wonder if Google will be disbanded as Microsoft should've been, or if history will repeat itself and Google will make some corrupt politicians a little wealthier.

This is an interesting take on Apple and I do see what you are saying. I think how they get around some of these anti-trust laws, Google included, is using companies like FedEx, UPS and so on for their distribution networks and fulfillment. So that breaks up the trust in that regard, but we are also seeing these companies get hit with how their app stores are ran. I am curious to see how things will continue to evolve during the course of this next year.

[fitkoh]

This is an interesting take on Apple and I do see what you are saying. I think how they get around some of these anti-trust laws, Google included, is using companies like FedEx, UPS and so on for their distribution networks and fulfillment. So that breaks up the trust in that regard, but we are also seeing these companies get hit with how their app stores are ran. I am curious to see how things will continue to evolve during the course of this next year.

This is true; there are some options for companies today to utilize different outlets for various business requirements such as sourcing, marketing, etc. The fundamental flaw I see with Apple's policy of not permitting other companies to work on their devices is it is purely monopolistic. It's a bold and brash attempt to control a market, rather than encourage free trade and competition.

In my opinion, it isn't fair and shouldn't be legal. How can you sell a product and still dictate how it is used and who it is serviced by? Once sold, it's no longer Apple property - it's belongs to the purchaser. Beyond that point, Apple has no right to influence how the device is used. Imagine if you couldn't use the mechanic you trusted to fix your car: your ford had to be taken to a ford dealer, your chevy to a chevy, and your honda to a honda. That's a monopoly. Apple is doing the same thing. What if ford could blow your engine because you took it to  a mechanic you know and trust instead of to a dealership?

The warranty is a separate issue: I can get behind the practice of Apple voiding a warranty if a device is serviced by a non qualified technician. That seems fair and logical. After all, how can you know what's been done to the device if you weren't the one doing it? But when tech companies do things like bricking a phone that's been serviced by someone else, that seems to me like hacking. They're purposely and intentionally ruining a device which is no longer their property - and they should have to pay the consequences, like Apple had to do in Australia in 2015. (fortune.com)

If they choose not to update the phone, I can say that's fair. Once the device is sold, unless Apple is under a subscription to keep the device updated, they shouldn't have any requirement to update any device, whether it's been repaired or otherwise - although if they want to keep selling their products it'd be a good business practice.

In my opinion, a quality product with poor service is less valuable than a poor product with great service; I think many of the large companies will learn this the hard way over the coming years. People are often attracted to something new and different, especially with the good marketting that Apple employs; but sometimes it's better to take a loss and keep your clients happy than make gobs of money and lose your customer base - unless you're on the edge of selling/retiring (which maybe they are)? People tend to vote with their wallets, and people will realize sooner or later that supporting tyranny doesn't pay off in the long run, once the appeal has worn off.

[xdude]

If you are to understand the midset of Apple you need to know the history of Apple inc. Not the technilogical history but the financial one.

Apple was founded by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne in 1976. Jobs was the one who ran the company but Apple computer was Steve Wozniak's invention. In 1980 Apple went public and did well for a while. Then they started having trouble and Steve Wozniak resigned. Some say Jobs got fired too and some say he resigned too. Anyway he also went away and started another company called NeXT. This didn't work for Apple as board of directors expected. Apple was going down. So shareholders booted the board and took guy called Gil Amelio as CEO to save the company. This guy decided to buy NeXT so they can bring Steve Jobs in again. This is in 1997. By then Microsoft has dominated the personal computer market with their cheaper Desktops.

By the time Jobs had taken over again Apple was just 90 days away from being bankrupt. Jobs contacted Bill Gates and ask him to invest 150 millon in non voting shares. Basically a loan. Gates ageered but with not just like that. Apple Had to job all law sutes they had against Microsoft (One was about MS stole the Desktop design from Apple). Also Apple had to use IE as the browser and let use to Mircosoft software like MS Office. Gates has to keep the shares for 3 years. So that's the agreement. At that time Microsoft was lot bigger company than Apple.

So fast forwarding to today, Apple become the frist tech company to reach 1 Trillion in value. To do that Jobs set goals based on 3 things. Always make shareholders happy, Always show profits by any means, Create only few quality products targetting rich people who would spend money. Steve jobs stayed as CEO till August 2011 and he resigned then and died 2 months after. So they are target is people with buying power and have no problem milking them. For tha, they have provided best quality products so customers can't complain. Rich Apple users gonna by the next Apple phone even if their current phone working perfectly fine. That works well for Apple Inc. too.

[sagher]

if apple greedy? here is how i see apple making sells.


so if they are greedy? Yes.

Its mean to upload coffee from internet or provide free high speed wifi with coffee?? 
OR 
Phishing for poor mind idiot rich peoples.....