• Cephirux@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Please vote with your money. Don’t waste money and buy overpriced stuff and certainly don’t support this kind of business practice. And fuck the shareholders too. If they want money, then work like most people.

    • burliman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Already do. Used to buy new phone every year. Now it’s every three years or so. That is completely due to price and lack of compelling innovation. Don’t care if shareholders make money or not. I just like good value.

      • M500@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m the same. I just got a 15 as my xr screen is cracked and the batter lasts half a day.

        I’m home sick and didn’t even open the box yet.

        I’m not particularly excited for a new phone, but my xr is just not working well enough any longer.

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can try 5 years with Fairphones, it’s the length of their warranty and you can repair it yourself easily.

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    1 year ago

    That is the thing with for profit companies, especially publicly traded ones. No matter how much they make, it is never enough. Next quarter must always be higher than this quarter or the world is on fire and heads will roll.

  • Un4@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I do not understand all the rage, Apple does not provide any vital services or products. They can charge anything they want. If you don’t like it then don’t buy it.

    • morgunkorn@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      but you still lock yourself in their offer space when you also bought devices that kind of depend on those services: music streaming for the homepod, fitness+ for watch, cloud storage for iphone photos…

      every time you switch from apple to a third party, it’s ever so slightly less convenient, and they probably conceive their products around that notion.

      • offbyone@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes you have to decide if the cost of the convenience is worth the lock in and price of Apple products. At the end of the day you still have a choice.

      • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is their business model, no? The convenience and integration of their products is what makes Apple unique. Seems weird hold it against them.

        • TheSaus@lemmy.fmhy.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yea i buy apple because it just kinda works and it’s what i’ve used since my first mobile device, being an ipod 5. The switch to android just isn’t worth losing all my paid apps and whatever else

      • SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        None of the products that had the price increased are locked in. Apple TV plus doesn’t even need an Apple device and has many competitors, Apple News has plenty of competitors, there are games you can buy without Apple Arcade though most do stupid in app purchases.

    • HollandJim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s always been trendy to rage at Apple and Apple owners. This is just the current rage.

      • jmankman@lemmy.myserv.one
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it’s “always” then it’s not a “trend.” Maybe if there is “always” rage at Apple, there is a good reason for it.

        • HollandJim@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah. For some, hate is eternal.

          It’s supposed to be a personal computer - some folks don’t respect personal choices.

  • Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They are epitome of passive aggressive capitalism. “Will keep doin unethical shit til they make a law not to and even then you have to sue me to make me stop”

    It’s nestle’s MO.

  • squirrelwithnut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I had to read the title several times before I understood that the article isn’t about Apple Jacks, the cereal.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    The solution is simple: Don’t participate in the Church of Steve Jobs, don’t turn yourself into an Apple disciple (and apologist).

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that since there is no real competition all this shit propagates to other companies. If Apple is charging 1000 for a shitty phone, you better believe others will follow suit and charge 900-1000$

      Meanwhile the fucking phone should actually cost 200$…

      • 4lan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        $200? what fantasy world do you live in?

        The cost of making an iPhone 14 Pro was $570 and it sold for $800.

        They are focused on services for making big profits, which is why you have to subscribe to a million services

        • madcaesar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was exaggerating for effect. I just did a quick google:

          A new report details how much it costs in materials to make Apple’s top-of-the line iPhone 14 Pro Max. According to Counterpoint Research’s bill of materials (BoM) analysis of the iPhone 14 Pro Max with 128GB, the cost is about $464. That model retails for $1,099

          So I’m not far off in the price difference. Like I said overpriced bullshit. But you feel free to keep sucking that apple dong.

          • claymore@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s just the materials used to make it though, what about R&D, software development, etc? I dislike apple but imo the phones are overpriced for a reason. Adding RAM or storage to their computers though… that’s real price gouging.

            • madcaesar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Nonsense. Apple has like a trillion dollars in cash laying around. So clearly their shit is marked up to such absurd levels, that not only does it cover all costs, including Rd, on top of all of that they still have a trillion in cash leftover. They don’t even know what to do with the money except lobby and bribe governments.

              Stop defending these price gauging asshole mega corps FFS

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can get the TV+ hike. I don’t like it, but I get it. When TV+ launched it had very little content and no one was going to pay for that little content unless it was cheap. But now there is a pretty good library of new stuff, and it’s usually of better quality than what’s floating around on HBO.

    Arcade price hikes - now that seems like a good reason to cancel Arcade. If they’re going to add better games that take advantage of the new fast processors, I can understand console tier pricing. But the games still mostly feel like mobile games. And not mobile as in “Nintendo Switch,” mobile as in “flappy bird.”

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You got downvoted, but I agree. HBO isn’t what is once was, although there are a few gems. TV+ seems to be the place where people are allowed to spend an ungodly amount of money on a show right now.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m so excited for that… But that’s definitely Williams St/Titmouse before the merger being awesome as usual with discovering new talent.

    • thejml@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, arcade is a cool idea, but it’s never been cool enough to buy on its own. I feel like the majority of people that have it just get it as part of Apple One.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I agree. I might be cool if you have kids. I don’t, so I’d rather just buy the one or two mobile games I play each year.

  • Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    We need to abolish public trading, or at least vastly overhaul what it means to invest in a company

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      Minimum investment times and mandatory profit sharing might help.

      Make investors consider long-term and create income for shareholders from all profitable companies.

      Right now a company can lose money while making shareholders rich, or make money while making shareholders poor. This is stupid.

      • MIDItheKID@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also short selling. Maybe I don’t have a full understanding of how it works, but I don’t think you should be able to place money down in hopes of the decline of a company. I don’t think that really encapsulates the spirit of the word “investment”.

        Like I thought the whole idea of stock was to put money into companies thag you believe in so they can have extra capital to grow, and then you get a cut of it. How in the world did people figure out a way to bet against companies and profit off of them losing? It just opens the doors for even more insider trading and corporate sabotage.

        • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree that it doesn’t rub me the right way. The mechanism is interesting though.

          Essentially what it is is you borrow a share of stock of Company X from John Smith.

          You now owe John Smith 1 share and you sell that share for current market value of $100.

          You now have $100 but still owe John Smith 1 share of stock, and interest based on how long you take to give him his stock back.

          The stock now drops to $10.

          You buy 1 share of stock for $10 and return the stock back to John Smith as well as some interest.

          You now have a net +$90 (minus some interest) you didn’t have at the start of this. Voila, profit from stock going down. John Smith’s share is worth less now, so he loses out.

          Why would John loan someone a share of his stock? Well if it maintains it’s value or goes up, then it’s you who lost because you owe John a share that you have to purchase for the same or more than you got for it, plus interest too.

          The heart of the mechanism is loaning stock, aka loaning property of value. So preventing it might be tricky.

          • jdeath@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Perhaps also interesting is the fact that a loan never happens.

            Instead, a contract is sold. The contract is for an option to buy (or sell) 100 shares at a certain price (strike).

            So there is no loaning of shares, really. But the seller of an options contract has the obligation to sell (or buy) the shares at any time until the contract expiration date.

            Sometimes, market participants borrow the shares instead of owning them. This is what I consider the shady part. Certain participants get a long time to “locate” the shares and are given a lot of leeway to do so. Often in the name of liquidity, they will just sell contracts without even going through the trouble of borrowing shares. They are allowed to if they believe they can locate the shares later.

            This entire process allows for certain parties to basically create infinite shares from nothing. Believe it or not, this often gets abused. Money is basically siphoned from public companies in order to enrich Wall St.

            When the stock price moves too much, which would put the stock counterfeiters at risk of insolvency, trading is halted.

            • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah, the problem sounds like we should be not allowing recursion, or regulating how many levels of recursion of allows for a reasonable level of liquidity and velocity of cash in an economy. Allowing for it to infinitely nest guarantees a bubble is going to pop somewhere eventually.

  • TryingToEscapeTarkov@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are just mad that they lost to “right to repair” in California so they are throwing a “fuck em we will charge them double then” tantrum.

      • onlinepersona@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fighting for years against right to repair, seeing the sentiment stay against them and the EU forcing them to be more repairable, leading to them suddenly jump on the right to repair train isn’t losing? Interesting.

        • barryamelton@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They drafted this law via lobbying. They didn’t lose, but we didn’t win. And now the topic will get forgotten as we already have a law.

          • onlinepersona@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Considering they fought similar laws tooth and nail all over the world, I’d say getting them to even be repairable is a win.

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is just a whitewashing maneuver from apple in my opinion. And they got it through, so I don’t think this California thing a loss for apple. On the other hand, apple is indeed losing a bit at the EU site, I agree, but that was not what top commentor was talking about.

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you can not prevent a law from being written, you make sure it is written in your favor. Apple did just that.

  • Mafflez@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    And why would I want an apple anything? They get cheap labor so…what the investors want more money? Never had an iPhone or apple product never will.

    • Syldon@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hate to burst your bubble on that one, but all of the latest and greatest phones are made by cheap labour these days. Apple uses China and India, Samsung uses Vietnam, Google uses China and Vietnam with some assembly in the US.

    • monkeyben@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just have second hand ipod touches and manage my collection by burning cds through media monkey to them. There is so many mp3 players out there that look good but when you get them the software is junk.

      • PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why would anyone need a dedicated piece of hardware to play mp3s these days? My $250 smartphone accepts SD cards up to 1 terabyte, plays flacs, and runs whatever media software you want. I was using GoneMad until updates turned that to shit and now I’m happily using PowerAmp. But there are dozens of others I haven’t even tried.

        I had a 5th Gen iPod video back in 2006 and loved the thing like it was my firstborn child but eventually it broke and I got a smartphone and have never felt the need for another one.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Output quality is a reason. Even if you have headphone jack, it’s usually built as cheaply as possible. Granted, Bluetooth headsets can be OK these days.

          Come to think of it, do Bluetooth headphones only use class D amplifiers? Seems like it’d be hard to fit any kind of decent class AB amp in there. Class D amps have improved a lot in recent years, but you still want to use an AB if you’re serious (not even audiophile nonsense, just somewhat serious).