Other Tim Cook’s latest iPhone scam explained

[iJest]

Oh I didn’t mean for my original post to be an endorsement of capitalism, just the identification of it.

I didn't think your post was endorsing capitalism. I was merely pointing out that without it, the iPhone probably wouldn't exist.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

I didn't think your post was endorsing capitalism. I was merely pointing out that without it, the iPhone probably wouldn't exist.

Actually, phones are a terrible example of this, since they are effectively a mashup of various technologies created in the massively socialized defense spending of the cold war era. Technologists are quick to point out that while the public perception is that phones mark a new technological era, they are actually the opposite, an amalgamation of old technologies that combined during a relative lull in technological innovation brought about by the defunding of sciences and tech, during which existing technologies had time to linger, become commoditized and enter a phase of continual refinement, rather than be continually supplanted by newer innovation at the rapid pace of the cold war.

 

[Robert.Walter]

Tim Cook is always trying to find ways to cut corners and give customers less while either not lowering prices or actually increasing prices. His latest scam is to use the previous generation iPhone CPUs in the latest non-Pro models.

That wasn’t always the case. Even all three generations of cheapest low-end budget model iPhone SE (2016, 2020, and 2022) received the exact same CPU that was in most expensive high-end iPhone model at the time.

The reason for this new scam is so Apple can save money on manufacturing and not pass those savings on to the customers, thus maximizing profits for Apple. Furthermore, it will likely cause customers who purchase non-Pro models to upgrade sooner since their phones will slow down sooner than those who purchased the Pro models, thus maximizing Apple’s profits even more.

Ever think that processor yield and price might not be adequate and attractive enough to roll out beyond the pro model (a lower volume product that has the price elasticity to support cutting edge tech unlike The downmarket iPhones?)

It’s not unlike the guy who whined that Chevette didn’t get ABS when the Eldorado did.

I think your bias totally misinforms your analysis.

 

[Robert.Walter]

Actually, phones are a terrible example of this, since they are effectively a mashup of various technologies created in the massively socialized defense spending of the cold war era. Technologists are quick to point out that while the public perception is that phones mark a new technological era, they are actually the opposite, an amalgamation of old technologies that combined during a relative lull in technological innovation brought about by the defunding of sciences and tech, during which existing technologies had time to linger, become commoditized and enter a phase of continual refinement, rather than be continually supplanted by newer innovation at the rapid pace of the cold war.

True in part but also some of these technologies are bumping up against physical limits so this adds to the commodity nature of the technologies and reduction of development pace until basic research catches up with some breakthroughs.

 

[iJest]

Actually, phones are a terrible example of this, since they are effectively a mashup of various technologies created in the massively socialized defense spending of the cold war era. Technologists are quick to point out that while the public perception is that phones mark a new technological era, they are actually the opposite, an amalgamation of old technologies that combined during a relative lull in technological innovation brought about by the defunding of sciences and tech, during which existing technologies had time to linger, become commoditized and enter a phase of continual refinement, rather than be continually supplanted by newer innovation at the rapid pace of the cold war.

While it is essential to critically assess the origins of technological innovations like the iPhone, the argument presented against capitalism and in favor of socialism is fundamentally flawed and fails to account for the dynamic interplay between economic systems and technological progress. iPhones are, in fact, a powerful testament to the superiority of capitalism in driving technological advancements.

The development of the iPhone underscores the vitality of entrepreneurship and the capitalist spirit. While some foundational technologies may have roots in socialized defense spending, it was the visionary leadership of private companies, notably Apple, that transformed these disparate technologies into a revolutionary device. Capitalism encourages risk-taking, competition, and market-driven solutions, leading to dynamic breakthroughs that would not be possible in a socialist system.

Contrary to the assertion that iPhones are mere mashups of old technologies, it is the capitalist market that identified the need for a user-friendly, all-in-one communication device. Capitalism responds swiftly to consumer demand and seeks to create products that cater to the desires of the market. The continual refinement of iPhones is a testament to the responsiveness of capitalism, which consistently pushes for cutting-edge features and improvements to meet consumers' ever-changing expectations.

Capitalism's strength in fostering technological advancements lies in its ability to attract significant capital investment. Private companies, motivated by the potential for profit, pour substantial resources into research and development. This level of investment fuels rapid progress and enables the pursuit of ambitious projects that may not be financially viable under socialism. Such investment is crucial in pushing the boundaries of technology and bringing forth innovation at an unprecedented pace.

Capitalism thrives on competition, driving companies to outperform one another and push the boundaries of technological capabilities. The competitive landscape spurs a race for innovation, with each company striving to offer better and more advanced products than their rivals. This inherent incentive for improvement leads to a continuous stream of groundbreaking technological advancements in a wide array of industries, including telecommunications.

The widespread adoption of smartphones, especially the iPhone, has revolutionized the way we communicate, access information, and conduct business. The dominance of smartphones is a testament to the global impact of capitalist innovation. Capitalism's ability to adapt, scale, and meet the needs of diverse markets across the world underscores its capacity to create transformative technologies that improve the lives of billions.

While it is true that the development of the iPhone was influenced by past socialized efforts, it is disingenuous to dismiss the overwhelming influence of capitalism in its success and the broader advancements in technology. The iPhone stands as an exemplar of capitalism's capacity to foster innovation, entrepreneurship, market-driven solutions, and consumer-driven improvements. The dynamic and competitive nature of capitalism has driven technological progress to unprecedented heights, impacting the lives of individuals on a global scale. To ignore the role of capitalism in the iPhone's success and in advancing technology is to misunderstand the complexities of economic systems and their contributions to human progress.

 

[DougiePhresh]

Tim Cook is always trying to find ways to cut corners and give customers less while either not lowering prices or actually increasing prices. His latest scam is to use the previous generation iPhone CPUs in the latest non-Pro models.

That wasn’t always the case. Even all three generations of cheapest low-end budget model iPhone SE (2016, 2020, and 2022) received the exact same CPU that was in most expensive high-end iPhone model at the time.

The reason for this new scam is so Apple can save money on manufacturing and not pass those savings on to the customers, thus maximizing profits for Apple. Furthermore, it will likely cause customers who purchase non-Pro models to upgrade sooner since their phones will slow down sooner than those who purchased the Pro models, thus maximizing Apple’s profits even more.

How is it a scam when all of the information on the internals and components is listed on the website? It's not a scam to sell a relatively inferior product - if people are informed of what they are buying

 

[surfzen21]

Tim Cook is always trying to find ways to cut corners and give customers less while either not lowering prices or actually increasing prices. His latest scam is to use the previous generation iPhone CPUs in the latest non-Pro models.

That wasn’t always the case. Even all three generations of cheapest low-end budget model iPhone SE (2016, 2020, and 2022) received the exact same CPU that was in most expensive high-end iPhone model at the time.

The reason for this new scam is so Apple can save money on manufacturing and not pass those savings on to the customers, thus maximizing profits for Apple. Furthermore, it will likely cause customers who purchase non-Pro models to upgrade sooner since their phones will slow down sooner than those who purchased the Pro models, thus maximizing Apple’s profits even more.

If you are this outraged about the phone SOCs.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't look into the SOCs on the Apple Watches for the last 3 years.

I don't want you to have a heart attack.

 

[iJest]

I don't want you to have a heart attach.

I don't want my heart attached to anything either. In all seriousness, the Apple Watches are definitely infamous for recycled SoCs.

 

[surfzen21]

I don't want my heart attached to anything either. In all seriousness, the Apple Watches are definitely infamous for recycled SoCs.

How dare you quote it before I was able to edit it. 🤣

 

[iJest]

How dare you quote it before I was able to edit it. 🤣

But I like the typo. It makes it more endearing. ❤️

🤪

 

[ThunderSkunk]

While it is essential to copy & paste a huge wall of text into what was a previously readable casual discussion...

Yes we all had Econ 101 with all its well-glossed generalities and highly selective cheerleaders. The summer we all read Ayn Rand and thought, it's so simple, why doesn't everyone else get it?

 

[iJest]

Yes we all had Econ 101 with all its well-glossed generalities and highly selective cheerleaders. The summer we all read Ayn Rand and thought, it's so simple, why doesn't everyone else get it?

I didn't copy and paste anything. I wanted to give you a legitimate response as you seemed to put a lot of thought into what you believe is true. Real-world results speak louder than mere theories. Capitalism's success, exemplified by the iPhone, demonstrates its unmatched ability to drive innovation and improve lives. Let's embrace evidence over simplistic generalities to understand its merits better.

 

[surfzen21]

I think the real tragedy is how tech has brainwashed people into thinking that if they don't update every year to the fastest etc., that anything less is considered inferior and wont work well.

I'm on an iPhone 11 and have not had a single second of a slowdown.

This reminds me of some of my friends who needed to get rid of their 3090s or 3090tis for the "New Best" 4090 just to play 10 year old Battlefield 4 that ran smoothly on an 8 year old GPU.

 

[missingar]

Only technical people would read the specs, most people don’t. Most people just assume iPhone 14 would use a faster cpu than 13.

Sounds like Apple isn’t the issue in that scenario and that you are trying to redefine the word “scam” to mean something it does not.

The buyer being ignorant is only half the ingredient of a scam. The other half is the seller literally making deliberately misleading claims about the purpose or capability of the purchase, which is not occurring just because someone doesn’t want to research the iPhone 14 before dropping $800 on it.

 

[iJest]

I think the real tragedy is how tech has brainwashed people into thinking that if they don't update every year to the fastest etc., that anything less is considered inferior and wont work well.

I, unfortunately, always need the shiniest new phone. Fortunately, I get most of my money back for the iPhone when I sell it a few months before the new one is released. I wait a few years between Apple computers, though.

I'm on an iPhone 11 and have not had a single second of a slowdown.

That is one of the huge benefits of the iPhone. They get 6-7 years of updates and they generally stay very fast for a very long time.

This reminds me of some of my friends who needed to get rid of their 3090s or 3090tis for the "New Best" 4090 just to play 10 year old Battlefield 4 that ran smoothly on an 8 year old GPU.

That is a silly reason to upgrade, but in the defense of upgrading to a new GPU that's only a generation newer, the 4-series NVIDIA cards were a MASSIVE leap in performance.

 

[BaldiMac]

I didn't copy and paste anything. I wanted to give you a legitimate response as you seemed to put a lot of thought into what you believe is true. Real-world results speak louder than mere theories. Capitalism's success, exemplified by the iPhone, demonstrates its unmatched ability to drive innovation and improve lives. Let's embrace evidence over simplistic generalities to understand its merits better.

The problem with modern capitalism is that it only works in competitive markets. Today's super corporations effectively reduce competition to where capitalism no longer works effectively. The checks and balances of a competitive market are erased.

You can see this most clearly in the labor markets where pay has drastically trailed increases in productivity. When 100 stores compete for employees, wages can grow competitively. When they are all replaced by Walmart, there is no longer any competition. Capitalism fails. Governments are so focused on lower prices in markets that they ignore the growing lack of competition.

As far as the smartphone market, ironically, despite all the hemming and hawing about Apple being anticompetitive, governments continue to ignore Google's blatantly anticompetitive agreements between its own horizontal competition across 70% of the global market

 

[urbanman2004]

No one is forcing you to buy Apple's phones buddy, lol...

 

[Evangelion]

I don't want my heart attached to anything either. In all seriousness, the Apple Watches are definitely infamous for recycled SoCs.

“Recycled SOC” implies that they are literally taking old SOCs from old watch models, and reusing them in new watches. They are not. They might basically be the old SOC design, but they are not recycled from old watches. They are newly made SOCs.

That said, SOCs in other smartwatches are downright dismal in comparison.

 

[iJest]

“Recycled SOC” implies that they are literally taking old SOCs from old watch models, and reusing them in new watches. They are not. They might basically be the old SOC design, but they are not recycled from old watches. They are newly made SOCs.

That said, SOCs in other smartwatches are downright dismal in comparison.

Of course they are not literally recycled. Also, I like your username.

 

[iJest]

The problem with modern capitalism is that it only works in competitive markets. Today's super corporations effectively reduce competition to where capitalism no longer works effectively. The checks and balances of a competitive market are erased.

You can see this most clearly in the labor markets where pay has drastically trailed increases in productivity. When 100 stores compete for employees, wages can grow competitively. When they are all replaced by Walmart, there is no longer any competition. Capitalism fails. Governments are so focused on lower prices in markets that they ignore the growing lack of competition.

As far as the smartphone market, ironically, despite all the hemming and hawing about Apple being anticompetitive, governments continue to ignore Google's blatantly anticompetitive agreements between its own horizontal competition across 70% of the global market

Thanks. I appreciate a response like this. It's void of condescension and it transcends simplistic notions like "CAPITALISM BAD. SOCIALISM GOOD!" and instead delves into the profound intricacies and subtleties surrounding the subject. The essence lies in exploring how this concept, often misunderstood, possesses the potential to serve as a constructive driving force for innovation. It's important to shed light on the concerning reality where colossal corporate entities, wielding immense power, veer away from the true essence and principles of the system. By doing so, they taint and manipulate the noble intentions upon which it was originally founded. A regulation of checks and balances is absolutely required in these situations, but like you said, the government is so focused on the wrong thing that they're completely ignoring what actually matters. And as I said previously, I agree that Google is simply not getting the attention they deserve while Apple continues to have the spotlight.

 

[surfzen21]

That is a silly reason to upgrade, but in the defense of upgrading to a new GPU that's only a generation newer, the 4-series NVIDIA cards were a MASSIVE leap in performance.

For me it seems to be a mixed bag at best.

The processor is definitely an upgrade but in terms of FPS, DLSS and Ray Tracing its more of a fake software boost than hardware boost.

If you're playing a single player game at 4k and want to see ALL the bells, whistles and highlights then DLSS will artifically allow the game to run smooth while giving you those details but if you play any multiplayer FPS game then DLSS is adds lag and latency and is garbage.

I wish AMD had better drivers but they are still lacking in that department. Although, if I had to choose between a 7900XTX and a 4090 I would hands down take the 7900XTX.

The most GPU intensive game I play is BF2042 and on my 2080ti I am getting roughly 150fps with everything on High.

I have ray tracing off and actually thought it was on. That's how much they have improved highlights in the newer games.

I game at 144hz@1080P if I were to get a 1440P monitor at roughly the same refresh rate then I would consider a newer GPU.

 

[iJest]

For me it seems to be a mixed bag at best.

The processor is definitely an upgrade but in terms of FPS, DLSS and Ray Tracing its more of a fake software boost than hardware boost.

If you're playing a single player game at 4k and want to see ALL the bells, whistles and highlights then DLSS will artifically allow the game to run smooth while giving you those details but if you play any multiplayer FPS game then DLSS is adds lag and latency and is garbage.

I wish AMD had better drivers but they are still lacking in that department. Although, if I had to choose between a 7900XTX and a 4090 I would hands down take the 7900XTX.

The most GPU intensive game I play is BF2042 and on my 2080ti I am getting roughly 150fps with everything on High.

I have ray tracing off and actually thought it was on. That's how much they have improved highlights in the newer games.

I game at 144hz@1080P if I were to get a 1440P monitor at roughly the same refresh rate then I would consider a newer GPU.

In my opinion, gaming at 1440p strikes the perfect balance between performance and visuals without requiring an exorbitant investment in a high-end graphics card. While 4K offers stunning graphics, it comes with a considerable cost. Recently, I've predominantly been gaming on my PS5, although gaming on a PC is much more budget-friendly. Although I can connect a controller to my PC and play on my TV, I find it more convenient to power up my console and TV for an instant gaming session. Sometimes, PC gaming can be a bit finicky, with games not launching properly or driver issues cropping up. My previous gaming PC had an AMD card, and you're spot on about the driver challenges; they still seem to be grappling with that.

 

[boss.king]

You don’t have to take the phone to Apple. There’s multitude of repair shops that can replace the battery. Seriously, at least over here every average mall has a repair shop that will quickly replace the battery on your phone. I have done it in the past. Drop the phone there, pick it up one hour later. Done.

That also means you can never have your device repaired by Apple if something else goes wrong with it, plus you're running the risk of whatever aftermarket battery the mall repair shop chooses to use (which I'm sure are mostly fine, but it's just another risk to consider).

It makes sense to optimize products for everyday use, instead of something that happens maybe once every three years. Having an integrated battery lets you have a bigger battery, or a smaller device. And better water-resistance.

It's not like they have to do a hard swing to either maximum repairability or maximum whatever-we-want-to-call-the-current-choice. They could make the batteries slightly more user-serviceable without sacrificing too much size, water resistance, etc. There's a spectrum of options.

Fair point!

Thing is, having to replace my battery myself would be inconvenient. I'd rather concede that unlikely option that I have a more convenient mail-in service for, especially because the sealed-in battery brings other tradeoffs that I benefit from every day, rather than the tradeoffs a user-replacable battery (which is a rare event in the aggregate) would bring.

No one is saying you'd have to replace it yourself. Apple will likely always be happy to take your money in exchange for battery replacement. And as I mentioned above, there are things they could do to make the phone more repairable without compromising much in the way of benefits from the current setup. Battery repplacement is one piece of the puzzle, but other things like screen, back glass, or camera replacement are probably a lot more common and could also benefit from a more repairable design. It shouldn't take Apple shipping 50lbs of tools to users to make simple repairs.

So whose convenience "wins"? I would say the convenience of the users/possible customers who there are more of. Given how many phone/device manufacturers and electronics as a whole (Nintendo Switch, for example) have adopted sealed-in battery designs and still had incredible success with those products, it's clear that consumers have delivered their verdict on which side is more niche.

As above, it doesn't have to be a win-lose scenario. Devices can be good while still being repairable.

Obviously, I don't expect most companies to do this since most people seem to replace a device rather than repair it. But still, repairability is something I think is always worth advocating for. Maybe if it were easier and more convenient to repair devices than it currently is, more people would do it.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

Tim Cook is always trying to find ways to cut corners and give customers less while either not lowering prices or actually increasing prices. His latest scam is to use the previous generation iPhone CPUs in the latest non-Pro models.

That wasn’t always the case. Even all three generations of cheapest low-end budget model iPhone SE (2016, 2020, and 2022) received the exact same CPU that was in most expensive high-end iPhone model at the time.

The reason for this new scam is so Apple can save money on manufacturing and not pass those savings on to the customers, thus maximizing profits for Apple. Furthermore, it will likely cause customers who purchase non-Pro models to upgrade sooner since their phones will slow down sooner than those who purchased the Pro models, thus maximizing Apple’s profits even more.

Cool story, bro.

 

[surfzen21]

In my opinion, gaming at 1440p strikes the perfect balance between performance and visuals without requiring an exorbitant investment in a high-end graphics card. While 4K offers stunning graphics, it comes with a considerable cost. Recently, I've predominantly been gaming on my PS5, although gaming on a PC is much more budget-friendly. Although I can connect a controller to my PC and play on my TV, I find it more convenient to power up my console and TV for an instant gaming session. Sometimes, PC gaming can be a bit finicky, with games not launching properly or driver issues cropping up. My previous gaming PC had an AMD card, and you're spot on about the driver challenges; they still seem to be grappling with that.

I agree I wouldn't make the move to 4k for gaming. It would be 1440P for sure. I never got into controllers and console gaming since early Nintendo or Genesis LOL

My brother in law, as a side biz, builds comps for people. He built a bunch of custom loops with the 7900xtx and almost everyone came back and wanted to replace it with the 4090 😕

I wish AMDs drivers were better but they aren't. He knows comps well and he swapped out the 7900xtx in his person rig for a 4080 and said it was way better. He plays at 4k too.

I guess we will see what happens in 2024 or 2025. I have a 5800x and I wouldnt swap it for a 7XXX series as of now. If anything I would get a 5800X3D and put the rest into a 4080 (hoping prices come down a bit).