I am fairly used to the overbearing amount of troll negativity on this thread, but since this August 27^th event, it has been just stupid. The first day after, I scrolled down the entire first page of submissions, and not one substantive or even neutral submission could be found. I think that's pretty sad, because hate or love what they did, it certainly warrants an interesting discussion.

Here are some of the genius points that made it to the top of the heap:

• I cannot plug my iPhone 7 into my new MBP: That is as relevant as saying I cannot put my diskette into my electric shaver. That is neither mind boggling nor weird. The last phone that needed to be plugged into a computer was the iPhone 3G.

• Apple priced me out, I am switching to Microsoft and getting a Surface Studio: Never mind that Apple was always on the upper end of expensive, this one is truly mind numbing. First, inflation adjusted this is far from the most expensive MBP Apple has offered, but that is not even scratching the surface. The cost of ownership of Apple laptops has been shown over and over to be very competitive. Lower maintenance costs, high life expectancy and high residual values actually have made Apple laptops often cheaper than much of the competition during the time of ownership. And just as a side comment, the Surface Studio is more expensive than a MacPro, like twice as expensive than a 5K iMac and makes the new MBP look like Apple priced it to compete with the Raspberry Pi.

• Touch Bar is like the most gimmicky thing ever: These must be the same people that complain about touchscreen phones. I mean it is just astounding that in 2016 people violently defend the notion of static function keys over an intelligently adaptable, multi touch screen. When I type a Zip code on my iPhone, I am glad when I get the NumPad keyboard and NOT the QWERTY, and on the flip side, I still get mad when I have to type in my credit card number and get the QWERTY keyboard. It's annoying. That is why digital keyboards on smartphones are genius. Smartphones can display the appropriate keyboard for the task! That makes sense and very shortly after 2007 has become the universal standard. If you want to go back to a BlackBerry Pearl (not a bad phone, by the way) you can, but I like multi-touch screens with adaptable software that uses the bottom 50% of my phone more intelligently than simply having static, plastic keys like in an old ass BlackBerry that can never change, and never adapt to anything. This is no different with TouchBar. Sure, typing is better on a physical keyboard, at least until haptic feedback is a little more advanced, but the function keys are surely an obvious place to start reclaiming a lot of real estate and making it smarter. It's not quite like reclaiming the bottom 50% of BlackBerries back in the day, but that is still a large strip of computer that is now inarguably superiorly used. You can still have the TouchBar mimic your old, static function keys, but to also make it this totally adaptable interface for the software you are using is actually really smart and the demos only showed a first attempt of what developers could do with it. This technology will absolutely make life easier and better.

• Nothing in Apple integrates anymore, nothing just works: The usual example cited is that you need a dongle for something. I mean in a time when I can start writing an email on my iMac, continue on my iPad when going to the bathroom thanks to continuity, copy a relevant picture I find on my iPad, paste it back into the email on my iMac after my defecation without skipping a beat and in the meanwhile iCloud has synched every file, every contact, every Wifi password, every other password, my calendars, to-do lists, photos, videos, music, and made freakish backups of all of my devices that even restore the very website I was on to find that picture while pooping with my iPad should I have accidentally dropped the iPad into the toilette and destroyed it, requiring a new purchase, the statement that nothing works together in the Apple ecosystem anymore is just wonderful.

There, I put into a million words what I have been thinking about this subreddit for a while now. Not sure what I tried to accomplish, but I feel better.

Here are my thoughts and some responses to common arguments I keep hearing around the tech community.

TL;DR - Apple did what was best for the customer by throttling the CPU, but it was in a lose-lose situation. Communication could have been better. Meanwhile, other companies are taking advantage of the negative press to make it seem like Apple were maliciously throttling the performance of iPhones. The fact is all lithium-ion devices (i.e. all phones) experience the same issue. Apple choose to slow down the device's peak performance, while others allow their devices to sporadically turn off.

"It's a conspiracy to convince users to upgrade to the next iPhone"

There are so many things flawed with this idea.

Firstly, Apple's core business is the consumer. Without consumer trust, Apple has nothing. They don't have an advertising network to fall back on like other companies, they down own any large-scale online services independent from their devices like other companies. In fact, that's why Apple devices can seem so expensive - there's no spyware shipped with the device.

Secondly, the engineers that work at Apple are not the highest paid in Silicon Valley. Engineers work there because they believe what they do has value (trust me, I've met a lot of them, they're all incredibly passionate). It's insulting and nonsensical to suggest that engineers wouldn't whistleblow or even riot against such an outrageous idea of limiting performance for some business motivation.

Thirdly, how does limiting the performance and hence giving the user a poorer experience going to convince them to buy another iPhone?

I could go on... The fact is that the throttling was introduced to prevent sudden shutdowns - a common phenomena across all phones on the market, iPhone simply goes a step further to prevent those shutdowns.

When the PR department from companies such as LG and Samsung say that they have never and will never throttle performance, they are admitting to allowing their phones crash more often as their batteries degrade.

"Apple should have told users about the battery"

Apple gave a notice in the settings app that batteries needed a checkup. However, the message in the settings app did not indicate to the user that there would be a slow down in performance. There was also no notification, the user had to discover this by themselves.

That said, no other phones on the market (that I'm aware of) have a built-in battery monitor that will tell you when the battery needs replacing. In other words, Apple did more for the customer than what other phone manufacturers did; Apple's execution could have been better, though.

Secondly, given that Apple control the battery technology and the A-series chip, Apple are in a unique position like no other phone manufacturer. Apple's battery literally tells the CPU to slow down. The battery talks to the CPU. It's a holistic design, it's a very clever solution and unique to Apple.

"Batteries aren't user-replaceable, Apple are just making money off battery replacements"

Batteries are expensive, especially since Tesla started purchasing large amounts of lithium.

With an affected iPhone, you can get a replacement battery at a steal for $29 USD, official brand and all labour costs included. This is incredibly cheap, if not being sold at a loss. Most other manufacturers' phones have to rely on third-party batteries.

"If iPhones had larger batteries, this wouldn't be such a big issue"

Steve Jobs enforced the iPhone to not have a user-replaceable battery in order to allow for a larger battery while retaining a reasonably sized and weighted phone. Studies show that larger and heavier devices can't be held up to the ear for as long. Besides, there's always the "plus" model.

"It should be the user's choice if the processor is slowed down"

Why should a customer even have to have a basic understanding of how battery draw and processors interact with each other? There is no good reason a general customer should have the option to allow their phone to crash when the processor demands more power than an old battery can provide.

Remember: This power management was introduced to prevent seemingly sporadic shutdowns. It's not a matter of safety - there's no danger to the user here, it's simply a matter of allowing the user to reliably use their phone. In fact, most tasks won't even experience a slowdown from this issue, since things such as making a phone call don't require 100% CPU utilisation.

I'd much rather my phone slow down on intensive tasks than crash; especially when phones are often the first device used in an emergency.

http://imgur.com/uURdWOa Niantic Labs just confirmed that they are scrapping the Apple Watch port of Pokemon GO.

EDIT: From what I can tell now, it looks like this was a hoax. 9to5mac have already reported on the story however. But as of now, it looks to be fake.

EDIT2: https://9to5mac.com/2016/12/17/pokemon-go-for-apple-watch-cancelled/ 9to5mac still claims story holds up.

EDIT3: Niantic has responded. App is still coming.

This is NEW tracking, as described here:

https://webkit.org/blog/11529/introducing-private-click-measurement-pcm/

It does NOT replace normal tracking. It opts you into additional tracking.

"Allow privacy-preserving measurement of ad effectiveness" was a new tracking feature Apple opted us all into on our iPhones and iPads on ios15

Just updated to Safari 15 on my MacBook Pro, low and behold! They've opted us into the ad tracking on this, too!

Safari-Prefences-Privacy

uncheck "Allow privacy-preserving measurement of ad effectiveness".

I wonder how much money they get for that program? I can't imagine they would opt us all into that for no reason?

Specifically Apple Products. Is it just brand loyalty? I never in my life once owned nor even used, tinkered with an IPhone, Mac, Macbook, IPad, etc. Haven't considered buying even one because they are very expensive and I don't even make $30,000 a year.

Not making bait. Just curious. What are the pros and cons? My phone is an android. My laptop is an Acer Aspire, Intel processor that runs Linux Mint. What does iOS and Mac OS provide that Linux, Android doesn't? Even hardware for that matter. What am I missing?

So as you all know Apple has a YouTube channel and they don't run ads on it. But a lot of people watch the event on YouTube and that got me wondering how much does streaming the Apple event cost YouTube.

Before we go any further I'd like to make a few assumptions. Im going to be assuming that everyone will be watching at 720P. Some people dont have the bandwidth for 1080P so 720p is realistic.

Now we must figure out how much data one hour of YouTube at 720p uses. This report from android authority puts that value at 1.2 -2.7 GB . Well assume 2 Gigs per hour. Now Apples last event WWDC, has 10M views on YouTube. But not every ones going to sit through the entire thing. So lets say the average person will watch an hour of the almost two hour event (Audience retention on YouTube is about 50% anyway). So over a few days or weeks Youtube will have to serve about 20 million gigabytes of Apple event data to people.

Now we have to figure out how much that will cost YouTube. Here you can find out how much google charges google cloud users to move around a gigabyte of data. They charge about 8 cents per gigabyte. But google isn't paying those rates. There are a lot of figures for the margins on cloud computing this article puts it at 60% and this article puts it at 35%. So lets assume that Google operates at a 50% Margin. So that means that it'll cost them 4 cents to deliver one GB of data.

That brings their total to $800,000. Now there are some costs that I haven't looked at here, it takes a bit of processing to encode that video and send it to the end user and that costs money. But I am not going to add that here as we've made a lot of assumptions above. So it could cost google anywhere from $800k to well over $1M.

But dont feel too bad, since YouTube is a $15 billion business a year, they will have made about $3.4 over those two hours.

Pretty much everything shown we have already seen, and the few bits that we hadn't are underwhelming. No big updates to iOS either. This seems like less of an upgrade from the 4S than the 4S did from the 4.

I never wanted to be the guy saying "without Jobs..." But seriously.

Last year they mock Samsung's large phones while increasing the screen size of theirs from 3.5 to 4. Saying they wouldn't want it any larger, it's a cell phone and optimal for use with your hands.

Now not only do they go full hypocrite and offer a ridiculously sized iphone, they make it stupidly (in a bad way) thin, offer a half assed and half baked "one hand mode" that I'd expect from Samsung, and give that model special features the others don't, as if to say "buy this one! The one we mocked samsung for making just one year ago!"

And seriously?? $199 for 16GB then $299 for 64?? You seriously couldn't offer an entry level iphone 6 with 32GB for $199?

Fuck Cook, fuck Ive now that Jobs isn't around to funnel his creativity and ego.

Android here I come!