Posted on 10/27/2017 2:15:44 PM PDT by Swordmaker
If you're just waking up, you're too late: iPhone X preorders sold out within minutes overnight.
Apple Add Interest
Today marked the kick-off for iPhone X preorders, Apple’s much anticipated 10th-anniversary edition of its iPhone.
Preorders opened at 12:01 a.m. Pacific Time and 3:01 a.m. ET for those Apple devotees who wanted to be some of the first to get their hands on the phone that Apple's CEO Tim Cook called the “biggest leap forward since the original iPhone” at its Sept. 12 launch event.
While the iPhone X was gone online in minutes, the phone will be available in stores next Friday, Nov. 3.
Here’s what you need to know about the iPhone X:
Apple has confirmed that stores will have the new phone in stock on Nov. 3 and the company is encouraging customers to arrive early.
"Stores will have iPhone X available for walk-in customers," Apple wrote. Stores open at 8 a.m. Quantities of the phone available are unconfirmed.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I am using my head, whereas you are failing to even notice that you have one.
Sure, insurance is for breakage and other damage caused by the owner.
But, why even have to pay for insurance apart from the price of the device. It’s still very obscene that one has to pay $199 for insurance, which at that price, one can get a good $200+ device, which might do all the things most people will do with their phones including iPhones.
Still, how long with people be having to renew their AppleCare to insure that they can continue using their $1100-$1400 devices?
In any case, the repair costs, insurance or not, are still very obscene, regardless of which country the devices are sold at or repaired at. For the price of the glass alone, one could buy a very good high-end Android smartphone, which is likely to have the latest tech within it, and equal or better specs, while the Apple devices will still lag in a lot of hardware features and MIGHT end up getting those features about 2-3 years later. Yeah, the iPhone processor might be the fastest at the moment, but speed advantage is a short-lasting feature, while in reality, the speed advantage serves very little purpose when it comes to the overall device performance and I doubt that any regular user, including most professional users will notice any difference. But, I will grant you one “advantage” that no other phone can match: that’s the “cool” apple logo with a single bite off of it. That’s so cool, and I’ve actually noticed that there are people out there who will make sure that the logo is not blocked from the view of anybody happening by.
BTW, I don’t hate Apple. I just hate to see how stupid people get over Apple gear, when there are so many other options out there, most of which are better, and at lower prices.
BTW, have you asked FR for permission to advertise on this site? Even if not supported by Apple itself, you are advertising for them.
Same here. I actually plan on getting this phone but I'll wait a few weeks after it's released and just walk into an Apple store and buy it.
I think it was around Christmas time last year that Rush was giving out new IPhones to every caller to his show. I think he gave out close to 100 of them. I don't know how much they cost but that has to be a big chunk of change.......
As a side note, he's started giving them out again.......
“They need to pay taxes on their $50 billion in cash.”
It’s closer to a Trillion. And the problem lies not with Apple, it is our current, ridiculous tax system that doesn’t allow deductions for taxes paid to foreign governments and then wants to double tax at the highest bracket in the developed world. It is literally corporate malfeasance to do so. Learn what tax inversions are and why they happen. Your statement makes you sound like a Democrat!!!
K!
Stampede of the Bugmen.
I didn’t know that when I bought it. I always go for the most GB. Can I upgrade existing SE or must I buy a new one?
And Swordmaker, is there any talk about Apple ceasing production of SE?
If I had one, I’d sell it for half that!..................
It depends on when you bought your SE and if you bought it on an upgrade program or not. If you bought it within the past three weeks, you can take it in and exchange it for another. If you bought it on an exchange program more than 12 months ago, you're good to go by just swapping it for the next one with more memory.
Re: Apple dropping the iPhone SE. I don't think so, at least not until next September or so. They've never dropped a model midyear before.
I can't believe you posted that, Adorno. Let's recast that:
Sure, insurance is for accidents and damage other than design and manufacturing defects caused by anyone.The price of the device includes the cost of the warranty, but it shouldn't cover the cost of insurance against breakage due to negligence of the owner or others.
But, why even have to pay for insurance apart from the price of the car. .
I have never bought AppleCare+ or even AppleCare for any of my Apple devices and have never needed it. I can afford to self insure for accidents I am negligent enough to cause.
On the other hand, I buy auto insurance because I don't want to pay for an entire new car if my car is damaged too badly in an accident or stolen. . . something the manufacturer is NOT responsible for due to their manufacturing or design failure.
You continually discount the VALUE of iOS, the operating system, to those of us who prefer it and are willing to pay for it, trying desperately to make Android the equivalent to iOS. For us, the price is worth it for the quality.
We make a value consideration that for us is fine. It is not "obscene." It is the market place at work. . . and that's fine. YOU and your ilk prefer the bottom of the barrel, cheapest you can get away with and in the long run, it will cost you. We find the Total Cost of Ownership of Apple products, in the long run, is usually lower than the cheap stuff, and numerous studies that account for all costs have found it to what we think to be true: TCO for Apple is consistently lower over the long run than its cheaper but less economic competition when all things are considered.
Adding gimmicks to a device does not make it a better device for consumers. . . something proven over time, Adorno. Your claim that for the price of the $199 AppleCare+ would allow one to buy a "high-end" Android phone is actually false. One could buy a MID-RANGE Android phone for that price. Top line, cutting edge android phones retail for considerably more than $200. . . sometimes for MORE than an iPhone. Get your facts straight, Adorno. But Android phones don't hold their prices, rapidly depreciating in value while iPhones do not. The Samsung Galaxy S8, on introduction started at $725, just $25 less than the iPhone 8, while the Galaxy Note 8 with 64GB is $950 right now, just $49 less than the iPhone X, and Samsung's Premium Care insurance for either phone for the same term is $288 (for mail-in service), yet YOU are up in arms about Apple's AppleCare+ at only $199 for coverage of Apple's phones. Talk about complete hypocrisy, you are the epitome!
Yeah, the iPhone processor might be the fastest at the moment, but speed advantage is a short-lasting feature, while in reality, the speed advantage serves very little purpose when it comes to the overall device performance and I doubt that any regular user, including most professional users will notice any difference.
Actually, Adorno, they do notice the differences, especially the pros. Rendering videos is three times faster on an iPhone 8 or X than on the fastest Android. . . and has been for some time due to the Metal Graphics advantage. It will only get better now that the main data processor is twice as fast as the next fastest Android processor. Apple's processors have been historically faster for the last five years. . . and architecture differences between iOS over Android has enabled iOS apps to run in far less memory more efficiently, not to mention the choice of far faster, directly and fully addressable FLASH memory, rather than paged in and out slower FLASH card memory has made a huge difference in the performance of the two disparate devices.
The logo has nothing to do with the users' attraction to Apple. That's still the non-Apple users' insult mode toward Apple users, claiming Apple users are shallow seekers of "cool," when in fact most Apple users are far more tech savvy, having experience on more than one platform, than those who are not Apple users. Most cover the logo with a case on mobile devices. Apple users could care less being much more interested in USING their devices than tinkering with them.
I am an Apple hater but the best Apple story is Steve Jobs return in 1997 plus Bill Gates bridge loan of 100 million to help Apple survive. This was an amazing resurrection for Steve Jobs and Apple which always is/was his baby, as in eternally.
Steve Jobs also did great (can’t keep a good man down) at Pixar which Disney bought for billions.
___________________
Pixar began in 1979 as the Graphics Group, part of the Lucasfilm computer division, before its spin-out as a corporation in 1986, with funding by Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs, who became the majority shareholder.[2] Disney purchased Pixar in 2006 at a valuation of $7.4 billion, a transaction that resulted in Jobs becoming Disney’s largest single shareholder at the time.
No, you ignored the facts I posted. You ignored the high-end android phones are just as expensive or competitive tp Apple iPhones. As I posted, which you ignored, the Samsung Galaxy Note 8 is $950, and Samsung Premium Care is MORE expensive than the AppleCare+ that you claim is "obscene." But you want to claim MID-RANGE Android phones are "high-end" because YOU WANT THEM TO BE "HIGH-END" when they are simply NOT "high-end."
Do you always make up facturds to suit your arguments like Liberals? Apparently you do.
The 64GB unlocked iPhone 8 retail price is $699, ergo per your claim the target for the three high-end Android phones is under $233 each. So here are the best "high-end" Android phones for 2017, according to Android Authority :
Well, Adorno, that did not go so well for your claims, now did it?
So exactly where are these THREE "high-end" Android phones you can buy for the price of one iPhone 8S (sic)???
You are making up your facturds to suit your arguments. You can buy OLD, outdated Android phones that meet that price point, but you cannot buy HIGH-END Android phones that meet your claims.
As for car insurance, yes, you can self-insure. In California one just has to post proof of a $35,000 ability to pay that is set aside for public liability. . . if one wants to do it. I prefer not to do that. Other than that, no, insurance is not "mandatory." If I choose to pay cash for my cars, and I sometimes do, then your "finance requirement" is moot.
When it comes to Android devices not lasting as long as iPhone, that's total B.S.
You are mischaracterizing what I stated. I said NOTHING about how long the devices lasted. . . but that is actually true. Android devices don't last as long as Apple devices. However, what I actually said was "Apple devices retain their VALUE longer than Android devices." That is an entirely different consideration, and quite true. After two years look at what an Apple iPhone can be sold for on eBay or for trade-in and compare it to what even high-end Android phones can be sold for or traded-in on the same venues. There is no comparison.
An Apple 6S, from 2015 sells for between $230 to $360 with most around ~$275 on eBay, while a Samsung Galaxy S6 from the same year sells between $99 to $150 with most around ~$125. . . and all other Android phones are far less than that.
DennisW, There was no "bridge loan" from Microsoft. You've been told multiple times before that Bill Gates did not "loan" Apple anything.
The so-called bailout was $150 million purchase of 5year RESTRICTED preferred stock (I.e. NON-VOTING, or read ZERO control) as a downpayment in settlement of patent/copyright infringement lawsuits from Apple that were settled in three interlocking agreements that Microsoft was LOSING, which they would otherwise going to lose in court.. and needed to be gone due to anti-trust actions from the Justice Department on just exactly the kind of activity that was being tried in this court case, patent infringements.
In addition, Microsoft licensed to Apple ALL of their intellectual property at no cost in perpetuity for the life of the patents and copyrights, agreed to re-open the development and distribution of MS Office for Mac for the five years of the term of the agreements, AND license FROM Apple the in-suit patents and copyrights for undisclosed future licensing fees and royalties.
For Apple's part, Apple agreed to sell to Microsoft 5 year restricted preferred stock for $150 million as compensation for the previous infringements printing a 25¢ stock certificate, agree to include Microsoft Internet Explorer along with Netscape Navigator as an included default browser with all new Macs and MacOS distributions for a period of 5 years, license to MS the disputed patents and copyrights for a limited term of 5 years for undisclosed fees, AND dismiss all pending lawsuits and appeals against Microsoft.
Over the course of five years of the agreements, forensic accountants have concluded that Microsoft paid Apple a total of $2 billion for the in-suit patents/copyrights.
The three interlocking agreements were published on Lexus/Nexus after ten years disclosing what had actually occurred and not the so-called bailout. Apple had had three quarters of profits and in fact had $2 billion in cash and short-term assets in the bank at the time this so-called bailout occurred and had, in fact, just spent $427 billion to Acquire NeXT from Steve Jobs, which is how Steve came back to Apple, proving that Apple was not anywhere close to being in trouble.
in fact, just spent $427 billion million to Acquire NeXT from Steve Jobs
There, fixed my boo-boo.
I did not know all that. In the popular mind is was Bill Gates loaning Apple 150 million
http://money.cnn.com/1997/08/08/technology/apple_microsoft_pkg/
The popular mind. . . but that was Microsoft's spin on it. . . and Apple and Steve Jobs was OK with that, then.
Jobs allowed the first payment of the royalties to be in the form of a stock purchase, but the stock Microsoft purchased from Apple was restricted preferred stock which meant that Microsoft could not sell it for five years, or until the term of the three interlocked agreements had expired, to assure Microsoft had upheld up their end of the agreements.
Preferred stock, by definition, is also even more restricted in what power it has for its owner. Although it is first in line before common stock holders for distribution of any left over value if the company goes belly up that can be meaningless as they both are in line after creditors, and nothing might be left over in a bankruptcy after the creditors are paid off, preferred stockholders have NO SAY in how the business is operated; they have no vote in business decisions, no vote in election of board members, etc.
So, Microsoft, instead of having some control over the business they are supposedly making a major investment in by requiring a voting presence on the Board of Directors or even majority control (some even require they name the CEO), a standard practice when one company is "bailing another out," they ceded all control to the existing Apple management by agreeing to accepting restricted, preferred stock that Microsoft could not even sell for five years!
That ceding of power to Apple is a sign of who it was who was actually dictating the terms of the transaction and it was NOT Microsoft. . . it was Steve Jobs.
Both Apple and Microsoft needed something out of these agreements, but Microsoft needed the most and had the most to lose. Insiders from the time say that the judge had indicated the judgment in the current case was likely to result in a multi-billion dollar award to Apple from Microsoft—he had actually entered an injunction against Microsoft from selling Windows with Windows Video Player software because it had Apple's QuickTime code imbedded in it and Windows without that code was far slower at playing video—but the suit was scheduled at a time that the Clinton Justice Department was seriously talking about breaking Microsoft up into anywhere from three to six distinct companies due to anti-trust considerations due to some of the very things that would be in the news were the patent/copyright infringement trial to be drawn out while such hearings were being held. Microsoft very much wanted all of that to be gone and they really wanted Windows to have a fast video player again.
As part of the maneuvering to get Apple to settle the QuickTime Patent Infringement case, Microsoft had discontinued development and actual distribution of Office for Mac. Their practice at the time was to develop Office FIRST on the Mac and then port it to Windows. Reports were that the new version of MS Office was done and shelved and would not be released. Apple NEEDED a serious Office application other than Wordperfect that integrated with a spreadsheet and presentation software to be considered a serious contender in office work. Apple's own Apple Works, although OK, was not really serious enough to be competitive in the office environment. They needed Microsoft to start MS Office back up again. . . but the clout that Microsoft was using to get what it wanted from Apple, i.e. give them QuickTime Code licensing, was the very kind of club the Justice Department was using to argue that Microsoft needed to be broken up! Steve also needed to clear the decks at Apple so he would not be distracted by legal messes while he cleaned up the mess that was Apple's other problems: too many products, licensing the OS to other manufacturers who were undercutting Apple's own product prices, lack of focus, etc.
Steve approached Bill Gates with the plan to solve both companies problems with the pending lawsuits and appeals that were wending their ways through the court system with the speed of snails and all the inertia of glaciers. He used his intelligence like a sword through the gordian legal knot and proposed a way to solve it all in the three interlocking agreements. Microsoft wanted to save face, so they made the past-licensing for the years of infringement a purchase of the preferred stock. They agreed to an under court supervised seal on the three agreements for ten years because it was being litigated and the judge had to sign off on the agreements. The first two agreements on IP cross-licensing, restarting the publishing of MS Office, bundling Internet Explorer, etc. were all dependent on the third agreement transferring the preferred stock and the $150 million. If that did not occur, the two other agreements would not go into effect.
The only PUBLIC portion of the agreements was the stock transfer which could not be concealed due to the required public nature of stock transactions. . . which is what the media saw. . . and why the speculation reported about why did Microsoft do it which you posted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.