Be serious. 88% of buyers chose something they don’t want? Apple is saying, “actually we hate money, so we’re not going to make a model that people want to buy”?
Why is it so hard for people to accept that maybe their preference isn’t the common one?
Your command is not engaging in good faith. You seem to believe somehow if Apple produced a higher end, smaller size phone it would magically outsell the higher end larger phone, with no evidence to suggest that.
The market, in both Android and iOS land has dictated larger phones are more favored. This is abundantly clear with the advent of "foldable" phone sector. On paper foldable phones make no sense, they are less resistant, more expensive and use a plastic screen, yet the market is growing year on year.
I totally respect someone's opinion on a small or large phone, but even the largest iPhone is fairly easy to hold and operate using one hand. I don't have big hands.
Literally all available evidence directly contradicts you. There is not a single iPhone generation in which larger iPhones outsold smaller iPhones of comparable capabilities.
As was clearly, painstaking explained to you already, using easy-to-understand language, the 4.7" iPhones outsold the 5.5" iPhones. And today 6.1" iPhones outsell the 6.7" iPhones. Every single time, without fail, smaller iPhones have outsold and continue to outsell larger iPhones of similar capability. This is an objective and indisputable fact.
I don’t find “nobody wants large phones” while showing that the vast majority of buyers are willingly choosing large phones to be in particularly good faith to start with.
> the vast majority of buyers are willingly choosing large phones
This is patently false. It is widely known to be patently false. I cannot understand why you would confidently assert something commonly known to be patently false.
This discussion isn't about people preferring the Pro to the Pro Max. That would be a pretty uninteresting discussion: they make both, buy the one you want. End of story. People are complaining because they want something that's not on offer anymore: something around the size of an iPhone 4 or SE. And, we are told, lots of people want it, but for some reason all of the smartphone manufacturers have banded together to refuse to make such a thing, because... well, the reason is never explained. But it's definitely a conspiracy, and not because people don't actually buy them in sufficient quantity.
"iPhone 16 still leads the smartphone pack" has nothing to do with that. That's a phone that is, according to the complainers, still too big. This is a 6.1" screen. That's vast compared to the 3.5" screen of an iPhone 4, and substantially larger than the 5.4" display of an iPhone 13 mini that many commenters here express a longing for.
If you're arguing that people prefer the smaller of Apple's two large phones, you're in the wrong place. If you're arguing that people prefer phones smaller than what Apple currently makes, you're using the wrong argument. Either way, you're way off track here, and your attitude towards it is highly uncalled for.
Trying to shoe horn multiplatform UI into MFC? Just look at Unicode. It’s an unholy mess.
The only toolkit to do what it does? Qt does what it does, even if the approach is not the same (arguably superior), there’s also Tk. There’s also libui and IUP.
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
In what ways does an exclusive right promote the progress of science and the useful arts other than by incentivizing that creative work?
In what way can that incentive work other than by compensating for the cost of production?
Prior to that date, presumably it would be under some proprietary license, right?
That means two things:
(1) It'll be difficult to manage community changes and proprietary changes (they might even be mutually exclusive or get on different trajectories). Ultimately this model probably means little to no open contribution, little to no community.
(2) There is nothing actually forcing the open source release.
If this is something one is interested in doing, it should be woven into the AOO/AOI/OA/bylaws with an enforcement mechanism. E.g., explicitly acknowledge that the corporation is directed to treat the trust of the open source community as among the highest goods, open source has to happen at a certain interval (you might choose 14 years, modeled after the original copyright term).
You might even create structures to enforce this, e.g., SPI has a board seat with no power except to force a vote on not releasing changes on schedule, and that such a decision requires a 3/4 majority or something.
To be fair, Objective C uses message passing, which doesn't have the same performance characteristics as C++ (worse initially dealing with the selector pool rather than a vtable offset; much better later when maintaining stability in your brittle C++ ABI requires pImpl->pImpl patterns jumping all around heap memory).
"Proofs" in this sense of the word are things that apply to mathematics and formal systems. Language is squishy. A minimal counterexample is potentially squishy enough to be meaningless.
The definition of political is irrelevant. The result is supertrue. "If even one example of software is not political, then 'all software is political' is false" is true under all admissible values of "political." This is simple logic.
All assertoric claims about the world are either true or false. If they are false they should be rejected. If they are true they should be spoken. Treating factual claims about the world as a partisan psychological litmus test is, in my judgment, morally repugnant. There are four lights.
reply