Tag Archives: Vox

Oil in the family

This is not exactly new, it is a stage that evolved in the last week. To see that we need to take a look at ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) which hands us (at https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/opec-production-cut-has-washington-questioning-the-value-of-its-saudi-alliance/) a mere three weeks ago ‘OPEC production cut has Washington questioning the value of its Saudi alliance’, in itself the question is not invalid. Every nation assesses its value towards services delivered, but in that same stage, the direction can be inverted and as such the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is questioning the value that the United States brings to the table. President Biden asked to make Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud a pariah. It has stopped deliveries of defence equipment to the KSA all whilst the KSA was under attack by terrorist forces who were receiving aid from Iran. And when we see “Critics of the OPEC decision say it will increase the price of oil at a time when US consumers are already feeling the impact of high energy prices. A higher oil price will also provide a significant boost to Russia’s struggling economy.” All whilst the US exports 90% of its oil, as such they are sitting pretty as well. But the article does not mention that, it is increasingly one sided. Then we get the second setting and it is seen with “Saudi Arabia has lost much of its prestige and is in damage control to rebuild its image internationally and shore up its relations with the US. To reset the relationship in Washington, Saudi-backed lobbyists have spent millions of dollars. Biden responded by visiting Saudi Arabia, presumably as a gesture of goodwill and to attempt some recalibration.” It is the ‘lost much of it prestige’, by what standard? The KSA gained massive silent prestige with Neom and the line, two stages never seen before and the US has nothing in opposition to that. It will be relying on the coattails of Saudi achievements for the next 20 years. A nation that is so broke it cannot fix its support structures, and that all before we see the damage the ultra right is making in the US. And where is the so called hypocritical ‘honest’ media? When did you see any clear article on the line or Neom? The mainstream media is steering clear of it, no doubt due to the (my speculative view) word from stakeholders. 

This is in contrast to the Vox a week ago where we see “Biden “wants to be able to reevaluate in a methodical, strategic, effective way,” clarified national security adviser Jake Sullivan, “rooted in his fundamental interest in making sure that the relationship the United States has with Saudi Arabia serves the American people effectively.” Sullivan in essence suggested that things so far had not been going well.” We see this (at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/11/17/23423031/why-america-cant-seem-to-quit-saudi-arabia), it is showing us a stage set. We are given “Now that the Biden administration re-evaluates its approach a third time, will it come to a new conclusion? It will be tough to change much. The US, after all, relies on the kingdom as a major oil producer and economic power with important shipping lanes, a close partner in countering Iran and terrorist organisations, and a significant trading partner and number-one purchaser of US weapons.” But that stage is not entirely true, that WAS the stage, but as China moved in, we see a spiralling US economy. Lets not give food to the speculator’s there. China increased exports and services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 24 billion in 2019 to 30 billion in 2021, some views give us that it is now approaching 33 billion and as Neom and the Line grows, China will gain more. That is 9 billion the US and Europe lost, more importantly China is now getting more oil and the talks implying that Saudi Arabia is in active talks with Beijing to price some of its oil sales to China in yuan gives us the indication that this will not halt any day soon, it also implies that the US is partially done for. Its games are now backfiring, should oil deliveries decrease by as little as an additional 1 million barrels US economy could implode with all the nightmares and trimmings that come with that. I personally do not care, I warned the US and the UK that there will be a price to pay soon enough and I made that prediction in 2020, now that this is about to happen, President Biden can play its games and let the media decide how much they hate the KSA and Muslims, or he can fold the game. The UK with its CAAT is in a similar position. They had the upper hand towards 2-3 billion in weapon sales, predominantly the Typhoon, now that money is most likely to go towards the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, China will be extending its arms for extended services towards Saudi Arabia.

The players wanting to keep Saudi Arabia on some kind of leash are now forced to fold their game. They lost to China and the damage is increasing. It is a fair assessment that the Russian – Ukrainian stage did not help, but that is how the cookie crumbles at times. As some stakeholders encouraged anti Saudi sentiments, they forgot that they weren’t the only players and what is coming now is hurting their long term policies in the Middle East and in the Far East. Did you think it was a fluke that the Silk Road was investing in Indonesia? It has over 200 million Muslims and that opens up new commerce borders and Saudi Arabia is ready to collect. I saw part of this last year and I tried to bank on it, but alas the KSA was not assisting (poor me), now that we see this evolving stage, players like Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and his Kingdom Holding Company will make increasing profits in new areas, all whilst the US and EU are given their walking papers. In the next two years their share will decrease by well over 40%, all whilst their political power in that region is most likely to be a trivial one. One ego driven stage led to the larger loss on influence in the Middle East and soon the Far East as well. A stage that China is happy about, the others? Not so much.

But I saw parts of this a year ago, so why did the media not see this? I am not more intelligent than them, but I can read raw data and that was where a lot was all along. But feel free to disagree with me, it is your right, yet when the oil valve closes a little more, just watch the chaos unfold. When you create a mobile industry you need to be weary of essential parts you need, fuel being one of them and the other solution is not as fast as people keep on slapping Elon Musk with his Tesla. All elements in a game where the people who have oil in the family will have the last laugh. Which remind me, how much longer will the US export 90% of its oil? Is there no shortage in the US? 

Advertisement

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Information through confliction

We all have such moment, we are given some parts when things go wrong, this happens, but to the degree we see at present, does it make sense? I think that it is clear that there is almost no one left on the planet who has not heard the name ‘Sam Bankman-Fried’, the media has been bringing it like Jesus of Nazareth was the second coming of this individual. It was only three weeks ago when we were given ‘FTX TO LAUNCH ITS OWN STABLECOIN SOON, SAYS SAM BANKMAN-FRIED’, there we see “The fresh capital injection, which is still subject to negotiations, would keep the crypto conglomerate at the same valuation it had landed after a $400 million funding round back in January. At the time, the cryptocurrency exchange founded by Sam Bankman-Fried was valued at $32 billion. According to leaked financial documents, global trading revenue generated by FTX hit $1.02 billion in 2021, having increased more than 10 times from the $89 million recorded in 2020. Additionally, FTX’s operating income swallowed $272 million throughout last year’s bull run from $14 million a year earlier. FTX saw net income of $388 million last year, up from just $17 million in 2020” and there has been too few questions, no one was looking into matters. Just like the issues surrounding Jack Dorsey. The media had forsaken its duties. It’s like all the paparazzi’ were heralding a 42nd crack maiden as she was giving out free blowjobs to anyone coming along. They had no problems slapping Elon Musk, because he was too arrogant, he was evil. The media had forsaken its duties to the largest degree. To properly inform us and it was at that point when someone informed me of a Dilbert comic. I know off Dilbert, but I do not religiously follow him. I have a book with Dilberts, but that book is at least 20 years old. So I had to look him up and I placed him below.

So here we see what I have been telling you for years, but the person was onto something. If we are to accept the wisdom of Scott Adams, the ‘We’ in the second image represents governments, corporations as well as media interests? It is the last one that was a little forgotten. Not by me, but I was equally not s inclusive as I had needed to be. 

This part becomes clear when we see the Australian Financial Review (at https://www.afr.com/technology/ftx-came-dangerously-close-to-upending-futures-markets-20221117-p5bz5m), there we see ‘FTX came dangerously close to upending futures markets’ with the added “FTX’s ambitions were grandiose: It wanted to carry out every aspect of customers’ crypto derivatives needs on its own, using algorithms rather than brokers to help clear trades”, you think this is it, but it isn’t even close. Yet it lifted the veil and gives us the question “Why was the media asleep?” Things of these nature get noticed and the media was not asking questions. It goes from bad to worse when we see the Guardian giving us ‘Why were so many smart people so dumb about FTX? Did they seriously just like Sam Bankman-Fried’s ‘vibe’?’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2022/nov/15/why-were-so-many-smart-people-so-dumb-about-ftx-did-they-seriously-just-like-sam-bankman-frieds-vibe-), it is actually a much better question than you think it is. The ‘vibe’ part is indicative and subjective, but the setting of smart people being dumb is central. The media is allegedly supposed to be smart and they never saw it, they never investigated. Was it them or their shareholders, their stake holders and their advertisers that could not stand the sight of critical questions? The fact that I found 6 billion that Google and Amazon overlooked implies they are merely reckless, shortsighted and only optionally stupid. But tell me what company goes around ignoring 6 billion in revenue whilst they are getting ready for recession dropping employees left, right and centre? Then we see the subjective part “The collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange will cost investors billions. But why would anyone give money to a man who plays video games in important meetings?” There is a dangerous stage here. They are not wrong, but it also implies that the important meetings are egocentric. I found 6 billion through video games, in addition, I knew WHERE to look. It implies that these so called important meetings are important to some and not others. Are they therefor important? And we get more information when we see “It seems, however, that FTX was doing some very dubious things: namely, furtively shifting customer funds to Alameda Research, a firm also operated by Bankman-Fried, which then gambled them away on risky trades. Instead of becoming the world’s first trillionaire, SBF saw his net worth plummet from $16.2bn to about $3 overnight. Former US Treasury secretary Larry Summers has likened FTX’s collapse to the Enron scandal, saying that from the reports, there were “whiffs of fraud” about it.” And the information we get is not about SBF or FTX, it is that the media fucked up, it massively fucked up. Who in the media started to look into Alameda Research? How much of the $6.2 billion was lost by the time someone woke up? All questions that the media will not look into or shed light on. Too many got burned by Leveson and when we illuminate that the media has more priority towards digital dollars than to inform the people on events, it is at that point that the people will demand investigation of the media and that scares them. Like fucked up Chihuahua’s they will cry the freedom of the press and the fact that they can police themselves, yet there are enough indications that there is no freedom of the press, there has not been for quite some time and the final push is seen through the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63662396) where we see ‘New FTX boss condemns crypto exchange’s failure’, a stage that happened 13 hours ago where we are given “The firm filed for bankruptcy in the US last week and, in court filings, Mr Ray said he had never “seen such a complete failure of corporate controls”. Mr Ray, who replaced Sam Bankman-Fried, also criticised a “complete absence of trustworthy financial information”.” In a stage that is a mere three weeks old we see someone from second coming to financial terrorist getting nailed to a cross. And when we realise that this is a stage that was 3 years in the making and the media ignored too many signals and it is time to demand answers. So called idiots making environment claims a mere two days go with “30 newspapers and media organisations in more than 20 countries have taken a common view”, how about you do your fucking jobs and report the news, the actual news, not filtered information!

That setting has been clearly out in the open, but the media does not investigate itself and we are now at a point where the people ned to hold the media to account. When we are given by the BBC “Mr Ray also criticised what he said were “erratic and misleading” public statements by his predecessor. Mr Ray said that FTX had concentrated control in the hands of a “very small group of inexperienced, unsophisticated and potentially compromised individuals”, and that it did not maintain centralised control of its cash. Instead, he said, there was an “absence of an accurate list of bank accounts and account signatories”. So far he said it had been possible to locate “only a fraction of the digital assets” held by the firm.” All this whilst the media was praising some crypto brat like he was evangelising the new economy, and there were no checks, no balances and the media was nowhere to be found. A place like FTX made over a million victims, lost over $16,000,000,000 and the media was nowhere to be found, oh yes, when the carcass was out in the open for everyone to take a bite from, but such numbers aren’t created in a day, there was a long stage of planning and the media was nowhere to be found. Why not?

In light of all the stupidity I see there is now a decent stage where people should consider handing their IP over to China and hope for the best, because our system made a righteous mess of it all and that kind of damage does not happen overnight, it requires the media to forsake its duty to a massive amount. And this is not one media, it is the bulk of them. And my view? When the BBC reports “Meanwhile, Mr Bankman-Fried has told the Vox news website that he regretted filing for bankruptcy.” Vox? And the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Times, the Guardian and others aren’t wondering why the Vox got that little part and none of the others are all over the Crypto Brat? Makes you wonder what else they aren’t looking at, not?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

The Face of a book

So when we thought that the entire Cambridge Analytica was the tip of the iceberg, we were not kidding. The Washington Post (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/07/02/federal-investigators-broaden-focus-facebooks-role-sharing-data-with-cambridge-analytica-examining-statements-tech-giant) is giving us right now: “Representatives for the FBI, the SEC and the Federal Trade Commission have joined the Department of Justice in its inquiries about the two companies and the sharing of personal information of 71 million Americans“, that writing was always on the wall and it seems that it is pushing forward now, so even as Mark Zuckerberg thought that his day in court was done with a mere senate hearing, it seems that there is a much larger issue under the waterline and it is not merely data of a personal nature. The next parts that matters were: “Facebook discovered in 2015 that Cambridge Analytica, which later worked for the Trump campaign and other Republican candidates, had obtained Facebook data to create voter profiles. Yet Facebook didn’t disclose that information to the public until March, on the eve of the publication of news reports about the matter“, now this is nothing new but for some it is only now sinking in that the issue was known for two years. So when exactly did Facebook give us those goods? Two years of inaction, there are plenty of political players in the Democratic party who gotten results faster than that (which is saying a lot). So now we get to the first part, which is the SEC. The Securities and Exchange Commission will focus on “The questioning from federal investigators centres on what Facebook knew three years ago and why the company didn’t reveal it at the time to its users or investors”. You see, when a companies is valued on data, the setting that 20% of the details of the American people makes it into the public domain, that will impact a multi-billion value and that is now part of what could become a criminal investigation.

It is very likely that the SEC will focus primarily on TOPIC 8 – Non-GAAP Measures of Financial Performance, Liquidity, and Net Worth. Here we see:

8120.3 Measures of operating performance or statistical measures that fall outside the scope of the definition set forth above are not “non-GAAP financial measures”. Additionally, “non-GAAP financial measure” excludes financial information that does not have the effect of providing numerical measures that are different from the comparable GAAP measure.  Examples of measures that are not non-GAAP financial measures include:

  1. Operating and statistical measures (such as unit sales, number of employees, number of subscribers)
  2. Measures of profit or loss and total assets for each segment that are consistent with disclosures made in accordance with ASC Topic 280. (Non-GAAP C&DI Questions 104.01 through 104.06)

So, whilst we think it is merely data, the multi-billion dollar value of Facebook is data and they lost 20% of the Americans (and a chunk of Brits and Australians), so that reporting was not there for 3 years, and the SEC is slightly miffed on the subject.

And even as we see: “The Department of Justice and the other federal agencies declined to comment. The FTC in March disclosed that it was investigating Facebook over possible privacy violations” the setting that Justice is mulling over the impact and how to act (which is perfectly understandable), every person with their share of issues that can hide outstanding debts through ‘identity theft’ has optional paths to consider and the Justice department is not ready for the worst case scenario where 20% of all Americans filling for economic loss through identity theft, and the part where the financial systems on a flawed usage (authentication versus non-repudiation) now opens the optional flood gates, so the Justice department is taking everything very cautiously (whilst pussyfooting on a (path of commitment).

The next comment we see is: ““The fact that the Justice Department, the FBI, the SEC and the FTC are sitting down together does raise serious concerns,” said David Vladeck, former director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection and now a Georgetown Law professor. He said he had no direct knowledge of the investigation but said the combination of agencies involved “does raise all sorts of red flags.”“. It goes a little further than the settings we considered. Vox gives part of that setting (at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/15657512/cambridge-analytica-facebook-alexander-nix-christopher-wylie) last year, yet the one part I missed here is that such systems require profiles to be made so that there is interaction. It can be done without is, but having the profiles makes it easier and better. The second source is Wired (at https://www.wired.com/story/cambridge-analytica-execs-caught-discussing-extortion-and-fake-news/) gives us “Britain’s Channel 4 News caught executives at Cambridge Analytica appear to say they could extort politicians, send women to entrap them, and help proliferate propaganda to help their clients“, as well as “They probed them on all manner of underhanded tactics, from deliberately spreading fake news to making up false identities. According to the video, the Cambridge executives took the bait” and there we have the reason why Justice is playing it slow. It is not merely about what was done, planned or enacted. Such profiles are complete enough to give rise or other uses as well, and if they have been used to acquire goods or services, we have ongoing settings towards corporate fraud. It will not matter whether they did, if anyone previously had access to those profiles, it could still fall on the lap of Cambridge Analytica. So, apart from finding those profiles (and there will be more likely than not way beyond a dozen), which profiles are they and how much interaction was used or given? With the honey trap we have an optional case of solicitation; we get identity fraud, optional Synthetic Identity Theft, all requiring investigation. The Justice Department will require time for that, not merely on whether things were done, but the likelihood of a conviction.

The final setting I gave is given weight with the quote: “Facebook also made Cambridge sign a legally binding agreement that it had deleted the data that year, but over the weekend, sources close to the company told WIRED that data was still visible to employees within Cambridge in early 2017“, which gives us that people had access and there is absolutely no evidence that no criminal acts were committed.

So we have two additional considerations. The first is can we work on the premise of guilty until proven innocent? In these cases of identity theft that is often the only path to take to shown innocence. The second is that there have been clear indications that the data was available to Russians, which now opens a path to organised crime as well. One source gives “A 2013 survey from Javelin Strategy and Research estimates that the annual total loss to Americans due to identity theft was roughly $20 billion“, now this is not merely criminal gains, also the cost that the crimes brought onto others is part of this, yet in that if there is even one link that gives us that Cambridge Analytica data was used, the bucket of consideration will become a lot messier for the Justice department and even more intense on scrutiny; that is one step as organised crime and compromised national security seem to be two sides of the same coin, there is a decade of evidence on that, so yes, this mess will become a whole lot less nice soon enough.

From the mere setting of organised crime as well as national security settings where people from all walks of life use Facebook and the setting that even those in denial had ‘blackmail’ in their operational minds, the cards that gone wide and available to a whole range of non-intentional people will be a growing farm of identities and connections.
This now gets us to last week’s issue of the Washington Examiner. The issue shown (at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/facebook-dhs-fbi-help-russian-interference-future-elections-report) is not the one we need to focus on. You see with “Though Facebook has yet to find any serious interference in the current election cycle from the agencies guilty of social media meddling in 2016, the giant company was burnt just enough that year to warrant what amounted to a cry for help from the private tech sector to the government“, we aren’t actually supposed to look, the setting of ‘Facebook has yet to find any serious interference in the current election cycle‘ is the wrong one. The evidence that other sources had shown is that Facebook had not acted for well over two years on the Cambridge Analytica setting, in addition, the fact that more sources confirmed that staff members had access to the data to well into 2017 and most of that was kept quiet to all parties and shareholders, is a larger issue for the simple reason that there is optional evidence that Facebook wiped whatever data was against them from the data carriers. When Facebook was willing to keep people in the dark for three years and the setting that we get in addition to the Senate hearings implies that it is in the best interest of Facebook to get rid of bulk data settings on any election tampering. The mention of ‘bulk’ is actually intentional. You see, editing evidence is hard and in the end in a system as complex as the one Facebook has, people get found out. Wiping entire index settings and wiping complete profiles with all the connected usage is more efficient. A data dump that is lost can be regained with old backups (like a 2015 backup), editing the evidence will never ever work, not on a system as wide as the one Facebook has. So there is clearly the consideration that this has been happening, the two year silence, as well as the Bloomberg quote we can use in this content. With: “Christopher Ailman, chief investment officer of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, said Wednesday that he deactivated his personal account due to the “offensive” lack of oversight and poor management at Facebook. CalSTRS has owned shares of the company since its initial public offering in 2012.” Now consider that all reference to ‘Christopher Ailman‘ seems to be gone, now consider the 100 profiles (speculated number) that was used to spike the Russian way of life to Americans. The moments that these profiles are gone, so is the rest, so as it is all wiped, the images the meme’s all go the way of the Dodo. Consider that some sources give 9% of profiles deleted in America (another source gave us 14% as a number), when it includes the fake ones, what are the chances that anything will be found? I am adding the dangers of intent here, because when a company like Facebook keeps quiet for well over 2 years that setting becomes very realistic.

So what other evidence has now been wiped? If the justice department wants a full log of all deletions together with interaction, engagement and images, how much could be retrieved? That becomes the question and even as we all signed up for it, we definitely did not agree to the slightest that it was to be used to turn us into tools.

so when we see ‘Facebook turns to Homeland Security, FBI for help‘ in the Washington Examiner, was that to actually seek help, or merely to see if the data was cleaned out (accidentally overwritten) as complete as possible?

Is it a given? No, it is not, yet the different sources from the US and UK newspapers should leave you with this thought, if not for the CNBC quote ‘Executives at Cambridge Analytica were caught on camera suggesting that the firm could use sex workers, bribes, ex-spies and fake news to help candidates win votes around the world‘, than for the mere realisation that Facebook cannot afford getting included in the setting that they were the tools for blackmail, fake mail and solicitation as empowering sides to any election, so the given side of ‘if it moves shoot it, if it doesn’t move shoot it to be certain‘ is a setting that also applies to data centres, although there we use the term ‘overwriting‘ which is a lot more efficient than merely deleting stuff.

I reckon that by the end of this year there will be a lot of limelight that includes executives of Facebook and a court of law, I have no idea if they can avoid it, but there you merely need to wonder if they should be allowed to avoid it, two years of silence nullifies and voids most of the goodwill they thought they created in the Senate hearing.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Squeezing the Apple juice

We know that Apple has been playing games in the past, I myself lost close to $5,000 due to their little games, yet I also have had great joy with their devices, so when I read ‘Apple faces lawsuits over its intentional slowing of older iPhones‘, (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/22/apple-lawsuits-intentional-slowing-older-iphones), I decided to remain a little cautious. One of the claims in the class action regarding the batteries was countered by Apple with: “Apple has admitted to slowing down the iPhone 6, 6S, 7 and SE when their batteries are either old, cold or have a low charge to prevent abrupt shutdowns“, this is odd as the Apple 7 is less than 15 months old (about the same time I got screwed with my Apple). What is a real danger is linked to the claim “Apple purposefully and knowingly released operating system software updates to iPhone 5, iPhone 6 and certain iPhone 7 phones that slowed the performance speeds of the central processing units (‘CPUs’) of these devices“, if proven could result in a massive fine and even could opt for the dropping of the price of the iPhone X by a lot (30%-60%), which would give the first wave owners additional reason to be angry too. One of the plaintiffs gave: “Instead, Apple appears to have obscured and concealed why older phones were slowing down.” which would be part of the issue and not the smallest part of it.

And Apple is not done, in the last few days, the media have been drowning us with all kinds of Apple news. Some come with the upcoming optional acquisition of Netflix, some come with the fact that the prices of Apple batteries have been slashed to a mere $29 dollars, Apple developer program fee waiver and even Fortune with ‘Why the Next iPhone X Could Be Apple’s Biggest Smartphone Ever‘ is taking part in all this. With “KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo said that he believes Apple will offer an updated iPhone X this year to complement a larger, 6.5-inch iPhone X Plus model” we see a new twist. The people who spent $1829 on the ‘old’ model merely a week ago will see their model outdated whilst it is still in the warranty phase, that is if they didn’t spent the additional $299 for the Apple Care option. So as we see these waves we might lose side of the Business Insider who is giving us: “Apple’s battery controversy could cost the company over $10 billion in lost iPhone sales“, (at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/apple-battery-controversy-10-billion-lost-iphone-sales-2018-1).

Barclays gives us four main reason, but the one that matters is awareness, Apple had been left in the shadows for the longest of times and now that the actions of Apple are out, the people are taking more notice, the fact that the old X is now getting the shadow of the new X is equally an issue as sales could plummet. Who wants the old model now, when they could feel inferior as the Greek summer arrives and a larger screen edition, all for taking the bikini selfies on 6.5″ would be preferred by man and woman alike?

Yet in all this, the act of the accused battery drain scenario is now falling in the backdrop. Even Forbes who gives us “reducing the $79 charge for battery replacement services to $29 for 11 months “for anyone with an iPhone 6 or later” does not seem to give too much addition to all those iPhones that were working fine recently and now that the patch is there, the 5 year old iPhone 5, immaculate or not is to be regarded as obsolete. So much for the tribute to Steve Jobs that Tim Cook gave in September 2017. With “Steve’s spirit and timeless philosophy on life will always be the DNA of Apple“, which pretty much went out of the window through the use of a battery and an alleged software patch. Even as Vox gave us ‘Apple admitted it’s slowing down certain iPhones‘, yet how will this play in the class action? I am betting that their legal defence will rely on the words ‘miscommunication‘ and a ‘failure at the QA level‘, which does not make Apple innocent, it merely makes it look less guilty and whilst we now see all the massive waves of news (the Netflix rumour, which I got from a Citi source is the biggest limelight push) will aid in getting the water nice and muddy until the people care a little less on their bad investment of $1800+. The Vox article (at https://www.vox.com/2017/12/22/16807056/apple-slow-iphone-batteries) also has the Apple ‘party line’, which is: “Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components“, which is in my book a way of stating that the battery is the lemon not worth the Squeeze. Apple basically needed the Samsung Note 7 battery, but dreaded the inflammation of flames in the iPhone, we saw how that pounced Samsung, so as we see that their battery was not the solution (according to the software) we see the dangers that down the track your mobility and connectivity is set to a $29 battery and its 330 day lifeline. So is the larger screen about a larger screen, or will it be because the larger new iPhone X will be about the essentially desperately needed larger merely to keep the iPhone X switched on?

the most important part is seen in the statement by John Poole, founder of Primate Labs and Geekbench developer. with “Once the phone is shut down, the battery is in a state where the only way to get the phone back online is to plug it into a charger. If you’re out with your phone on the go, that’s clearly not a great situation to be in” we see that the negative evolution of iPhone from mobile smart phone to merely a phone and not a very smart one is at hand and for those on route, they get to live like the executives of 1975, on the road without a phone to appraise their customers of the delay that they are facing.

They could take a break and eat an apple, to keep the doctor and his/her ulcer medication away, but that would be the mean thought to have.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science