Grav was with by Trilby Media.
In full support of the State of Palestine 
Where should one start when discussing Apple Inc. and its claim of being at the forefront of technological innovation? Does the company truly prioritise its customers, and is it genuinely the leading advocate for user privacy in the tech industry?
In 2002, I acquired my inaugural iMac, a product that stood as a tour de force in both software and hardware, eclipsing its predecessors. From that moment, I was convinced that I was investing in a company committed to delivering polished products and rightly so, as the offerings at that time were indeed the culmination of excellent craftsmanship. Fast-forwarding to the present, my loyalty has extended from the iPhone 3G to the latest iPhone 14 Pro, and I've also owned multiple versions of iPads and MacBooks.
In its early years, iOS was leaps ahead of its competition. When contrasted with Nokia or BlackBerry, it quickly becomes evident how the iPhone gained its impressive momentum. The device seamlessly integrated various functionalities such as camera, internet, as well as basic calling and messaging, into a singular, compact smartphone. During this period, major iOS updates, largely overseen by Scott Forstall from 2007 to 2012, were robust and highly reliable.
However, under subsequent leadership, the quality of iOS updates appears to have diminished. From that point up to the present day, at least at the time of writing this post—the releases have increasingly been plagued by minor but frustrating bugs. It's evident that the current approach to software development cycles and pressure to release new updates is failing. One has to question whether it's time for a change in leadership, particularly with regard to Craig Federighi, who seems to be falling short of delivering what customers expect. Lets start with a few things that Apple has refused to either fix, add or modify for its customer benefit.
1) Even today, Apple has yet to introduce multi-user support for its devices, a feature that has long been available on Android, Windows, and Amazon tablets. One could speculate that this decision is designed to discourage device-sharing, thus encouraging each family member to purchase their own device. But does this strategy truly benefit the customer?
2) The ability to fully deactivate Wi-Fi and Bluetooth from the Control Centre should be a fundamental feature. Why offer users a shortcut that merely gives the illusion of disabling these radios, when in reality they remain active? To actually turn them off, one must delve into the Settings menu, which seems unnecessarily complicated for such a basic function. While I can't substantiate this claim, I have a suspicion that the reason behind this setup is to allow nearby Apple devices to scan for your Wi-Fi or Bluetooth MAC address, thereby enriching their geographic data collection. You are the product!
3) iMessage and Calendar are just a couple of examples of features that aren't compatible with Android, making it challenging to coexist with platforms other than iOS. Rich Communication Services (RCS) could be the solution for cross-platform messaging, supporting read receipts, high-quality images and videos without substantial compression, as well as encryption. Despite Apple's proclaimed focus on security, they continue to support SMS, which lacks encryption, while showing no signs of adopting RCS—a direct competitor to their own iMessage. The implication is clear: this is another strategy to lock users into the Apple ecosystem. If you can't utilise modern messaging standards with devices from other manufacturers, why would you consider anything other than Apple?
Although I could delve into matters such as restricted customisation and the App Store's walled garden, the purpose of this discussion isn't to create an Android versus iOS debate. Rather, it aims to highlight examples where these features have already been implemented elsewhere.
Apple was once the driving force behind groundbreaking technologies in the smartphone industry. However, it seems that the company's focus has shifted towards maximizing profits, often by launching new iPhones with incremental minor changes that may have already been available for years. While it's true that their camera and video capabilities consistently rank among the top five each year, the company lags in virtually every other aspect. Let's explore a few examples to illustrate this point:
1) The Notch, this can be reduced but instead they have called it the Island, marketing folks at Apple are worth their weight in Diamonds and Gold alone.
2) Fingerprint reader gone, they just don't want to add it under screen (least not yet as of 2023 iPhone 15).
3) On the subject of repairability, I won't delve into the technicalities, but it's worth noting that many components manufactured by Foxconn for Apple are software-locked, making third-party repairs problematic. This could be a strategy to encourage you either to purchase a new device or to seek repairs at an Apple store, a service that's often criticised for being overpriced. The inconsistency in repair pricing further substantiates this claim. There's no standard pricing guide for basic repairs, allowing Apple to potentially charge customers differently for the same issues, such as water damage or faulty sensors.
4) Driven by mandates from the European Union, Apple is moving from its proprietary Lightning connector to USB-C. The original use of the Lightning port was another strategy for maximising profits through an exclusive connector.
5) When it comes to the 'Always-On Display' feature, Apple was notably late to the party, especially considering that this functionality has been a staple on many Android devices for years.
The 'Pro' line-up serves as another avenue for Apple to boost its profitability. Cutting-edge features often debut exclusively on these models, only to trickle down to the standard versions in subsequent years, usually amid much fanfare. For example, Apple's ProMotion technology is essentially a rebranded 120Hz refresh rate, a feature that has been standard in other smartphones, including mid-range models for years. It's also worth noting that fast charging was incorporated into iPhones as late as 2017, even though the technology had been available in other devices since 2013.
While Apple's iOS operates on a closed-source model, this doesn't necessarily make it less secure than Android, which is open-source. However, any security claims made by Apple about iOS can't be fully verified due to its closed nature. This has implications; for years, closed-source systems from companies like Nokia and Microsoft have raised questions about the extent of data mining they might be conducting on user habits. Although Google is far from a paragon of virtue, there's greater transparency about Android OS and its activities. This transparency, however, does not extend to Google's own suite of apps, which remain closed-source.
Apple faces a multitude of ethical considerations that warrant close scrutiny. In the following discussion, I will highlight some of the most pressing issues:
1) Is it reasonable that maximum data transfer speed via USB-C is exclusive to the Pro models of the iPhone? Additionally, it's worth noting that Apple only guarantees these top speeds when using Apple-certified USB-C cables, even though USB-C is an open standard.
2) Apple's tax practices have attracted significant criticism, particularly in the United Kingdom. The tech giant has historically used complicated financial arrangements, like funnelling profits through subsidiaries in Ireland with lower corporate tax rates, to minimise its tax liability in the UK. Although these tactics often adhere to the letter of the law, they raise ethical questions. Such practices deprive the UK government of tax revenue that could otherwise be invested in public services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. When a corporation as profitable as Apple uses loopholes to sidestep its tax obligations, it not only undermines public trust but also places an unfair burden on smaller businesses and individual taxpayers who don't have the resources to exploit such loopholes. The issue of tax avoidance is complex, but it remains an ethically murky area that warrants public scrutiny and regulatory oversight.
3) While the Apple Watch is undoubtedly a capable device, the marketing strategy employed since its second iteration raises ethical questions. The company leans heavily on fear-based advertising, frequently emphasising how the watch has saved lives through its heart rate monitoring and more recently, its fall detection features. One might ask why the focus isn't more on its advanced connectivity capabilities, such as SMS, calls, and other smartphone functionalities brought to your wrist. The reliance on scare tactics seems like a questionable marketing decision and could lead consumers to purchase the device even if it doesn't align with their actual needs.
Grav was with by Trilby Media.
In full support of the State of Palestine