"Charles" writes:

The revenue stream is based on forcing you to buy another one:
http://blog.stayfreemagazine.org/200...nsumer_pr.html

Hmm. The article says:

STAY FREE!: Do you have proof that it's intentional?

GILES SLADE: No, but there's currently a class-action lawsuit against
Apple in California, focused on the video screens being so easily
scratched. The same group filed a lawsuit about the battery life and
won a huge settlement from Apple.

There was a problem with the iPods, in that the battery life of the 3G
models was very short, and the battery would lose the ability to hold
a charge.

People would call up and ask how to repair it, and Apple said there
was no way, and the unit would have to be replaced after 18 months.

Well, people screamed, and now Apple will replace the battery for $45.

I found a site that would sell a kit to replace the battery with one
that had twice the capacity of the Apple battery for $25.

I suspect the problem was that Apple used the best battery they could
fit in the product that size. Trouble is, the best available wasn't
that good. Improvements have been made in the meantime. But did they
intentionally try to screw the comsumer? I'm not convinved.

The battery life is rumored to be an issue with the new iPhones. We
shall see. I think consumer demand often exceeds what's available.
If they wait another year, they lose sales and market share.


Now - Microsoft - that's definitely planned obsolescense. They make
most of their money in people buying new computers (not upgrades). If
a computer lasted 5 years, Microsoft would lose a lot of money.

And now they want us to buy the new hybrid drives.