Interesting links to Three Body Problem there.

Not really

That makes no sense at all.

I’d like to see the long promised redo of Control Centre and Notification Centre.

Why would it have infinite digits? It is just as like to be 0.

No, I was responding to your old fashioned views about pricing. Do you see the difference between fair pricing that you mention and fair value ?

The whole point with Fair Value is that the consumer has control. It’s not about fair pricing. It’s about what you get for that price being fair value.

Nowadays a company needs to define its target market and ensure that target market gets fair value. A product can have any price as long as its target market thinks it’s fair value.

We’ve seen some companies innovate and open up new markets that haven’t been served before. For example social tariffs that attract consumers who wouldn’t normally subscribe.

It’s not just me saying this. Many commentators and analysts have pointed out that some companies (not just Apple) are taking a rather basic approach and actually removing value. The whole idea with Apple one was to add value but now that seems to be changing. They are retreating to what they know, put up prices without using their business acumen to increase value.

I didn’t say they don’t want to see companies charge too much. Fair Value is not about the price but the value you get for that price.

I’m talking this planet. Just look for ESG funds and ESG compliant companies. They are valued at over 53 trillion dollars according to the UN.

ESG reporting is now mandatory and a part of accounting standards in the US, UK and the majority of countries.

Incidentally, try investor.apple.com/esg/default.aspx

You’ll find Apples reports back to 2021.

That’s an old fashioned view that business moved on from in the last ten years. It’s all about Environmental,Social and Corporate Governance (ESG investors are in control now at the big investors) with governments and regulators around the world setting rules. There’s a reason Apple is trumpeting its green credentials.

So if a company wants to attract money its needs a strong position. One aspect is the concept of fair value. It gets away from older concepts such as cheap and premium. A product should offer fair value. That means that what it offers is commensurate with the cost to the consumer. The consumer chooses whether the product or service offers fair value. Those companies that offer fair value will attract more investors and more customers.

That’s why I say they are lacking in modern business smarts.

I know what you’re saying but the world has moved on. Companies and regulators are talking about fair value as governments adopt ESG laws.

Companies that take an old fashioned “as much as we can get away with” approach are finding their customers drifting away. Nowadays if companies want to put up prices and be successful then they have to make the product (whatever it is) seem more valuable.

Apparently it’s a tax write off.

It’s risky though because a) Star Trek is no longer all in one place b) if it’s a hit then Netflix benefit.

Why in these videos is it always someone so out of it they can only say the same thing over and over. Pointless waste of time

Must be in the US then.

I think they are in the US. It operates without the sort of protections that most of the world has.

But how far is that?

You’ve inadvertently hit on the beginnings of an apparent paradox to do with the relationship between numbers and the counting numbers

Suppose the largest number you can have is X and the smallest number you can have is -Y. Then between -Y and X, you can count X+Y numbers which is clearly larger than X. But X is the largest possible number so X+Y doesn’t exist.

I don’t get the link. What have smart cars got to do with phone screens breaking. Surely the people who design smart cars will be different than the people who design phone screens ?

It literally says that it’s due to ageism!

It was you that brought up using computers. You didn’t say anything about learning or progressing.

As for certain age, I think your answer actually supports my piint that it’s down to individual experience rather than age. Consider a manual worker who doesn’t trust technology and will only have a basic dumb phone. They are technology averse but might be in their 20s.

Computerisation of the workplace started in the 70s (I was there) and by the mid 80s was commonplace. Even shops were installing computerised systems then, even if it was a standalone register with a number of preset department numbers. A conservative estimate is that the majority of people working and living from 1990 onwards would have experience of computers whether at work, in shops, at the bank, in the car or public transport or at home. Let’s be generous and say they retired in 2000 at age 60 (will be higher in most countries) after ten years of familiarity then they’d be over 80 now.

And yet we have people much younger than that who are technology averse and unable or willing to learn. Why is that? Because age is not the deciding factor but people’s own lives experience.

Have a look at the UN Global Report on ageism and how it affects younger people as well as older people. The flip side of stereotyping older people is that you automatically stereotype younger people as being easily able to do the thing you think older people can’t do.

You’re right that the UN is not always consistent but note that the Secretary General is not talking exclusivity but that more support is needed and that they are referring to new technologies rather than email which has been around for over 50 years. I sent my first email in 1981 when addresses were resolved in the opposite way to nowadays.

Excellent point

Agreed, this is the most on topic post we’ve had for a while.