MacInTouch Amazon link...
Channels
Apple, Products

Ric Ford

MacInTouch
"Value", in my humble opinion, should include:
  • ... ability to run other OS's in virtual environment
I think that's actually better in Windows Pro, isn't it, with Hyper-V?
  • top-notch hardware that should significantly outlast the competition
You mean like this, and this, and this, and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this, for example? (Not to mention major software failures....)
 


"Value", in my humble opinion, should include:
  • overall ease-of-use / superiority of macOS vs. all other OS's
  • ability to run other OS's in virtual environment
  • top-notch hardware that should significantly outlast the competition
Sorry, but I have a bit more skeptical a view than yourself, particularly as it pertains to the points listed above. I come to this opinion after decades in the technology profession in a variety of roles. While I am not going to bore everyone with a synopsis, especially at this late time of evening/morning, I would like to say:
  • Apple has routinely used lower-cost components on their boards, all the more so in recent times, when a fractionally more expensive part of superior quality would have been a better solution. Saving fractions of pennies does add up to more profit for Apple, but it also reduces the potential lifespan of their hardware. Other hardware vendors I have dealt with have been a bit more judicious in not trying to squeeze as much cost savings out of their designs. If we are paying top dollar, it would be nice to have some of that money going towards better components.
  • macOS is no longer superior in its ease-of-use, just slightly better, with features which are constantly changing or being deprecated or buried in hidden option-clicks and with little documentation.
  • While we currently have options to run other OS natively or via virtualization on a Mac, that may be going away. Apple's desire to control all facets of design and production will more than likely, in my opinion and ones I have seen noted elsewhere, lead it to start using their own ARM processors in upcoming Macs and to move away from Intel. The original Mac Pro 1,1 was released as an early development platform for the migration from PowerPC over to Intel. I am anticipating announcements at WWDC this coming June of a similar nature with the new Mac Pro - at least as a way to perform native iOS development. If you are developing software, you want to develop on the same platform you release your software on. Developing on an Intel Mac to deploy on an ARM iOS device does have disadvantages.
 




Apple financials show the company spent about $14.2 billion on R&D last year. (I'm guessing that the fraction used for the Mac platform was well under 1%.)
Interestingly, as a percentage of revenue, that's not even a particularly high amount for a tech company.

From a recent article on "Research and Development Costs on an Income Statement" (emphasis mine) :
  • Apple - The maker of the iPhone, iMac, and MacBook spends about $3.7 billion quarterly on research and development. That's about 4% of its quarterly revenue.
  • Johnson & Johnson - J&J spent $3.2 billion on R&D in the last quarter of 2018, one of its highest totals ever. (It spent more than 4 billion in the same quarter of 2017.) The company's R&D costs comprised more than 18% of its revenue in the 4th quarter.
  • Alphabet - Google's parent company spent a whopping $5.3 billion on R&D in the third quarter of 2018. That's about 15% of its quarterly revenue.
  • Amazon - The major online behemoth reported $7.16 billion in R&D costs in the quarter ending in September, 2018. That's about 13 percent of the company's quarterly revenues.
 


Interestingly, as a percentage of revenue, that's not even a particularly high amount for a tech company.

From a recent article on "Research and Development Costs on an Income Statement" (emphasis mine) ...
Don't forget that the phrase "R&D" is horribly... misleading. It turns out that, for many companies, a very large portion of R&D is "D" - development, or, in other words, the cost of turning out the next product. There's often very little "R."

If a company's R&D is a small percentage of its turnover, and if, like most, it does little "R", then the conclusion is that that company is an efficient generator of new products. This, to be clear, is a good thing.
 


Don't forget that the phrase "R&D" is horribly... misleading. It turns out that, for many companies, a very large portion of R&D is "D" - development, or, in other words, the cost of turning out the next product. There's often very little "R."
Yes, most companies' new product development (concept, design, prototype, validation, and verification) is placed in the R&D bucket, since they get a tax discount. The tax discount is applied if they meet the four criteria: new functionality, discover new information, requires some experimentation, and is technological in nature.

Very little pure research is done these days. It is just mostly incremental innovation. Most companies avoid risk by waiting for a start-up to develop something new then buy it out.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Intel has new CPUs, and some of these will presumably end up in Macs (e.g. the promised, but undefined, 2019 Mac Pro):
Ars Technica said:
Intel puts 8 cores, 16 threads, and a 5GHz turbo option in a laptop processor
The first processors to include Intel's ninth-generation Core branding came out last year with a limited line-up: just a handful of high-end desktop processors in the Coffee Lake family. Today, the company has unveiled a bumper crop of new ninth-gen chips. There's a set of H-series processors for laptops and a complete range of desktop processors across the Celeron, Pentium, and Core brands, from i3 all the way to i9.

The most exciting of these are the mobile H-series parts and in particular the top-of-the-line Core i9-9980HK. This is a 45W processor with eight cores, 16 threads, and 16MB of cache, with a base clock speed of 2.4GHz and a turbo speed of 5GHz.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Apple has a long history of problems in its business relationships (e.g. GT Advanced's bankruptcy), and the suddenly-settled Qualcomm battle raised additional questions about Apple integrity in these partnerships:
AppleInsider said:
Apple's will to 'hurt Qualcomm financially' illustrated by Qualcomm's opening statement
On April 19, documents surfaced showing Apple wanted to reduce its Qualcomm patent licenses for some time, but decided to only sue Qualcomm in January 2017. The documents also alluded to a goal to "reduce Apple's net royalty to Qualcomm," a strategy to "hurt Qualcomm financially," and to put its licensing model at risk.

A new document published on Wednesday showing the slideshow for Qualcomm's legal team presses the accusations of foul play further, illustrating not only extracts from documents highlighting Apple's intentions, but also how Apple praised the company.
 


Apple has a long history of problems in its business relationships...
What I thought might prove most troublesome for Apple at a trial were Qualcomm's assertions:
Ars Technica said:
Apple stole Qualcomm chip secrets and gave them to Intel, Qualcomm claims
On information and belief, Apple long ago devised a plan to improve the performance of non‐Qualcomm chipset solutions, including Intel's, by stealing Qualcomm's technology and using it to establish a second source of chipsets in order to pressure Qualcomm in business negotiations over chipset supply and pricing, and ultimately to divert Qualcomm's Apple-based business to Intel, from which Apple could extract more favorable terms. Apple's illegal conduct was calculated and pervasive, particularly among its engineers working with Qualcomm and Intel chipsets.
The Ars piece avers Qualcomm had information that Intel engineers working on Intel's modems "were told to ignore intellectual property rights when designing the modem."

What's difficult to understand is why Apple bothered. The iPhone is staggeringly profitable and Qualcomm's royalty per phone a tiny fraction of what Apple charges at retail, and that's paid by consumers. Maybe it would matter if Apple were down in the trenches trying to compete with $150 low-end Androids, but it isn't.
 


What's difficult to understand is why Apple bothered. The iPhone is staggeringly profitable and Qualcomm's royalty per phone a tiny fraction of what Apple charges at retail, and that's paid by consumers. Maybe it would matter if Apple were down in the trenches trying to compete with $150 low-end Androids, but it isn't.
Probably because Apple wanted more profits while still charging the same price - remember that investors are Apple's real customers here, not consumers.
 


What's difficult to understand is why Apple bothered. The iPhone is staggeringly profitable and Qualcomm's royalty per phone a tiny fraction of what Apple charges at retail, and that's paid by consumers. Maybe it would matter if Apple were down in the trenches trying to compete with $150 low-end Androids, but it isn't.
ATP podcast today had a bit on this: that for inclusion in telecoms standards, patent-holders agree to license to all on a 'fair' basis (I don't know the specific standards). Qualcomm (supposedly) charges based on final sale price of the phones, i.e. the same chip/patent costs more just because it's been included in a high-end iPhone (or even just one with more memory). So there is (arguably) a basis to argue it's not fair - and disadvantageous to Apple specifically, although I don't know the legal standards. There are also anti-monopoly / FTC regulatons (and similar in other countries) to consider.

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs, this is clearly a complex dispute, and there's more than one side.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Here's some more about Apple's settlement with Qualcomm in their gigantic, global lawsuits, and Intel's role:
Bloomberg said:
Apple Puts Need for 5G Ahead of Legal Fight in Qualcomm Deal
Throughout the fight, which centered on Apple’s accusations that Qualcomm overcharges for patents on its technology, the iPhone maker played down the importance of the modem and Qualcomm’s inventions. Just before the settlement was announced on Tuesday, Apple’s lawyers were in a San Diego courtroom saying the component was just another method of connecting to the internet. In reality, Qualcomm’s modems are leading a potential revolution in mobile internet -- and Apple could have been forced to play catchup without them.

Intel, which dominates the market in personal computer chips, has struggled for decades in mobile. The company pledged that its 5G part was coming in phones next year. But within hours of Apple’s deal with Qualcomm, and with it the loss of its prime mobile customer, Intel announced it would end its effort to produce a 5G modem for smartphones.

Apple’s rival Samsung Electronics Co. already has a 5G-capable phone on sale using Qualcomm’s products.
The Verge said:
Intel says Apple and Qualcomm’s surprise settlement pushed it to exit mobile 5G
The news that Intel had exited the 5G modem business came just hours after the Apple / Qualcomm agreement was announced. At the time, it was unclear whether Apple and Qualcomm had made up due to the fact that Intel had pulled out, leaving no other options for the iPhone to get 5G, or whether Qualcomm had just stolen the business back from Intel by settling its ongoing lawsuits. According to a report from Bloomberg, it was the latter: Apple had reportedly decided Intel’s modems weren’t up to the task of providing 5G for the iPhone on time, leaving no other choice but for it to take the PR hit of ending its years-long dispute with Qualcomm for the sake of the iPhone’s future.
 


for inclusion in telecoms standards, patent-holders agree to license to all on a 'fair' basis (I don't know the specific standards).
Yes. The buzzword is FRAND - Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory.

It's an attempt by standards bodies to compromise between the goals of the standards body (which wants everybody to adopt the standard) and the goals of the contributors (which want to profit from the inventions they contribute to the standard).

Standards bodies would like to prevent patent holders from charging anything for licenses, since that would maximize the rate of adoption. But inventors will often refuse to contribute key technologies to the standard under these terms, preferring instead to sell a product and tell the rest of the world to invent a replacement tech or pay high license fees to incorporate the patented tech in a product. And then some inventors will contribute tech under terms like "I'm not going to charge a low fee if others don't".

So the term FRAND was coined as a compromise. It's a fuzzy term without a precise legal definition, but in broad terms:

Fair refers to the underlying terms. Terms should not be what would be considered anti-competitive if imposed by a monopoly - things like tying licenses to other unrelated licenses or requiring reciprocal cross-licensing deals.

Reasonable refers to the rates charged. The rates should not be so high that the cost would be seen as unreasonable in the aggregate (e.g. total monies paid for all units shipped). The rates should not be so high that they become a barrier to adopting the technology or the standards that contain it.

Non-Discriminatory means that there should be a level playing field. While there can be different rate schedules based on the usage of the product (e.g. experimental vs. lab use vs. commercial) and based on quantities sold, the same schedules should apply to every user of the technology.

Since there is no precise legal definition for these terms, when they are disputed, it falls to a court to study the specifics of a claim and make a decision, which is, ultimately, what was going on here before Apple and Qualcomm decided to settle their case.
 


The Ars piece avers Qualcomm had information that Intel engineers working on Intel's modems "were told to ignore intellectual property rights when designing the modem."
What's difficult to understand is why Apple bothered. The iPhone is staggeringly profitable and Qualcomm's royalty per phone a tiny fraction of what Apple charges at retail, and that's paid by consumers.
Probably because Apple wanted more profits while still charging the same price - remember that investors are Apple's real customers here, not consumers.
Let's think about Apple shareholders. Are they served by Apple's scary and litigious reputation? Does that reputation help or hurt Apple when it needs to use technology developed by others? Per reports, Intel's 4G modems were markedly inferior to Qualcomm's, putting iPhones at a substantial speed and connectivity disadvantage against Android devices with Qualcomm modems.

Qualcomm (supposedly) charges based on final sale price of the phones, i.e. the same chip/patent costs more just because it's been included in a high-end iPhone (or even just one with more memory). So there is (arguably) a basis to argue it's not fair
The Inquirer said:
Apple claims Qualcomm refused to flog it chips for the iPhone XS
...Williams' testimony also revealed how much Apple has been paying for Qualcomm modems: $7.50 (around £8.50) per device, five times more than Apple wanted to pay.
I realize this isn't exactly an Apple to Apple comparison, but the latest 64GB iPad Pro 12.9" with A12X is $999 and the 10.5" 64GB iPad Air with A12 is $500 less at $499. Add "cellular" to the iPad Pro? $150. Are those price differences fair? Or should consumers (including manufacturers) expect to pay more when they get more?
 


Probably worth noting that Intel’s lead for the 5G work moved to Apple about 5 days before the settlement.
Engadget said:
Apple poached Intel's 5G leader weeks ahead of Qualcomm truce

Intel's decision to bail on 5G modems may have gone hand-in-hand with Apple's truce with Qualcomm, but it's now clear there were hints of a shift weeks earlier. The Telegraph has learned that Apple poached Intel's 5G phone modem leader, Umashankar Thyagarajan, in February. While the departure itself wasn't a complete secret (Thyagarajan's LinkedIn profile confirms the switch), the news outlet claims to have email showing that the ex-director was the project engineer for the XMM 8160 chip at the heart of Intel's plans. He also "played a key role" creating the Intel modems used in the iPhone XS and XR.
 


Probably worth noting that Intel’s lead for the 5G work moved to Apple about 5 days before the settlement.
From various reports I've read/heard, it sounds like Intel (specifically, its new CEO) didn't see much future in modems as part of its product portfolio.

Given the timing of Intel's pullout (mere hours after the settlement announcement), it's likely Intel decided it wanted to drop doing modems, and so went to Apple and said something like:

Look, we don't see a good future in modems for us at this point, and you're becoming your own fab more and more every day, so there's little incentive for us to continue down this path given that you won't be an on-going customer for us in the future anyways.

... at which point Apple tucked its tail in, and worked something out with Qualcomm.

Essentially, it seems Intel's decision was the main trigger for this settlement.
 


Of course, even if Apple eventually does develop their own 5G modems, they're still going to need licenses for Qualcomm's patent portfolio, so their settlement will remain important for them.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
More details about the Qualcomm-Apple settlement:
The Verge said:
Qualcomm will get at least $4.5 billion from Apple as part of its patent settlement
How much is an apology worth? Well, if you’re Apple, it turns out the number is at least $4.5 billion, which is the amount that Qualcomm revealed in its Q2 earnings it will get from the settlement agreement between the companies, which had previously been embroiled in an ugly patent dispute for the past few years. The Apple / Qualcomm settlement was an unexpected shift that came early in the trial between the two companies.
 


More details about the Qualcomm-Apple settlement:
According to this article, Apple stopped paying Qualcomm while continuing to use Qualcomm technology. It's actually a bit more complicated:
Forbes (4/28/17) said:
Apple Is Withholding Royalty Payments From Qualcomm As Legal Battle Continues
Apple does not directly license from Qualcomm. Rather, Apple's contract manufacturers -- such as Foxconn and Pegatron -- pay the Qualcomm licensing fees and Apple is supposed to reimburse them. Now, Qualcomm said, Apple has recently informed the San Diego, California-based chipmaker that it plans on not paying the royalties owed to those contract manufacturers until the current legal dispute between the two companies is settled.
As the "current legal dispute" is settled, this "payoff" may just be what Apple should have paid earlier.
I realize this isn't exactly an Apple to Apple comparison, but the latest 64GB iPad Pro 12.9" with A12X is $999
Have to wonder how my day would go if I helped myself to one of those without paying Apple?
 


IDC has a report out on the smartphone market that paints a much grimmer report on Apple sales than the dollar totals it reported.
IDC said:
Smartphone Shipments Experience Deeper Decline in Q1 2019 with a Clear Shakeup Among the Market Leaders, According to IDC
Apple had a challenging first quarter as shipments dropped to 36.4 million units representing a staggering 30.2% decline from last year. The iPhone struggled to win over consumers in most major markets as competitors continue to eat away at Apple's market share. Price cuts in China throughout the quarter along with favorable trade-in deals in many markets were still not enough to encourage consumers to upgrade. Combine this with the fact that most competitors will shortly launch 5G phones and new foldable devices, the iPhone could face a difficult remainder of the year. Despite the lackluster quarter, Apple's strong installed base along with its recent agreement with Qualcomm will be viewed as the light at the end of the tunnel heading into 2020 for the Cupertino-based giant.
 


I'm sure there are many reasons for Apple's falling sales, but just maybe they could look at their offerings and understand they're not giving consumers what they want. Phones, iPads, Macs and watches are all just incrementally updated, and Mr Cook seems to think they will fly off the shelves.

I'm in the market for a 'sports' watch and have explicitly excluded an Apple watch just because I don't want to reward Apple for the direction they're taking. There are plenty of alternatives, and I suspect Garmin will be winning my money this time around.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
I'm in the market for a 'sports' watch and have explicitly excluded an Apple watch just because I don't want to reward Apple for the direction they're taking. There are plenty of alternatives, and I suspect Garmin will be winning my money this time around.
For what it's worth, I had a conversation yesterday with a friend who is an enthusiastic Apple customer but who bought a Garmin sports watch, because it has higher battery capacity and runs longer (e.g. for an "Iron Man") vs. an Apple Watch's smaller battery and shorter run time.
 


I was in need of a replacement and couldn't locate a 2TB model with a delivery time of less than 10 days, so I now have a MacBook Pro with 1 TB of storage and an external 2TB OWC Envoy Pro EX. With half the internal storage, a full restoration from backup was not possible.
Issues like these (and the keyboard problems) have led me to stop recommending Apple laptops to my corporate clients. I'm sure I'm not alone in withdrawing my recommendations, but I have little doubt that Apple will blame disappointing Mac sales on external factors, like supply constraints or organic decline in general computing sales, rather than on their own vain focus on thin designs and non-standard, non-upgradeable/non-repairable hardware.
 



Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Issues like these (and the keyboard problems) have led me to stop recommending Apple laptops to my corporate clients....
The issue, then, is what operating system those clients will have to use. Will they use Windows 10, or can they use Linux?
 


IDC has a report out on the smartphone market that paints a much grimmer report on Apple sales than the dollar totals it reported.
Does IDC actually know anything? Maybe, maybe not.
Daniel Eran Dilger said:
Editorial: Latest IDC estimate of Q1 2019 iPhone sales 'highly inaccurate' to the point of 'embarrassing'

... The only way Apple could have seen unit sales drop as fast as IDC reported would be if buyers had suddenly upgraded to extremely expensive phones, driving Apple's Average Selling Price to above $850. That's absurd, and inconsistent with historical quarterly shifts in average selling price.

Apple's ASPs are extremely high in the industry, but not that high. In fact, iPhone ASP appeared to peak with the launch of the $999 and up iPhone X last year, reaching a few dollars shy of $800. This year, market data shows that Apple's sales were lead by iPhone XR, which starts at $750. There's no possible way Apple's ASP rocketed upward as Apple's product mix shifted to a model that cost three quarters as much.

Cybart estimated that Apple sold more than 43 million iPhones in the quarter, which wouldn't change Apple's third place position in global unit sales, but would represent a difference in unit sales that at least makes sense when compared to its reported decrease in iPhone revenues. Those sales would imply an iPhone ASP in the March quarter of about $722.
 


The issue, then, is what operating system those clients will have to use. Will they use Windows 10, or can they use Linux?
Apologies in advance for this cry from the heart.

To be fair to Apple, while I'm no longer actively recommending Apple systems, I'm also not necessarily recommending that businesses that use Macs actively switch to other platforms, especially if they are primarily Mac shops. However, for most multi-platform businesses, it's hard for me to think of a reason to recommend an increase in the ratio of Macs to other platforms, and it's been a few years since I've counseled against increasing the ratio of PCs to Macs.

It depends on the requirements, but for most end-user computing, Windows remains the primary choice, not Linux or macOS. That's not because of any overwhelming technical superiority, and it's actually in spite of the interface changes, intrusive updates, and increased telemetry gathering seen in Windows 10.

A lot of the issue is on the hardware support side. If a system breaks or is stolen, then repair or replacement very often is much easier/faster on the non-Apple side of the fence. When Apple hardware was seen as much more reliable than PC hardware, repair/purchase turnaround wasn't seen as much of a major issue. Now that we can't be certain if something as fundamental as a laptop keyboard will work reliably for the expected lifetime of the computer, we're in a very different situation. It is simply unacceptable to expect businesses to continue paying a premium for systems that look cool but have a significant likelihood of hardware problems from a company that has demonstrated a multi-year indifference to actually resolving the underlying issues.

Since it's been covered so often at MacInTouch, I won't go into the other issues of paying premiums for old hardware designs that have little or no upgradeability, require expensive dongles for road warriors, or have limited, overpriced configuration options. (I've seen Fortune 100 enterprises with large numbers of traveling/remote staff disqualify entire lines of computers from procurement bids because of something as seemingly trivial as dongle requirements. After analyzing help desk tickets, they've seen that replacing lost, forgotten, or broken dongles can add up to be a significant hit to productivity and the bottom line. That's a big part of why so many Dell, HP, and Lenovo laptops still have built-in Ethernet and USB ports.)

In addition, despite the great work of companies like Jamf on the Mac, it generally is much easier to find the tools and expertise to support significant numbers of PCs and integrate them simply and (relatively) inexpensively into corporate environments, and Apple has made the situation worse by making it much more challenging and time-consuming to provision new hardware via standard images. Again, it's not a huge issue when you're dealing with small numbers of machines, but once you get past a few dozen, manageability becomes a serious concern.

On the software side, again, I won't go into detail regarding the many issues often discussed already on MacInTouch, but I can't avoid raising the most basic issue of all: trust. While Apple has done a very good job on the security side of the equation, how comfortable are any of us that this year's new release of macOS won't include some seemingly arbitrary change or show-stopping bug that breaks a critical app or causes data loss? Those can have as much impact as a security breach! These things have always been a risk with new OS releases, but by being on an annual release cycle, the risk has become essentially constant. Also, does anyone really know the date when security updates stop for older versions of macOS, how thoroughly updates for older systems are tested, or how completely vulnerabilities are catalogued and addressed? (Note that I did not even mention Apple apps. Can any business seriously rely on the features or interface of an Apple app being relatively stable over time, especially now that we are moving into the Marzipan era? How many people have been burned by relying on iWork, Aperture, or other Apple "pro" apps over the years?)

On another note, the advent of browser-based or cloud-enabled tools reduces the friction of switching platforms. If your primary tools are Microsoft Office, Google's G Suite, Evernote, Adobe, Slack, etc., it's not too difficult for businesses to keep running the same software, but on less expensive, faster, more flexible hardware. While switching platforms can hurt the custom workflows of people who have extensive knowledge of macOS, the truth is that casual users (i.e. the majority of business users) have little trouble switching. Interestingly, this suggests that Apple should do everything it can to make Macs and macOS better and more reliable to stay competitive, but Apple seems to be pursuing either vanity projects or benign neglect.

Why not Linux? I think Linux can make sense for organizations that are almost exclusively based on G Suite or one of the alternative Office software suites (like LibreOffice), but once they reach a certain size, they inevitably start feeling pressure to adopt a certain number of Microsoft Office licenses because of network effects. If you end up needing to exchange significant numbers of Office documents with third parties, you end up running into too many formatting problems or other incompatibilities, despite the impressive efforts of the LibreOffice/OpenOffice folks. It's hard for me to recommend Linux as a general, end user computing platform primarily because of the Office issue, but it can be a great niche fit for power/technical users, for extremely casual users whose work doesn't call for much beyond email or web browsing, or, of course, for server applications.

I write this as someone who had no interest at all in computers until I first laid hands on a 128k Mac in college, when I quickly became a Mac Evangelist. We've ended up in a strange place. I'm old enough to remember buying a particular platform in order to run a particular piece of equipment or software tool. Now we're in this strange place where people are asking if perfectly good printers, key productivity tools, or even $20,000 scanners need to be abandoned because a "free" OS update is imminent. Something is very wrong with this picture.

P.S. Apple should consider itself very fortunate that Microsoft shot itself in its own foot with the changes in Windows 8/10 aimed at collecting more user data and "modernizing" the interface. If Microsoft had continued incrementally enhancing Windows 7 without the Windows 8/10 gimmickry, the contrast between the stability, reliability, manageability, and predictability of Windows over current incarnations of macOS would be truly stark for corporate customers, and I think Apple would be feeling a lot more pain in business environments.
 


Amazon disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Latest posts