Skip to main content

You have to hand it to Apple

There can be no doubt that Apple make some really superb bits of (very expensive) kit. World class, aspirational and quite desirable stuff.

However, they are becoming a bit twee in their old age. Remarkable with it, but nevertheless very twee.

Their chopped-off (er, cordless) ear phones for one. Who would have thought that any company could design an in-demand product that makes the user look like they are on day release from a corrective institution? They have succeeded in turning "dolt-looking" into such an iconoclastic look that there are companies actually producing copy fashion accessory versions for £12 a pair. These purposefully don't contain any technology and don't actually perform any function apart from looking like ridiculous Apple iPhone ear buds.

Who would have thought it was possible that people would actually pay £12 to wear something that is not only stupid-looking, but has actually been designed NOT to work?

And the new iPhone 11 Pro. Does this infer that up to now we have all been using amateur phones? So is there now a pro vs amateur way of phoning, texting or glueing to social mediocrity that we have been unaware of thus far?

And what's this business with three lenses on the phone (yes, remember it's a phone not a camera)? Is it really necessary? The advertising is all around the three lenses on the camera. They might as well go into the camera business and sell it as a camera that you can make phone calls with, send texts from and access the internet to follow those vital 83% of social influencers who have been outed as not only clueless about the subjects they witter on about, but are simply being sponsored to lie .

For a phone costing £1,000, you can otherwise get a mighty fine SLR camera with a superb real multi glass lens for half that price and then spend less than the remainder on a phone that does most of the stuff you'd expect a modern day phone to do anyway!

Come on world. Wake up and smell an ordinary £250 smartphone.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The "Win a Million" free scratch card newspaper inserts

One of those three-panel "Win a Million" scratchcards fell out of my newspaper this morning. Not a major or in anyway newsworthy event in itself, but I must admit my surprise. I didn't think anyone bothered with them anymore, or, to be a little more technical, I didn't think anyone was taken in by them anymore. Firstly, it actually is printed on the bottom of each panel that "Every card has a set of 3 matching symbols, 2 matching symbols and no matching symbols". Right, so you are going to 'win', half-win and not win respectively. Then, while the prize list is somewhat impressive with 1x£1m, 1x£100k, 2x£20k, 3x£10k and other things like holidays, tablet PC's city breaks all the way down to 1000 "faux" fashion watches, 1000 salon  makeovers and 1000xVIP Thames cruises. Now should I be stupid enough to spend the £1.53 a minute for the 6 minute phone call to claim my prize (that's almost a tenner, for those of you without cal...

Chancellor's letter of apology to Bob Diamond of Barclays

Thanks to my contacts at the new News International business "Phonetaps'R'Us", I was exclusively sent a copy of a letter sent to the Chief Executive of Barclays Bank, Bob Diamond, from the Chancellor yesterday. "Dear Bob Trusting you and yours are well. Listen mate. Sorry the F inancially S tupid A sses wrote to your bank yesterday to demand £290million as a fine. It's nothing personal, and just because your bank head office people are a bunch of dishonest, thieving bastards, I thought there was no reason to carry on that way and fine you. I made this clear to the FSA yesterday as soon as I heard the news. I told them that the taxpayer would have been more than happy to bail you out. And also. Look mate. Sorry you've had to give up your bonus this year. It must have come as quite a shock, and was a wonderful thing for you to volunteer to do. I only hope you've put something by from the £17million you received last year. No doubt the bank pay...

"Q". My name is Bond. Oh. not THAT Q.

I was sent a story today by a friend who knows my feelings on the subject - that is, about one of the consummately greatest of all British activities, namely, queuing. It seems some Danish Professor or other has come up with the theory that those who queue the longest should actually be served the last. He claims it makes purchasing something altogether more efficient and smooth through the idea of 'contra-queuing' (whatever the devil that may mean). 'Serve the people at the back of the queue first', he says, with profound wisdom. Altogether very professorial, albeit demonstrating a somewhat keen lack of understanding of the purchasing psyche. The Nobel Prize-chasing Prof suggests that if, for example, a popular entertainment act was to announce a tour, with tickets going on sale at 11am one morning, using the theory of 'contra-queuing', no one will want to be first to buy said tickets. So no one will turn up 14 months in advance and venues will...