My made up history of EA is that EA was acquired because a Saudi princling's Dad got mad at him for becoming a whale for EA. So in order to cut costs at home, he just told PIF to buy EA so he can defraud his money back.
The article says in many more words, "pick your battles". You can't manage when you aren't the manager. Getting fired/laid off won't get you the results.
Pressure is being exerted from above, you bend (lax enforcement) and bounce back (suggest to higher ups better policies) when the time is appropriate.
I know that the iPhone Mini users are few but vocal. Instead of a yearly refresh of the mini, they should do a run every 5 years or so. Make a bunch, sell out of inventory by year 3, make a new one year 5 with updates matching the spec/price de jour.
It's like a LTR (Long term release) iPhone.
I know there are Apple Engineers lurking here, start the whisper campaign!
I’m not sure this makes sense on a purely hardware sales sense but with Apple moving toward increasing software profits by ecosystem users, it would seem to make sense to do a long release cycle phone to expand the ecosystem. The iPhone Mini might not justify manufacture on its own, but 30-40 million extra Apple One purchasers might.
I was looking for an explanation of why apple and google received such a difference in outcomes.
1. Apple had to post a link that said Epic's product could be purchased at elsewhere
2. Google has to do a lot more. Like actual anti-trust punishment things
IMHO, these two should be both punished because the duopoly is pretty self-evident.
From what i could grep (and it's dumb): The problem lies in the structures of both monopolists. Apple has never ever let any one else make smartphones, and it's walled garden is completed, so the court can't compel it to open up and let others (like epic) play. So a link is all they have to do. Android smartphones do allow other app stores, but Google makes it hard to install them, highly discourage them, and google pays developers to not release on other app stores. So google has an "open" market but behaves like a monopoly. So the judge is trying to "level" the market and punish google for acting like a monopolist.
I think apple should get the same treatment, but how?
Try not to beat yourself up too much about it, I certainly have and it hasn't been very useful to do so.
You have a finite amount of energy in a day and learning takes a lot of energy. It's why a kid's job is the learn.
You could try front running the learning, but it will impact your energy levels at work. It still takes a monumental amounts of discipline, but you may have the energy to make it work.
I've seen my car's infotainment fail and restart, but i didn't thinking what is handling it underneath.
is there a chance that QNX has a podman-type application to run containers?