Are You Buying Halo 5? Why?/Why not?


Recommended Posts

Hopefully going to finally check it out tonight, I had the digital version pre-ordered as amazingly I still had Live credit from this past Xmas I had not spent, so I preordered it and Forza 6 months ago. I am generally against digital games, but both are reasons I own a One to begin with, because of the exclusives, and I had $150 in Live credit, so I went ahead and outright purchased both games despite not really playing MP these days. So I will see how it is.

I did wait a few days to check it out as I also caved in and purchased the Elite Controller. Although I did not preorder it I was able to purchase it on release day from Best Buy. Arrived today and I have to say it is a beautiful controller so far and I LOVE the feel in my hand. Feels substantial. The paddles are super weird though, just not used to them, and already took one set off. Looking forward to seeing how it works in a little bit for sure.

I do have to say the release of Halo has me reminiscing about the days of Halo 3. Not that many people left these days from the forums back then, but we had a very, very healthy Neowin community who played quite regularly with each other for a good couple of months. Really was awesome and the reason I was at one point in time so fond of this place. It was not always easy being a Moderator here specifically in charge of the Gamers Hangout then joining everyone in MP matches, but it was always damn fun. If someone is feeling up to it, they should really try to organize something along those lines for the regulars here. I may even come out of MP retirement for it.

 

Patiently waiting for positive feedback on a newly released product is the opposite of a disservice.

Not sure what more feedback you need? Everyone on here praising the multiplayer, All reviews praising the multiplayer, massive threads on all gaming sites praising the multiplayer.

but with online gaming being predominant for this generation, I don't think the vast majority would utilize split screen even if it was included.

That's more than true, I don't even carry a 2nd xbox controller anymore. But picking up an elite or halo special is making my wallet anxious with the amount I've spent on gaming the last few months.

With every troll review giving it 1 or 0 out of 10 on amazon and metacritic for lack of split screen co-op but maybe we're all the odd ones out :laugh:

  • Like 1

I have to say, I do not play much MP these days. Being 40 years old with limited time means I just leave it to the people that have time to put in, as quite frankly it is not all that enjoyable getting your ass handed to you by people who can put it in 10x the time you can and learn the maps, intricacies of the weapons, etc.

With that said, whether it is because it is still relatively new for everyone and/or just because it is that well designed and does help out players like myself still enjoy themselves, I really, really enjoyed what I checked out of Warzone last night. These days if I play Halo DM or any other DM type modes, I am almost guaranteed to be one of the worst players playing (referring specifically to Halo here). It is just how it is. Last night, although I was not at the top of the leaderboard, I was hovering in the middle/Top 5 the 3 matches I played, and I actually was contributing. Or at least I felt as if I was. I never felt dominated or over powered or at a disadvantage. Perhaps somehow the Elite controller was making me feel like Elite player (that's a joke), or perhaps, just perhaps, 343 has really done a damn good job of making a balanced, yet fun, MP experience.

I also played the campaign for about 2 hours, and it was pretty well done so far. Looks good. Performs good. My only complaint towards it, and keep in mind I was playing it solo, was it felt a bit formulaic. So far it almost always comes down to entering an area and finding the best weapon that is usually laying on its own somewhere in the area, clearing it out, and on to the next area. It was still fun, but felt a bit familiar.

I haven't finished the campaign yet, finished the first 6 missions, and then played some slayer, I've been pretty up and down with my kills/deaths but they're new maps I don't know yet.  I haven't tried warzone yet but I probably will tonight.   I'm licking it though, miss big team slayer from halo 4 but I'm thinking that's what warzone is + AI enemies mixed in for total chaos. 

Well, I played some warzone, it's pretty neat, the maps are huge which is nice but players always seem to fall into the same section and just turn it into another slayer match,    I think they should've had more AI running around, but instead after the initial clearing out of the enemy they have a few boss level guys that just stand around in specific parts, guess that's fine if you want teams to fight over who kills them and gets the points but so far it just means lots of times large parts of the map are empty.

I went back to playing normal 4v4 slayer for now, learning the maps, I like what they did with MP levels though, they're all a bit complex and multi-leveled,  you can go up and down and so on, basically 3 levels to each map from what I've seen, makes it both small and also large at the same time, way more vertical than I remember in any past Halo, and I like it, again once you figure out the maps that is.

And it really is back to map control and who gets the best weapons first, plus team work, if you run around a map on your own you'll quickly fined yourself in a being shot at by multiple enemies, it's best to work with others, be it a team of 2 or all 4 members moving together as a whole to control a specific part of the map.

Not sure what more feedback you need? Everyone on here praising the multiplayer, All reviews praising the multiplayer, massive threads on all gaming sites praising the multiplayer.

I was mainly waiting on the feedback of friends that I would be playing with. I needed to hear from them that they'd be playing for a while and it was worth picking up. I ordered it new on eBay for $50 yesterday. I probably won't touch campaign.

I've only played a couple of matches of Warzone so far, but I can't really say I'm a fan. It seems like 343 tried to copy the best parts of Titanfall and Battlefield but didn't quite understand what makes the multiplayer in those games so much fun. It almost always devolves into more of a deathmatch-style mode where people don't play the objective. The two maps I played on were extremely generic as well.

On the campaign front, the mission design is insanely bland. There's almost nothing that sets it apart from any other FPS campaign, and there was literally only a single memorable moment in the entire campaign for me, unlike previous Halo games. No big set pieces, which would be fine if the missions were memorable in some other way. In fact, I like how the scope of the campaign is much more focused since it's really just going after Chief the entire time instead of this big, messy, Bond-style locale hopping with no connection between missions.

I mean, the encounters with enemies are good, it's just that everything feels the same. It's so formulaic, including the two or three "missions" where you're just walking around talking to people. How those made the cut is beyond me, since they're so unnecessary.

On the plus side, I have to disagree with most reviews I've seen and say this is one of my favorite Halo stories thus far, up there with Reach and ODST. It isn't a convoluted mess like most other Halo games. It starts kind of slow, but ramps up halfway through the game. The starting storyline of Chief going AWOL and Locke sent after him is fine, but the storyline involving artificial intelligence is what makes it so good. It seems like the conflict in this game is one of the few that actually make sense in the lore of Halo. I mean, the Didact in Halo 4 just seemed wildly unnecessary.

I like the game a lot, just seems there's a few missteps. Now I'm going to dive in more to multiplayer, get started on Legendary solo and go through in co-op at some point. If anyone's interested in Heroic co-op and going for those achievements, shoot me a message.

I finished it today and liked the story, it's a good setup for the next game, sure it doesn't do anything brand new for a FPS but I didn't find the missions boring, heck, fighting the warden can be a pain.     I didn't find the level designs bland though, there's multiple ways to get through enemies, it's really meant for co-op more than for solo play though.

 

I'll eventually pick it up after its first major price drop.
Not in a rush to go out and play it, not saying the game is bad/good. 
I currently have too many other games viving for my interest.

After playing the Halo 5 campaign, my friend and I beat it in about 5 hours on Heroic. A very short campaign. Also, count on being a little lost if you've not been reading or keeping up with the lore of the story. There are several things in this game that go completely unexplained. Lastly, the campaign feels schizophrenic. There are multiple plots happening at the same time, making it difficult to remain invested in the core story as the shorter plots have little to no connection whatsoever.

Other than that, though, a couple of the maps have fantastic momentum and design. It is by no means a mechanically bad game, but the storyline is terribly executed in my opinion.

After playing the Halo 5 campaign, my friend and I beat it in about 5 hours on Heroic. A very short campaign. Also, count on being a little lost if you've not been reading or keeping up with the lore of the story. There are several things in this game that go completely unexplained. Lastly, the campaign feels schizophrenic. There are multiple plots happening at the same time, making it difficult to remain invested in the core story as the shorter plots have little to no connection whatsoever.

Other than that, though, a couple of the maps have fantastic momentum and design. It is by no means a mechanically bad game, but the storyline is terribly executed in my opinion.

I don't think anyone expected this to have a self-contained story, you have to have been keeping up with it till now, that's expected of you really.

I don't think anyone expected this to have a self-contained story, you have to have been keeping up with it till now, that's expected of you really.


This is not how video games work. It's funny, when Halo: Reach threw the entire book's story in the trash people defended it with "if you didn't read the books it still makes sense". Now, when Halo 5 is pretty much forcing you to have read the books to get the context of anything that is going on (why does Halsey have only one arm?) it's "it wasn't meant to be a self contained story". It should be, people who play the games cannot be expected to read the books or be involved with the extended lore. This is exactly why so many review sites were upset with the game's campaign. Not to mention none of what is there makes any real sense (on top of the marketing being an outright lie).


Lets get into some spoilers here:

1. Halsey is missing an arm, and there's never any mention of how she lost her arm.
2. Halo 4 and 5 never really go into why the Arbiter is no longer leading the Sangheli. Halo 5 just sort of tosses you in the middle of their war with the Covenant with little to no context. The only reason I even know about the situation is because I've read summaries of the books.
3. One thing I've never understood is how the Prometheans are suddenly just normal Forerunner things all over the place. What ever happened to their drones? Halo CE and Halo 2 had these massive drones all over the place... yet now we have these Prometheans (which I initially thought were unique to the Didact) everywhere.
4. 343 continues to not understand what rampancy actually is. They've used it once more as a shallow plot device to move the story forward with Cortana.
5. Cortana's reasoning is just idiotic. Why she somehow thinks she can "cure" rampancy, or take the place of humanity as the "reclaimers" is just weird. Why would the Forerunners leave everything they had to AI's and not another living race? This is also not explained, it's a plot twist with no real substance.
6. We fight the Warden Eternal seven times. Talk about reusing a boss. He was an interesting enemy, but no that interesting.
7. The entirety of the Locke vs Chief marketing resolved in a crappy fisticuffs cutscene between the two (which was the only conflict that either were in through the entire game).
8. 3 missions were crappy walking around parts that served no purpose (albeit had some interesting easter eggs... which could have been present without these sections).
9. You only play 3 missions as chief, and only one of them is any good.
10. The entire story was only about five hours, and was a cliffhanger. An obvious ploy at making us buy the next game when they should have given us a full story in this one.
 

Now, lets talk mechanical BS.

1. The allied AI is absolutely terrible.
2. The unique weapons do not use the same ammo as normal weapons of their type. Basically, if I have Kelly's shotgun and I find another shotgun I can't put the bullets from that shotgun in her shotgun. Thus the game forces you to abandon the unique weapons of the Spartans and use whatever is lying around in a vein effort to make you use all the crappy weapons available (specifically the terrible Promethean weapons).
3. The ammunition problem of Halo 4 is still present, every gun runs out way too quickly and there's not enough around to replenish them. So you end up swapping weapons constantly in an effort to survive. Unlike previous Halo games where you could actually grow accustomed to a weapon in some fashion.
4. The game is inundated with cutscenes. In fact, around an hours worth of cutscenes. This means my 5 hour play was only 4 hours of actual gameplay.

The campaign is by no means terrible, but there are some serious flaws with it that hold it back from being anything close to good in relation to the previous games. It's slightly better than Halo 4, but that's not because the storytelling was better. That's because the mission design was better.

  • Like 1

4. The game is inundated with cutscenes. In fact, around an hours worth of cutscenes. This means my 5 hour play was only 4 hours of actual gameplay.

The campaign is by no means terrible, but there are some serious flaws with it that hold it back from being anything close to good in relation to the previous games. It's slightly better than Halo 4, but that's not because the storytelling was better. That's because the mission design was better.

It's... only 4 hours long? :huh:

It's... only 4 hours long? :huh:


On cooperative mode, on Heroic a friend and I started the game about 6pm and finished by 1am. This is the shortest campaign in the series. Angry Joe finished the game in 4.5 hours on normal himself (3.5 without cutscenes). Keep in mind that 3 of the missions take roughly 1-5m to complete due to being just walk around and do nothing missions. This makes this game only 12 missions long, not 15.

This is not how video games work. It's funny, when Halo: Reach threw the entire book's story in the trash people defended it with "if you didn't read the books it still makes sense". Now, when Halo 5 is pretty much forcing you to have read the books to get the context of anything that is going on (why does Halsey have only one arm?) it's "it wasn't meant to be a self contained story". It should be, people who play the games cannot be expected to read the books or be involved with the extended lore. This is exactly why so many review sites were upset with the game's campaign. Not to mention none of what is there makes any real sense (on top of the marketing being an outright lie).

 

You must have not been paying close enough attention then, they flat out say how Halsey lost her arm, using that as an example is a poor one.     

As far as your team AI being poor, it's suppose to be I'd say, you really want a great AI that does most of the work while the player can sit back and watch?  What kind of game mechanic would that be exactly?   They're dumb, they're suppose to be dumb, you're suppose to either solo it, like the setting says, or co-op with friends.  In both cases the team AI doesn't come into it.

As far as weapons go, I don't see an issue with ammo for anything other than the UNSC weapons, yeah, those run out and you can't find much, like for the assault rifle and so on, but I didn't find the promethean weapons poor, or weak, heck I like those the best and use them often, even in MP (shotgun anyone?).     The game forcing you to keep swapping weapons to stay alive, IMO, is part of the challenge, why drop buckets of any ammo you want on you?  That's not exactly how it goes in real combat, and while it's a game, others have used limited ammo as a effective game mechanic and one that works, I also think it works fine in this case.

As far as length goes, well, sure it could be longer, but tell me this, in your 5hr run, did you manage to find everything?  I took longer and still didn't manage to find any skulls or all the intel around the missions.    Some might not care, true, but the intel at least helps with the story, as is always the case in Halo, collecting it all is a plus.  I took around 6, maybe 7hrs, because I tried to find stuff, and didn't even get half of it. 

Oddly enough, everyone else I am friends with and those posting on forums, it has been taking about 8-10 hours to complete on normal, and that is without skulls or finding all the data. My son's time was 9 hours, and that was without looking for any skulls or data and on normal. The number of missions don't matter, as that isn't what determines the length of the game. The game could be 1 mission and be 10 hours long, 15 missions and be 10 hours long or 12 missions and be 10 hours long.

I imagine it will probably take me close to 15 hours when I go back and do legendary.

1. You must have not been paying close enough attention then, they flat out say how Halsey lost her arm, using that as an example is a poor one.     

2. As far as your team AI being poor, it's suppose to be I'd say, you really want a great AI that does most of the work while the player can sit back and watch?  What kind of game mechanic would that be exactly?   They're dumb, they're suppose to be dumb, you're suppose to either solo it, like the setting says, or co-op with friends.  In both cases the team AI doesn't come into it.

3. As far as weapons go, I don't see an issue with ammo for anything other than the UNSC weapons, yeah, those run out and you can't find much, like for the assault rifle and so on, but I didn't find the promethean weapons poor, or weak, heck I like those the best and use them often, even in MP (shotgun anyone?).     The game forcing you to keep swapping weapons to stay alive, IMO, is part of the challenge, why drop buckets of any ammo you want on you?  That's not exactly how it goes in real combat, and while it's a game, others have used limited ammo as a effective game mechanic and one that works, I also think it works fine in this case.

4. As far as length goes, well, sure it could be longer, but tell me this, in your 5hr run, did you manage to find everything?  I took longer and still didn't manage to find any skulls or all the intel around the missions.    Some might not care, true, but the intel at least helps with the story, as is always the case in Halo, collecting it all is a plus.  I took around 6, maybe 7hrs, because I tried to find stuff, and didn't even get half of it. 


1. Just to be sure this is the case I'll take another stab at the campaign on easy and pay closer attention to the story, but I do not recall them going into it.

2. The AI is worse than the marines were in previous games. They often stand around not reviving you (inches away from you) or don't even shoot at the enemy. There's no excuse for completely useless AI. It does not ruin the game, but it's terrible regardless. I don't see any reason to defend it with "if it was good then the game would be easier". The game isn't particularly hard to begin with outside of constantly running out of ammo in the middle of trying to kill something.

3. I can understand if you like the promethean weapons. Personally, I find everything but a couple of them impractical, the ones that aren't impractical are just carbon copies of other weapons. The weapons that are actually useful are rare finds, most of the time the crappy homing automatic rifle and the pistol are the only drops around (and prove to be terrible since they lack any and all capability to be precise). When dealing with Covenant, the carbine is also extremely rare, forcing you to resort to less optimal weapons constantly until you find one that can actually help you on harder difficulties. There's not realistic here, people don't go around in real life combat picking up weapons all over the place and using them cause they ran out of ammo. They bring enough ammo. The capacity on these guns is laughable in Halo 4 and 5, barely getting you through a handful of enemies when they are throwing dozens upon dozens at you. It's not challenging, it's frustrating.

4. I don't think it matters how anecdotally long it takes different people to finish. What matters is how long it actually is, and the campaign is unforgivably short for something that ends in such a dumb cliffhanger and doesn't even provide what it advertised (this is the same as Halo 2's "finish the fight" cliffhanger).

I'd like to see some people address the issues in my spoiler category, as well.

1. Just to be sure this is the case I'll take another stab at the campaign on easy and pay closer attention to the story, but I do not recall them going into it.

2. The AI is worse than the marines were in previous games. They often stand around not reviving you (inches away from you) or don't even shoot at the enemy. There's no excuse for completely useless AI. It does not ruin the game, but it's terrible regardless. I don't see any reason to defend it with "if it was good then the game would be easier". The game isn't particularly hard to begin with outside of constantly running out of ammo in the middle of trying to kill something.

3. I can understand if you like the promethean weapons. Personally, I find everything but a couple of them impractical, the ones that aren't impractical are just carbon copies of other weapons. The weapons that are actually useful are rare finds, most of the time the crappy homing automatic rifle and the pistol are the only drops around (and prove to be terrible since they lack any and all capability to be precise). When dealing with Covenant, the carbine is also extremely rare, forcing you to resort to less optimal weapons constantly until you find one that can actually help you on harder difficulties. There's not realistic here, people don't go around in real life combat picking up weapons all over the place and using them cause they ran out of ammo. They bring enough ammo. The capacity on these guns is laughable in Halo 4 and 5, barely getting you through a handful of enemies when they are throwing dozens upon dozens at you. It's not challenging, it's frustrating.

4. I don't think it matters how anecdotally long it takes different people to finish. What matters is how long it actually is, and the campaign is unforgivably short for something that ends in such a dumb cliffhanger and doesn't even provide what it advertised (this is the same as Halo 2's "finish the fight" cliffhanger).

I'd like to see some people address the issues in my spoiler category, as well.

They revive me when I call out and they can get to me, many times they'd rush or try to and end up getting crippled as well, in which case we're both SOL.   I figure you have to call out for help or they won't come, even if they are next to you.   Still, I don't take the AI into account, in the past 4 games we've been alone, they're there mostly because 343i wanted to give you more of a co-op option in this compared to the other games.  

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      505
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      195
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!