Apple to open latest retail store in Dubai Mall on April 27th

“Shoppers are expected to make a beeline for the unveiling of one of the most-loved tech brand’s latest retail location in Dubai this month, which is expected to be the biggest in the UAE,” Cleofe Maceda reports for Guld News.

“Apple’s first two-level shop in the emirate will open its doors on April 27, 4pm in Dubai Mall, and fans can expect more than just a display of gadgets,” Maceda reports. “The American company will also be hosting free workshops at its newest outlet, as well as learning camps and field trips for young customers.”

“The company had earlier unveiled a giant mural surrounding its storefront in Dubai Mall, as a preview to this month’s grand opening,” Maceda reports. “It’s the third Apple store to open in the UAE. In 2015, the company opened two outlets in Dubai’s Mall of the Emirates and Abu Dhabi’s Yas Mall.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Congrats, Dubaians!

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz,” “Dan K.,” and “Brawndo Drinker” for the heads up.]

19 Comments

      1. And, one can always hope, that prejudice is one of the reprehensible conditions that will gradually be addressed and rectified as humanity gains wisdom and perspective. I have to admit, however, that my belief in the gradual enlightenment of humanity has taken a right cross over the past couple of years as the more hidden elements of prejudice in the U.S. have crawled out of the woodwork. Still, it is better to see and face the prejudice than to have it festering and rotting in the recesses of society, ready to corrupt the next generation.

    1. Andy, I suppose that depends on who you define as “actual people.” Are you saying that the policies in N.C. have harmed no one? Or just that they have not harmed anyone whom you consider to have any value? Be careful, your ignorance is showing.

      While citizens of the U.S. enjoy strong protections as defined in the Constitution and associated amendments, including the Bill of Rights, the U.S. is not doing so well in terms of imprisonment. We put a *lot* of people in jail, and it costs a lot to put them in prison and keep them there even though the benefits to society are unclear in many cases (e.g., minor drug offenses). That is one of the more unpleasant aspects of our society, and the impacts are not equal across the socioeconomic classes. As I have stated before on this forum, rich drug offenders go to rehabilitation, but seldom get a record, often go to college (or at least finish high school) and generally have an opportunity to develop a good career. Poorer drug offenders, on the other hand, tend to be arrested and put in jail, may not even complete a high school education, and have trouble finding a decent job given their jail record and educational status.

      Wikipedia for incarceration rates per capita by country
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

      The U.S. is near the top at 693 (adults) per 100,000. The United Arab Emirates is #56 at 229 per 100,000. You should have picked on Turkmenistan, for instance.

      On the positive side, the number of juveniles in detention in the U.S.A. has dropped from ~105K in 1997 to ~54K in 2013. Perhaps we are making a little progress in recent years?

      1. I should have noted that I lived in the eastern U.S. for over two decades and have visited the state of N.C. a number of times. In addition, my sister lived there for years. It is a beautiful state, but its politics have been controlled for years through blatant (but, unfortunately, legal) district gerrymandering.

        We need new processes for defining districts for state and national elections. Politics have corrupted this process, just as it is corrupting the judiciary. I have never understood why judges should be defined by political party on the Houston ballot.

        1. “I have never understood why judges should be defined by political party…”

          you infantile moron, Republicans and Democrats affirm a supreme court appointee by vote, that by definition is “political.” The president who nominates him belongs to a political party. This is constitutional law.

          goddamn, Melvin, take a fücking civics class….
          correction: an AMERICAN civics class.

            1. …well, I used to be civil with Melvin and originally thought him just haplessly uninformed…however, after over ten years of reading his pontificating, pusillanimous posturing, I guess I have lost any “warm and fuzzy” tolerance I once had for him. Further, when an adult American citizen that has lived his entire life in the United States persists in contradicting what is known by even the most mediocre of seventh-grade civics students, one can only deduce he is an “infantile moron.” I assume I should regret if that epithet has offended your delicate sensibilities…

              but, I don’t.

            2. botvinnik,

              Obviously, this thread has dropped off the radar long before now, but I just noticed your reply to KingMel. Even the most mediocre of seventh-grade civic students in Texas understand the difference between “judges … on the Houston ballot” and judges nominated by the President.

              Judges in our state are elected, not appointed. Given that we have a functionally one-party state that has not elected a Democrat to statewide office in a couple of decades, it IS kind of strange that we acquire our judges in partisan elections. That is the question he was asking, and it is a lot more reasonable than not.

            3. federal judges are not appointed in ANY state, moron…they are all appointed by the president upon approval by congress…state judges, depending on state laws, are either appointed or elected by citizens…ALL OF WHICH IS POLITICAL.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.