or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

What he factually said is accurate. In essence he talks about about "selling" user data from cloud storage and email, noting Apple doesn't do that. In fact the focus of his comments are often email/messages related. He doesn't say Apple doesn't monetize their users data, what we sometimes fondly call "you're the product". Why? Because it would not be true. Now if your takeaway from his press appearances is that Apple doesn't "sell you" there's no surprise. That's what he...
They already do. It's just an relatively insignificant amount of revenue they get from doing so at the moment. Doesn't mean they're not trying to do better. FWIW tho Apple is making strides in putting experienced ad people in place with recent new hires, working closer with advertisers to give them the information they want to better target Apple users, and putting iAds in more places with more eyeballs (and ears). IMO iAd is only going to get bigger and command more...
Canalys report came out before the Apple results were released. I posted it yesterday morning in fact.http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/187289/nyt-cites-absence-of-top-ios-apps-in-search-of-apple-watch-failure#post_2750364They had good stuff to say about Apple and their watch.
It has nothing to do with "copied code". Zilch.The issue is that if Section 89 is allowed to be interpreted in the manner this court thought it should be the mere use of a single icon in a software package could completely bankrupt a company if that icon is found to infringe some obscure design patent. For that single icon of the 100's they might have in their software they could see 100% of their profits taken as damages. THAT'S the problem. I've no idea why your think...
Really? Then you didn't even read the very first post in this very thread. You should do so as there was some good info there.
So all the products Apple has in development are side-lined since we don't know the exact launch date if ever?
That little "NEXT" thing of yours is kinda habit-forming. "And in parallel, Google Glass was met with giddy optimism for years, despite never actually launching for real until it was sidelined as a product entirely."It's not sidelined.
Well one truth is that Google Glass is still very much alive.http://www.forbes.com/sites/theopriestley/2015/07/04/how-google-glass-v2-could-change-the-enterprise/That doesn't mean the NYT article was anything more than poorly constructed click-baiting built on a flawed premise.
Fingerprint tech can now be built directly into the display. I imagine Apple isn't too far behind in doing so for themselves. http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/21/sonovation-has-bonded-3d-fingerprint-sensors-to-gorilla-glass-kiss-your-home-button-goodbye/
"Viewing the smartphone as a single “article of manufacture,” the panel held that the statute (289) required it to award the total profit where the “innards of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately from their shells as distinct articles of manufacture to ordinary purchasers." Can you see a possibility, however remote, that this could negatively affect Apple in some future hearing? Can you imagine a court being "required" to to award the total profit from all...
New Posts  All Forums: