What is with Apple using 1000 cycle batteries on laptops and only 300 cycle ones on iPhones?
That is less than one years use before the KO approaches for many. That matters little phones with a battery hatch.
It just pains.
Yes, that Shuffle is an iTunes stifled low tech option yet still sold well.
If anyone else brought it out it would have been laughable.
In a similar way Apple does similar with the base iPads. They are limited in Apples inimitable way and stay popular.
The iPhone by 'staying as it was' has gone the same way.
It really shows consumers simply do not want to have to choose, a very good thing for Apple.
I thought that was the point.
Talk bull and when its called bull claim how fair the system is.
And its always been about Google, Samsung just stated the complete obvious there.
One thing I blame Samsung for is going via Jury. Apple have spent years training mindsets, they got a decision was obvious to anyone that has followed the complete marketing phenonima that Apple has always been.
Strangely it was Samsung tech that gave us the iPhone and iPod.
Samsungs fault was not 100% staying the slave. They still maintain the slave status with regards to low key selling their own chipsets elsewhere.
The mob hatred of Samsung, as Apple certainly intended, is good old fashioned protectionism at work.
I doubt anyone knows what he believes. He has been getting a very bad rap for being consistent in his "paid bias".I think the Foss guy has likely financially milked his past for all its worth and knows he needs to tame his bias.
For small players it is worthwhile to have Apple as an expensive pimp, but bigger players know that long term selling their body that way, content creation stalls through that major added cost.Platforms are simply the middleman, and as such the commission charged has to reflect the real world.I would not be surprised if the major studios are not working together to create their own cheap content delivery system. There is no reason why they cannot emulate that $15 Now TV...
If you transpose some of these comments to touchscreens you might observe that strategic Apple patents are surreptitiously owning the screen manufacturers.
Handcuffing those that makes the hardware is a dangerous tactic unless long term you are happy to use only bottom rung suppliers.
With the world looking on it does seem more than a bit strange that the FEDS 'an Overview for Jurors' included the main contention in their video.
So looking through the round world window Apple have them where they want them.
That is, right in a square corner.