or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by KPOM

 Apple tends to prefer "later" when it comes to adding RAM, since it also increases power consumption. Right now, most applications barely take advantage of the current capabilities of the processor, and there aren't many mobile applications that as yet need 1GB of RAM. Multitasking is a good argument for an increase, but if it is limited to 2 applications running side by side, there's probably no rush to increase it to 4GB. Apple still sells Macs limited to 4GB.
 Not if they announce it at WWDC. If they do, the feature will be supported at least on the A7-based iPad Air and maybe the A7-based Retina iPad mini and A6X-based 4th iPad. Otherwise, they'll wait until they have a hardware launch in order to announce the new features.
 I doubt that the next iPad will have 4GB. It might still have just 1GB (saves battery). 2GB would be the most. After all, the Surface Pro 2 you are referring to is an Intel x64-based design (the same as the MacBook Air). The Surface 2 has 2GB RAM.
Only on subsidy, which European carriers are less likely to offer, and which even American carriers are rethinking.
Only if you drink beer while flying on airplanes.
This is probably a case of socioeconomic factors. Apple products appeal to the affluent, while Android devices appeal to the masses. Those with money drink wine, fly airplanes and are more likely to buy Apple products. Those on a budget drink beer, take public transportation, and are more likely to buy cheaper technology.
She tripled the value of Burberry in 7 years. Could you or i have done that? Probably not. So, if anyone is worth that much, she is.
That's not how patent law works. Google doesn't make phones and they don't charge for Android software. $0 revenue times anything is still $0. Apple can't directly go after Google's ad revenue.
 What's weird is that Samsung succeeded in devaluing its own patents, but not in devaluing Apple's (at least not to the extent that they wanted to). Overall, it's a much better day for Samsung than the last trial, but the larger message is that both sides have a stronger reason to reach a permanent settlement. They have a duopoly on smartphones right now and it's shaping up that way on the tablet side, as well. Neither is going to knock the other out of the game with IP.
Not really. Sure, it's a lot better than last year's result, but the patents have value, which is what their counterclaim for $6.2 million was attempting to refute. More likely this puts pressure on both sides to reach a cross-licensing agreement of some sort. Maybe $2-4/phone net to Apple (less than what Apple gets from HTC, but over a larger volume).
New Posts  All Forums: