or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by JeffDM

I doubt that happened though. There is some irresponsibility in allowing him on the board, knowing Google bought Android a year before, but I don't think there is necessarily any wrongdoing like you claim. It's possible, but I don't think the timeline fits an accusation of Schmidt passing information to Google. If Google had their touch screen phone ready less than six months after Apple's, that would be one thing, but it took about a year and a half produce a half-assed...
The only think I can think of is sponsored location pins. I don't know if Google monetizes traffic patterns, but it might be data mined to help choose a site for a new store.
I think a clarification is in order here. From the promo video, I think it's clear the part is CNC machined, but the question is how much. Apple doesn't make it clear whether the chassis is milled from an extruded blank like a Unibody Mac, or formed using some other process.The metallurgical tolerances of aluminum can vary enough that you get noticeable difference in material properties from the alloys of the same type. An alloy has certain allowable ranges for different...
That is true, but the thing is you're probably the only one that calls it that way. Everyone else just calls it an iPhone 5.
Did Apple even say it was a fifth generation device? Otherwise, I don't understand what the problem is.
I didn't think about that, but some generation of anodized nanos had sharp square edges on the ends. I had one, and I do recall nicking mine on the ends with an impact. A couple generations of shuffles were shaped similarly too.
The "white" model doesn't use color on the band, so any nicks would be much less noticeable. The stainless band on the 4 and 4S don't show any marks from use very easily because there is no coloring, but mine will show plenty of marks from a couple drops.Apple has used anodized parts before, several generations of Nano and Shuffle were anodized aluminum. I think the faceplate of the Classic was anodized aluminum. I wonder how much of this is extra scrutiny from the users.
I think it's just a model number. Model numbers don't necessarily have a meaning behind them. The "S" in some iPhone models didn't really have a meaning behind it. I don't understand your resistance to Apple's naming, that's what they're calling the product. I do believe that an Apple exec considered the original iPhone and iPhone 3G to be the same generation.Apple never declared why the A4 chip is numbered like that, or said what would have made an A1 through A3, or what...
Edison probably would have been ruled out on trademark considerations. Naming a product or a company often has considerations not stated in the official story.
I'm sure Apple looked into it, I won't put any stock into rumors of any Apple CF-based products until Apple announces it.
New Posts  All Forums: