or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by foregoneconclusion

Those are some of the best ads that Apple has made recently.
The real issue is due process, not 100% privacy or unbreakable encryption. 
 Touch ID is not anything to complain about on the Pro. I can't claim to know if it's faster than the 6s version, but it's nearly instantaneous. Certainly much, much better than the Touch ID for iPhone 5s. 
iPad Pro makes my 3rd gen iPad feel like something from the stone age. I'm not so sure it's a "power user" only device either. 
At best, Tesla is currently a minor player in the car industry. They don't manufacture in volume, have difficulty getting their designs to market, and only sell to high-end buyers. It's unlikely that Apple is even thinking of Tesla as their target competitor.
According to Wired, MS said that the Surface Book will get 12 hours of battery with keyboard attached and 3 hours of battery without the keyboard. So, in other words, making the screen detachable was largely pointless. http://www.wired.com/2015/10/microsofts-surface-book-looks-like-ultimate-hybrid-pc/
There's no point in making a detachable screen for the Surface Book if it only gets 3 hours of battery life in that mode.
 Cab drivers are up in arms that Uber is not regulated the same way that their own service is, despite the fact that Uber is obviously a direct competitor and provides an identical form of service. In other words, the gripe is not about having to compete on quality, but rather that the same rules should apply to everyone within the industry. 
It's likely true that the biggest annoyance to most people is that the technology being used to deliver the ads just isn't that good. Slowing performance, causing crashes, eating large amounts of data, security risks...those are real penalties to consuming media that don't exist in other formats. I don't use ad blockers, but those problems are very obvious when web browsing and it seems like there's an element of complacency when it comes to improving the experience. 
Regardless of the merits of the case on either side, I've never understood why the DOJ would consider a $3 increase for an entertainment product to be a priority for prosecution when you have huge scams in areas like housing, health care, and education that are actually necessities for consumers. As a consumer, saying "no" to a NY Times bestseller because it's temporarily at a higher price isn't going to impact your quality of life very much.
New Posts  All Forums: