or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Mac_128

Ha! As long as Apple is in complete control of every aspect of it, and the customer doesn't want anything Apple doesn't want to provide.
I agree 4 million is a lot of watches, and 7 million watches in essentially two quarters is fantastic for a brand new device in a category that wasn't doing very well to begin with. I'm certain Apple is hoping for better numbers, but projected out at the same rate 14 million watches in their first year is far from a failure. But these numbers are wonky.  If Apple has only sold 7 million watches, and they sold 4.2 million watches during the 1st quarter it was on sale, that...
'The tornado that wrecked your house didn't touch mine, the wildfire that burned your house didn't touch mine, the hurricane that flooded your house didn't affect mine, the earthquake that damaged your house didn't hurt mine ... so shut up about your problems'HA!
You mean the exact same strategy Apple is using on its smartwatch that is "selling so well" they had to discount it almost 15% off?
Is he wearing the leather loop to the gym!? Yikes, he's gonna go through a few smelly bands in a short amount of time doing that!
Whether they did or not this year, they just released their annual upgrade plan. Considering the major carriers are also offering the phones with upgrade plans, or financed rates, and or other promotions, I don't really expect universal subsidized 2-year contract fees to make sense next year. It'll be interesting to see if Apple lists them as "starting at $21.64/month", or the universal sim purchase price, since every carrier is different now. 
Who said anything about $99 subsidized? Now that Apple has gone to mainly unsubsidized pricing, who knows how they will shake up the pricing structure when they release the iPhone 7?  The Watch is sold in $49 increments. So why not more subtle price differentiation with the phones? Right now it doesn't make much sense to offer the 6+ for the same price as the 6S, yet they do. As costs come down, and the product offerings change, and people start paying full price for the...
There's that legendary lack of imagination on full display!What less screen dimension to support? The 4" display uses exactly the same ratio as the 6S, it's just smaller. There's nothing extra to support. And what does "fitting" 3D Touch have anything to do with the technical limitations of producing a different-sized screen? Apple basically builds product on demand in their tightly controlled supply chain, how is fitting 3D Touch to an order of 4" screens any different...
How do you figure? IPhone to TV is a closed system -- peer to peer, as are the 4K iMacs. No network required. Apple controls the technology entirely. So dad shoots a 4K video during his trip to Disneyland on his iPhone 6S+, goes home and streams it instantly to his 4K TV via peer to peer AirPlay, then decides to edit it on his 4K iMac, and stream it back to his 4K video from the iMac. He sees some more changes he wants to make, which he does on his iPad Pro, and then...
No pun intended? ;-)I don't disagree, but the chief argument in defense of Apples decision not to include 4K, is that there's no content, and nothing in place to deliver it. What you're suggesting is that Apple is supporting a technology that has no significant installed base, not much content, nor delivery systems, either. If they're going to support one, why not the other?
New Posts  All Forums: