or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by cnocbui

I beg to differ. The idea of patenting things which appear in nature, the existence of which did not come about through any intellectual endeavour of man is one; and the patenting of software is another. I would add to that allowing a patent holder to set the price for use of an idea, rather than having the fee determined and set by a third party is another flaw.
An Israeli company claiming someone else is using their IP without paying for it is actually almost funny. In 1968, Mossad stole 250,000 blueprints for the Mirage III jet fighter from French company Dassault and then put them into production. What's hebrew for hypocrisy? Is it anything similar to chutzpah
This is about the morality and perception from the point of view of an owner. It is not about splitting some nano scale technical hair about which chip held what capability. I can just see it now, a disgruntled and pissed off Touch owner being told - 'Hey, chill dude. Yes I know the iPhone users get the OS update for free, and you have to pay $10 for it just to be able to use the Bluetooth you already paid for, but it's not like it was on a separate chip man. That...
How about Apple have done this before? Apple sold a version of the iPod Touch which had a bluetooth chip inside without telling purchasers. They then later said they could activate the bluetooth by paying $10 for new firmware.
I saw a black cat on my windowsill today I asked it if it intended to purchase an iPad. I think it probabaly will as it replied 'Mrrrow', most emphatically. Just thought everyone would want to know as I think it was highly significant.
Perhaps he should have said announced, rather than release. However, he was perfectly correct in that the information about what the iPad is and does has been released and the markets are now able to use that information. It is the release of the information, rather than the physical product, which is important in this issue.
When the 2G iPod Touch was released, it had the hardware to enable bluetooth but it was not functional. Touch users who wanted to enable the hardware had to pay $10 for new firmware that would enable the bluetooth.http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3988 My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek humour. The iPad could ship with a camera that was not enabled by the firmware and Apple 'could' then charge for new firmware to enable it. There is certainly a historical precedent...
The iPad does have a forward facing camera. I am astonished people have not twigged to the micro revenue strategy Apple has been pursuing for some time. After the iPad goes on sale, Apple will reveal that the suckers, sorry - lucky owners - can unlock the feature by purchasing a new version of the firmware. Some Touch owners may experience a sense of DéjÃ* vu when this is announced. I have seen plenty of mobile phones with excellent cameras and have one of them. Surely...
Nail -> Head.
I have a Samsung phone with an AMOLED screen. It is no more washed out in sunlight than an LCD screened device powered by small batteries. It is not 'impossible' to view in sunlight. I was using mine recently when skiing to take movies and photos. You don't suppose those commercial screens could be mains powered, using Something like 10 or more Cree EZbright LEDs pulling a full amp each? Those commercial units are not powered by a piddling little 25 wh battery. They...
New Posts  All Forums: