or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by sdbryan

The article covers more than one issue but the part about capital expenditures is not fantasy. If you follow the analysis of Deidu at Asymco you probably recall that Apple's capex has been growing at an incredible rate so that it is at a level similar to chip foundries like Intel. To stay in the game they may need to tap that huge cash reserve as capex continues to soar. I don't see it as apocalyptic but rather evidence of Apple playing the long game. Most were criticizing...
Well which is it? Is it an HTML5 app or a native iOS app? I wonder if this issue is understood/covered by any other publication.
You don't really have to go past the fact that the suit was filed in the eastern district of Texas. That is the patent troll world headquarters. It has been so abused that it is surprising something hasn't been done to shut it down or clean house. On the other hand maybe it (eastern district of Texas) continues to be egregious in its decisions leading to a complete overhaul (or shutdown of business method and software patents) of the patent system before all...
"If that's what Apple has planned for a smaller iPad why bother?" Because an iPod touch has better portability and is thus essentially always available. A mini tablet has a screen that works better for extended reading but you won't always have it with you. Of course there is also the one handed versus two handed issue but I would include that in the "always available" factor.
The iPod touch is quite different from any tablet. It fits in your pocket and can be with you always (except if you are swimming). The same cannot be said of a tablet. I know I am definitely buying an iPod touch to replace my 3rd generation model and so is John Siracusa, so that is at least two. I hope there is decent availability but with the great screen, better camera, power efficient Bluetooth, better performance it easily justifies the $300 price for me. I think...
Gosh, is someone stuck back in the 90's? Explanations about a company of the scale that Apple has achieved in terms of a small group of fanatics is severely reality deficient. The only significant manipulation going on is creating products that are highly desirable to a mass audience.
I believe what this new variant of WiFi brings that is not already available with bluetooth is higher bandwidth and fidelity. Possibly because of its roots in cellphone headsets and power constraints the audio profiles for bluetooth are rather modest when it comes to audio fidelity.
Of course they have removed a feature. The customer is already paying to have his data moved across the network. AT&T is deciding there are some bits they won't move for a paying customer. It is none of their business how the customer uses those bits. This is what network neutrality is about. The actions of AT&T are outrageous.
This has to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on the Internet in20 years (yes, including years before the commercial web). I presume it must be trolling, but really, a prop in a sci fi movie as prior art? It is a prop, not an invention. The judge quite properly excluded it because the assertion was incredibly stupid and has no place in a court of law. The lawyers for Samsung should be (and might be) ashamed of themselves for such a frivolous motion.
If you carry it in your pocket, it is an iPod. If you carry it in some sort of backpack, it is an iPad. In most ways the current iPod touch and iPad are very similar. But I'll take out my iPod on a whim while bringing out my iPad usually means I'm seated or have a more compelling reason. Also, an iPod can usually be used one handed while an iPad usually requires both hands.
New Posts  All Forums: