or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by addicted44

This was probably as simple as optimistic technological expectations not panning out.   GTAT was at fault to the extent that they signed a ridiculously 1-sided contract with Apple. But that probably had a lot to do with the fact that it is unlikely that there was any other company who could have provided them with the resources to build such a facility out in the first place.   It seems Apple has a bad track record with identifying new breakout materials. First...
I was only interested in the retail (obviously in-app needs internet access).What I wasn't sure about is that Apple is one of the first few to implement a tokenization system. Assuming there is no internet connection required, what does Apple Pay send to the POS system? The code stored in the Secure Element? Wouldn't that allow retailers to continue tracking us?  Or does it connect to the merchant's servers through the POS system's network, and retrieve the token from...
Does anyone know if Apple Pay requires internet access to work?   I'd imagine that the tokenization process requires some communication with a supporting server, but does that go through the internet access on the phone, or could it potentially go through the POS system's networking infrastructure?
What's lamer is wamefinance's strawman, when as the AnandTech benchmarks I posted above show, even the supposed faster snapdragon based Note 4 loses out to the A7 based iPhone 5S in most CPU tests.
The rumor mills have confused it with Google TV, Android TV, ChromeCast, Nexus Q, or any number of other failed (being a little harsh...not sure if Chromecast has failed yet, but it is hardly mass market) attempts by Google in the living room space.
What does Exynos have to do with anything? The Snapdragon based Note 4 gets its ass handed to it by the 5S in most CPU tests, nvm the 6.http://www.anandtech.com/show/8613/the-samsung-galaxy-note-4-review/7It's a good thing Samsung is seeing those 60% drop in profits. It only means there are less paid trolls to swat down.
Ironically, Beats actually did get to where they are basically by marketing alone.Bose has some of the best stuff in the market. It may not be the best sound, but for the size and design, there is little that is comparable.The Beats acquisition still doesn't make sense to me. And if it, as is rumored, played a role in the silly U2 partnership (and I say this as a U2 fan) then it has already negatively impacted Apple. Even before this drama between Bose and Beats which has...
At that point wouldn't it be better for Apple to simply pay the higher price, or strike a deal which shares the risk better, than to make a purchase it wouldn't have otherwise (Apple buys only stuff it thinks gives it a competitive advantage, AFAICT). I don't think this will disrupt Apple's supply chain at all, but it may lead to suppliers demanding better prices, or at the very least, more equitable risk sharing.
That's interesting. What I will say is that before this, anytime a public company (especially a smaller one) announced a deal to supply Apple (or even if it was rumored), their stock price would rise. After this, if you are a small to mid-size public supplier, and it was rumored that Apple was a customer, I wouldn't be surprised if stock prices start dropping. That may give the supplier CEOs some leverage. I don't know much about this, so obviously not making any...
I think Apple may have pushed their luck with GTAT a little too far. I'd imagine smaller suppliers will indeed start looking far more carefully at a contract with Apple in the future. Especially, if they already have a decent customer list. With Apple's size, they are really struggling to find the suppliers they need, so I wouldn't be surprised if the power dynamics in the Apple-suppliers relationship starts tilting slightly more towards the suppliers.
New Posts  All Forums: