or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by addicted44

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.
Why would anyone sign to those terms and conditions. Those are ridiculous. The GTAT CEO basically sold his company to Apple for pennies on the dollar (if they owe Apple money, as is indicated, they will probably try to repay in the form of assets, such as a certain foundry to create Sapphire glass. And they will do it for pennies on the dollar because Apple is pretty much the entire market for that foundry, so it is worthless to anyone else).
I still don't understand what benefits Sapphire offered over Gorilla glass. Increased hardness (so lesser scratches) for greater brittleness (so greater chance of shattering). Sounds like a wash to me. In addition, it is significantly more expensive to manufacture. I can see Sapphire making sense for the Watch, if for no reason than the fact that it is pretty traditional in high end watches, and since the watch will be marketed more like jewelry than a device. I really...
Bendgate was a massive blessing in disguise for Apple. Apple had (has?) a real issue with the iPhone 6 release, and it was the contemporary release of iOS 8.1. Releasing an update which prevented users from using their phones should have been a true controversy (esp. considering the general feeling that Apple's OS updates have become increasingly buggy over the last couple of years), but instead, the media was too fixated on this bendgate non-issue to focus on the real...
Doomed. /obligatory
New Posts  All Forums: