or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Alfiejr

here's my favorite Gush. it's not a major tech site, just one of those others that SS can buy outright:   http://www.latintimes.com/samsung-galaxy-s5-vs-iphone-5s-compare-features-specs-price-and-more-poll-155273
More CNET Gush:   http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-57619550-78/smile-the-samsung-galaxy-s5s-16-megapixel-camera-is-pretty-good-so-far/
PCMag goes straight to the heart of Gush - the specs:   http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2454105,00.asp
CNET is not going to be out-Gushed:   http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-57619546-78/samsung-galaxy-s5-reveals-its-hidden-features/
here's a big ZDNet Gush:   http://www.zdnet.com/why-samsungs-galaxy-s5-is-the-best-business-smartphone-7000026772/
 "See all 4,148 articles.": http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&topic=tc&ncl=dHyyRHyrC2uh-mMq-VeRLwRq8ni-M
well, the Samsung S5 unveiled yesterday is a totally underwhelming new model. last year's chip, screen, and OS. a few more megapixels but no dual flash. various spec bumps and lots of bells and whistle gimmicks. and oh yes, a third-rate fingerprint sensor and gold plastic case - with dimples!   so what does the tech press do? gush about it! no real reviews yet but lots of hype about what a solid "evolutionary" improvement it is.   i guess "evolutionary" in only bad...
well, we are now about to have a real life test of the Samsung payola hypothesis. the new Galaxy S5 unveiled today is a blatantly derivative P.O.S., complete with an inferior Touch ID knock off fingerprint sensor and gold plastic case, along with a few spec bumps but no 64 bit chip.   if the Apple 5S had been this lame it would have been branded a "total fail" last year.   so let's see how the big tech websites review this Samsung bow-wow. i'll drop back into this...
sure, but the OHS agreement does not incorporate Google services per se.
 there is no real difference between this and EricTheHalfBee saying "Google shut them down pronto." anytime one party "tells" another "to choose" in order to "remain with in the terms" of a "contract," that is of course ipso facto an implicit "threat" of "legal action." that is routinely how contracts are enforced. the only alternative way is to suspend actual services or payments provided by the aggrieved party to the other under the contract, but those are N/A in this case.
New Posts  All Forums: