or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by malax

Personally, I will be surprised if Apple announces an "iPad Air 2" along side an "iPad mini 3" tomorrow.  As others have said, this sucks from a branding perspective, implying that the new Air is a generation behind the new mini.  I think this was a goof at multiple levels--out of date/not ready for prime time content mistakenly published.
 Ok, but the designers who incorporated the "chin" share that view, and they chose to include the chin.  I bet they had a reason (or 10).  For example, if it weren't there, you wouldn't "just see a retina screen" you would see more of the wires and the stand that are hidden by the chin today.  Obviously Apple could make the iMac thicker and get rid of the chin, but aethetically it would be a step in the wrong direction (at least in the opinion of the Apple designers).  Now...
I don't understand this "chin obsession."  What difference does it make?  Are you inconvenienced by the fact that the bottom of the screen can't be at desk level?  Are you distracted by the slab of neutral colored aluminum below the screen?  You must have some basis for this complaint, but I can't imagine what it is.
Sounds like a good reason why Apple would do exactly that.  Apple doesn't need 2 13" retina laptops and (shortly) won't be selling any non-retina display devices/computers.
There was a retailer in in the US that used a similar model.  It was called Service Merchandise.  I haven't seem them around since the 1990's, but they were in various parts of the country in the 1980's.  That's what this article/plan reminded me of. The advantage that Amazon has is that they are a very sophisticated data mining and logisitics company.  So I would expect them to do a great job at predicting what items to stock in what quantities and to react quickly to...
There is no more Beats as an entity that can be sued.  It's Apple being sued.  It would be absurd if a company (outside of a regulated monopoly or essential utility) couldn't refuse to do business with someone who takes them to court (or is even just a competitor). At least this is one situation where no one can assert (with a straight face) that "Apple never would have done this is SJ were still around."
They aren't an "alleged non-profit" they are a legally recognized not-for-profit 501(c)(6) organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization: "While not-for-profit organizations are permitted to generate surplus revenues, they must be retained by the organization for its self-preservation, expansion, or plans. ... Designation as a nonprofit does not mean that the organization does not intend to make a profit, but rather that the organization has no owners...
You're moving the goalpost on your initial assertion that "Apple will come to regret" the Beats acquisition.  Obviously we can't "prove you wrong" on something that will either occur or not occur in the future.  But check back in a year or two and we'll have a better idea.  Apple does thing with very long time-frames in mind (or at least has done so repeatedly).  If in 2016 Apple hasn't done anything interesting in the music space (and if Beats isn't the dominant brand in...
Right.  In the overall scheme of things it's not a big deal.  In the same way that in the overall scheme of things it's no big deal if the bride falls on her face while walking down the aisle.  If you're inviting millions of people to tune into an event, you don't want anything distracting from that event.  And it's considered ironic and newsworthy when technical problems affect a technology company. Anyone willing to take my bet that the streaming will be rock solid this...
"It was a good paper."
New Posts  All Forums: