or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by malax

Simplest pricing ever.    The new MBAs are on the Apple Store now and for the first time in my memory there are no limitations between models. This is everything you need to know:   $1000 for the 11" with 4 gig memory and 128 gig flash storage 1.3GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5 + $100 if you want the 13" (and longer battery life). + $100 if you want 8 gig memory instead of 4. + $200 if you want 256 gig flash storage or + $500 if you want 512 gig. + $150 if...
  Booya!  What do I win?    "Instead, Klug noted that, where there are two settings inside the files with the word "throttle" in them, these "refer purely to a retry interval throttle to prevent the phone from continually trying to reattach to an LTE network in the case of some error."
  There's no smoking gun here.  Wow, there are some carrier-specific configuration parameters in iOS and one of them is called, ominously enough, "Service Req Throttle" and another is called "Throttling Parameters".  So what?  Look at the value of the second parameter: failure_timer_5: 720.  Maybe just maybe this is related to the iPhone adjusting automatically to network failures?    You know if you listen to Strawberry Fields backwards if kinda sounds like someone...
Maybe Mr. Gascan can provide us a simple technological solution to cancer and war next.   If it were easy, Apple would have already done it (and Android would have copied it).
  Yep.  I see the same thing for my apps.  Rounded but without the gloss.   FYI (for non developers), when you submit an app to the AppStore you can either opt to have Apple add the gloss or not to your icon.  If you look on your device, you'll see that the vast majority of developers/companies opt out of the Apple-supplied gloss and either do their own version or do without.  If Apple turns off this gloss option it will have minimal impact on user experience.  Presumably...
  I doubt it.  Unless Apple support starts getting a bunch of calls related to this, I can't see why Apple would bother.  The percentage of AppleTV owners who will learn about this is probably in the single digits and a tiny fraction of them will try it out.  If this were an iPhone or iPad hack, Apple would be all over it, but not AppleTV.   On the other hand... if this clues Apple in to a more generic "exploitable" issue with iOS in general, then yeah they will fix it. ...
  Good point.  I just found it interesting that the DoJ has about 10 "example" slides in their opening statement that featured an example of Amazon selling eBooks.  On every single slide, the price that Amazon pays to the publishers is less than what they charge to consumers.  I can't believe that Amazon is losing money on every book they sell, but the DoJ thought it was reasonable enough and common enough to use it for every one of their examples.  Maybe these slides are...
I really don't understand the Amazon business model.  They sell Kindles for a loss (at least they did initially and almost certainly do on their Fire models) so they can sell content (eBooks).  They sell eBooks at a loss so they can sell Kindles.  Do they expect to make up for it in volume?  Either they are complete idiots, or they want to subsidize reading, or, maybe, just maybe, they are figuring that in the long run their monopoly in the eBooks area will be exploitable.
  I was quoting directly from the DoJ's opening arguments so they are using this.  And I did so only to correct a misquote from that other guy that made it sound more damning.  I agree with you that "prices will be the same"  does not mean "wink, wink, we know that our initial prices will stick." 
Someone remind me what the DoJ is asking for in terms of damages?  Even if Apple loses, this could be a case like the classic NFL anti-trust loss.  The NFL was found guilty of collusion and because it was an anti-trust case the damages were tripled.  They had to pay $3.00 (plus interest).  1.9.3 USFL v. NFL lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums: