or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by malax

That's not my understanding.  There are older devices that won't run iOS 8, but those that will will have all the features.  Now for iOS 9...
You'll get no argument from me about that.  My assumption is that Apple will roll out a new iPod touch (with bigger screen, better processor, etc.) and keep this current model around as the low-end/entry point for a while.
This removes any support for the argument that "because of this, there is no way that Apple is going to do 'another' iPod touch refresh in the near future."  This change is basically a marketing refresh and the elimination of an odd-ball low-end configuration.  It's easier for Apple to make 1 model of iPod touch with 3 different storage options.
 “It is not the role of this court to identify and plug loopholes,” Scalia wrote. “It is the role of good lawyers to identify and exploit them, and the role of Congress to eliminate them if it wishes.”  
Glad I don't like in Illinois.  In my state they ask a similar question but there is no suggestion that they verify it.  Moreover, we actually get an income tax deduction based on the inferred amount that we spent on sales tax (and I believe if you have document that you spent more than expected, you can claim that higher amount).
Pretty clever on Microsoft's part.  They can book the revenue from selling a tablet and also earn a profit by selling the MacBook Air's on eBay.  I don't know what the consumer gets out of it, but that's not MS's problem.
I know plenty of iPhone users and I have never heard them complain about water damage.  Having said that, I don't doubt that iPhones do get damaged when they go through the wash or drop into the toilet.  But I wouldn't expect Apple to pick up the tab for repairing such things.  But yes, I think most of us would welcome more water-resistant devices.
It doesn't.  But if the various authorities who could bring legal action believe that justice has been served, then it's appropriate that they wouldn't take any further action.
That's absurd.  A few thousands dollars seems like appropriate compensation for employees who might have been recruited if these companies didn't have (perhaps informal) agreements to not do that.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars per person--who can't prove that they were personally affected--is nuts.  The settlement might be on the low side--Apple and others should feel some pain and be discouraged from going down this path again--but it's not off by a factor of 100.
 But you're missing the point.  Most posters here are interested in Apple (this isn't eCommerceInsider, after all), so their/our reaction to this Amazon stuff is mostly about how it will effect Apple.  There's nothing wrong with that.  This is just another Android phone with Amazon's marketing muscle behind it.
New Posts  All Forums: