or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by joelsalt

I remember a few years ago, in the white-plastic era, where it was common knowledge to never buy a rev A because they had too many problems. Waiting for Rev B.   Old school!
So a 1600 dollar monitor that needs calibration by a graphics expert is comparable to a 999 dollar display that comes calibrated.  Or am I missing something? I recently downgraded from an Apple Thunderbolt display to a  Dell that cost almost exactly the same price at work.  This monitor is atrocious - it has a soft screen and only DVI, lower resolution, is chunky hot plastic.  Shocked they were the same price point.
"Average title download size is approximately 50 GB" - http://us.support.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3848.
Yea thats not true.  But it doesn't really take away from your point, either, which illustrates how the north american job market has been heading for a while now. One problem with robotics might be changing them every time a new phone comes out.  May be too expensive.  Of course I don't know much about it, just venturing a guess.  I can't believe Foxconn wouldn't use more pervasive robotic technique if it were more profitable.
Yea I like the 'summarily dismiss as not thinking it through' straw argument that a few have thrown around in this thread, and then arbitrarily say 2 lbs. Multiplying height/width of Air/Mini Retina = 1.487x bigger for the air at just 1.369x more weight. Using these numbers you'd get a iPad "Pro" at 13.9 inches (width) for 1.369 pounds. But anyway the point of the comment still stands.  Ireland's absurd "how could you hold it?" comment doesn't hold any water.  1.369 or 2...
A new 13" pro would probably be no heavier than the original iPad, which I have and my arms haven't fallen off yet.
This is way nicer.   Next: add folders!
From an August 2012 Report Despite the continued posting of losses in the US market, according to a Reuters report, the gaming industry is projected to hit $70 billion, globally, up from $65 billion in 2011.
Those aren't competing ideas.  At all.
Also, people seem to forget that the smaller a product is the a) less material is used b) less weight/volume is shipped c) less has to be recycled. Making a smaller producet a) saves on material costs b) saves on shipping costs c) saves on recycling costs Smaller products = cheaper to produce* and more environmentally friendly *assuming similar fab costs
New Posts  All Forums: