or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ktappe

I think the main reason to use this would be if you wanted to access your employer's Exchange-based email. (If you didn't already have Good for Enterprise or some other secure means of accessing it already.)
 Actually that's the very reason his opinion should be discounted: He has a very heavily-vested interest in pumping the stock. (Don't get me wrong: I'd love to see AAPL at $200. It's just that if we're to listen to anyone, it should be a neutral 3rd party.)
>OS X 10.10.2 prevents the Mac's EFI boot ROM from being replaced, and also makes it impossible to roll it back to a previous state.   This may be good for security, but Apple had better be sure to not release any boot ROM versions with bugs. They'll be impossible to patch in the field and would likely require every owner to take their Mac into an Apple Store or ship to depot for patching/repair!
What I don't understand is why Apple is dragging their heels here. The cost for them to make this right would be a pittance for them. Far, far less than they squandered on the Beats acquisition. pfisher is right above that there is friction in place to resist paying out in these lawsuits. But if nobody in Cupertino has yet woken up that this one has merit and "it's the right thing to do"(tm), then Tim Cook needs to recognize that gap in their corporation and fix it. "Don't...
Several of you have already commented on how hilarious that Monster would call anyone else a "sham".   What I'll point out is how ludicrous it is that Monster thinks it will be able to prevail against Apple's legendary legal team. Apple will have them for lunch.
 On the contrary, SCOTUS' decision is headshake inducing. It's blatantly anti-worker. If a worker is forced to stay at work 15 extra minutes (in some cases) to wait for bag inspection, they are at work!!! Only if the employer is forced to pay them for this time is the employer incentivized to bag-check them in an efficient & prompt manner. Now that SCOTUS has said "We favor employers in each and every case," what is to stop the employer from telling the employee "We don't...
 But a *much* lower percentage. iOS8 takes up 11Gb or 68% of the storage on a 16Gb device. That puts this in a whole different league.
You didn't pay $300 + $50/month to try to access the tooth fairy. If you had it would have been fraud on the part of the person selling it to you.
I think this has merit, if only because a 16Gb iPhone is nearly unusable. OK, that's a bit of hyperbole but the way any *reasonable* person would use the phone is to install apps and store photos and music. You really can't do much of that on a 16Gb iPhone running iOS8 before it runs out of space. Apple should not even be selling 16Gb models; they should start at 32Gb. 
 A lot of us.
New Posts  All Forums: