or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

If it is real, that lady might get fired.
That's weird. To my knowledge there is no combination of button presses, that only involves the lock button, that would put it into DFU or a diagnostic mode.    Did you have a reason for wanting to protect the headphone jack from the rain, over protecting the dock connector port, mic and speaker ports? ;)
I am. Will ensure it is in the correct orientation when I pull it out of my pocket. Currently, since it usually goes in the pocket with the headphone jack up (when headphones are plugged in anyway), when you reach in and pull it out, it is upside down in your hand.
Well, his pending mea culpa not withstanding, it is becoming very petty after the first few people pointing it out. We don't need this to become a "let's jump TS" thread, whether it might be deserved or not.
So long as we are done with people saying the iPhone 4S was "iPhone For Steve" I am fine.   Except I guess we might get people claiming the 5 is 'leetspeak for S and again means Steve....then I might need alcohol. 
I think everyone needs to get past whether some thought it would be the iPhone 6 or 6th gen iPhone or iPhone 5 or New iPhone or whatever. It could have gone any way. We all had reasons to see it any of those. We could all have been wrong if Apple had decided differently.    Hell, it would be a hoot of the 5 is just their way of gaming us all and TS ends up being right ;)
Guess it might be called the iPhone 5 after all.   Edit: removed pic as the story was updated to include it.
I was thinking the same thing. The complexity of the accusations and any damage calculations and the need for unanimity makes me think this isn't going in Apple's favour. Really hope I'm wrong and the jury smashes Samsung but I have a bad feeling because of how fast this was.
How did this idiot end up at Apple? Never thought he was a good fit. He is the new Papermaster.
Sounds like Samsung is using Motorola's playbook. In the Apple/Moto lawsuits, how has Apple done in arguing that they were covered by Qualcomm's license when the bought chips from Qualcomm that used Moto IP? It seems like Apple should have easily won based on a) being covered as a customer of Qualcomm b) FRAND principles against discriminatory terms. But hasn't Apple been having a rough go with the various courts with their moto cases?
New Posts  All Forums: