or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

Not sure why this is shocking. There have been rumors over the last year that Apple was courting Intel to fab their Arm chips. Apparently, concerns about the appearance of producing a CPU that was competitive to their own and some ARM licensing issues were complications. Many people expected the A7 was produced by Intel, until it was confirmed to be Samsung. http://hothardware.com/News/Despite-Claims-Apples-ARM-Business-A-Dubious-Opportunity-For-Intel-/ Even back as far as...
 I was thinking that. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility.
Adults aren't allowed to bring their kids into the liquor store?
Was thinking the same thing. Takes his iPad but leaves car keys and child.Priorities.
So McAdams isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch, hmm? Can think he honestly thinks he convinced Jobs to add LTE unless he is amongst the very dimmest of people walking the earth.
Yeah, I remember that. Was driven by a specific accounting method, wasn't it? I thought they have moved away from that that required charging for new features (i.e. when they had to charge iPod owners but not iPhone owners for the same update, or something like that). If they have changed accounting practices, then they wouldn't have to charge anything to enable it on existing units.   Maybe AWS requires flashing a chipset that can only be written to once. That would make...
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=593719&fcc_id=BCG-E2599A C2PC Cover Letter        
FCC filings make it clear there are NO hardware changes at all for AWS support. This is purely a firmware trigger. That being the case, why is Apple not going to simply expose the bands on existing phones through an OS update? Sort of smells.
There is no legitimate reason to allow locks in the first place and many reasons not to allow it at all.
yes, but the order was part of the trial, not after the trial. The trial, initiated by Samsung, was intended to get a ruling. The order may have occurred shortly after the finding of non-infringement, but it was still a part of the ruling. In almost any trial, orders flowing from the ruling often take a few days but they are still a part of the same trial, whether they followed by a few minutes, hours or days. Apple's activity after the trial did not (and logically...
New Posts  All Forums: