or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Crowley

^ He gets it.  I genuinely don't understand what the "Monop-Sony" comment was supposed to be.
WhWho's a monopsony? Sony?
Seems a bit wonky. It wasn't Crimea that invaded Crimea, it was Russia, so why punish Crimeans? The law, not Apple, obv.
Cripes. If that's the gradient then the 27" iMac is going to be a phone before long.
iPhone 4 was 326, so notably higher. And I think "first" is an overrated attribute of innovation. Apple delivered the whole package to back up that resolution, in the supporting hardware and the software stack. And they delivered it all at volume, and in a package compelling enough that every other manufacturer followed suit. They set the standard. No one was chasing after the S8000 Jet as a trailblazing, one-to-beat market leader, it's just a footnote for pedants to...
4, actually.  And it was by a significant margin the highest resolution display on any widely available mobile device, that has since been copied by every other manufacturer of note. So yes, standard-setting, and pretty innovative.  The maker of that first screen (don't even know, Sharp? LG?) should probably get as much recognition as Apple for industrial achievement, but credit to both for bringing it to market in volume.
Why?  That screengrab was from a news source in the USA. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/1-killed-3-injured-shooting-french-satirical-paper-article-1.2068486
Samsung hires someone directly connected to Apple: copying Samsung hires someone barely connected to Apple: copying Samsung hires someone barely connected to someone hired by Apple: copying Samsung hires someone: copying. - AppleInsider forums
Do we know of any instances of this happening?  If a carrier were to veto a security patch for a phone OS I imagine that would get some attention.
^ people are rarely forced into a contract, but once they're in a contract then they are obliged to abide by its conditions, or face consequences. If OEMs belonging to the OHA have to abide by conditions set by Google then Google could have included the condition of timely application of updates to the OHA agreement. They could have done that at any point since the inception of the OHA, and that would be tantamount to forcing OEMs to provide updates (unless they want to...
New Posts  All Forums: