or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by wigby

The form is following the function. No one holds cameras directly up to eye level unless they have to use a viewfinder. When you have a larger LCD screen that tilts, you hold it below your eyes. It's more comfortable and don't look like my grandfather taking pictures.
So in your world most people don't do video editing but it sounds like most people can build a Linux server that is faster and cheaper than a Mac Pro. Narnia or just generic Fantasy Land?
AppleApple has always been able to focus on multiple things they are good at all at once including hardware, software, services and retail. And their competition doesn't seem to have too much difficulty at it either. When they dropped the "computer" from their name, they weren't sending a signal that they would just be focusing on a few consumer products for a decade. At least that's not the message I got at the time.
I still wonder why Apple has never gotten into content creation. They provide all the tools and services artists need. And apparently Jobs really nurtured creativity at Pixar so I'm not sure what held them back then or now.
 These are not innovative as much as they are "me too" features. You see, Apple is not playing catch up to them. they re playing catch up to Apple. Apple leads in mindshare for innovations like Siri and marketshare for innovations like Apple TV. that doesn't mean they'll be fine if they sit this one out this year either. I think we're all confident that there are a few updates coming to existing products like these as well as a new product category or two. But I think they...
That's fine but you do know that a judge and jury are deciding on things. They are also very imperfect so what is is just another set of stupid biased opinions. They might as well decide based on an appleinsider forum vote. That would only be a little less biased ;-)
Ask both sides that question. Never has both sides given your answer.
Haven't Apple's patents been upheld by the first stage of this very trial? What better example for the jury than to show a working patented item that has already withstood scrutiny from a jury of their peers? Right?   That being said, I do understand how Samsung is irked from this but justice cannot be fair to both sides.
Next up, Samsung will demonstrate how Thomas Edison's patents are invalid. (they are thinking of copying his lightbulb)
This concept might not seem that exciting to some but that's because it hasn't been marketed yet. Google and Motorola haven't begun marketing. And Apple's ads will make everyone desire an I watch, even if they don't need it.
New Posts  All Forums: