or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by LighteningKid

Yeah, that's pretty much what I remember reading, but as melgross pointed out, that seems like just a convoluted way of saying they don't want any licensees anymore because it wouldn't ever be worth it.
I was listening to the 1997 keynote a while ago where Steve was talking about how the clone-makers didn't want to pay licensing fees that were any higher than what they had paid before, even though those fees had seemed to be too low. I read something a while later about how after that, no one again tried licensing a Mac OS - but is that true? Does anyone here actually know if Apple would allow another company to license the OS if they paid a "fair" fee, or is it just not...
Yeah, maybe it's just generally a high-traffic time, being Thanksgiving and all. Because Canada is Apple's most important market... right?
When Thunderbolt was announced, didn't they say that the displays have to be the last item in the daisy chain? So connecting a drive to the display wouldn't work, would it? Or is that only true if the display is using DisplayPort instead of Thunderbolt?
I hope he keeps coming back to help with keynotes. I can see that they might not want him to so that there's no doubt that he's no longer CEO, but you have to admit that watching a Steve Jobs keynote is much more fun than watching a Tim Cook keynote was, for the couple of times he took over. Scott Forstall's pretty good, too, and Phil Schiller's not bad, but I'm not sure about whether any of them can pull off one more thing.
That's the "only" reason to design a building like this? Would you rather say it's the only one you can think of? You could also design a building like this to house a cyclotron, for example. I would be pretty surprised if Apple is doing that, though.
Was there some sort of Apple rumour deadline today? Everyone has to get their iOS rumours in before midnight or else... um, something bad happens?
To play the devil's advocate... While it is true that tiered pricing based on size of book wouldn't account for "author clout", that's exactly how it was done in music. Up until a couple of years ago, every song on iTunes was 99¢, no matter if the singer was Rihanna or Rebecca Black. Even now that there are different prices, you could argue the price is "controlled" since only a few possible values are allowed. "Premium" songs on iTunes don't get to charge more than 30%...
Is their argument that Apple should be setting the prices the way Amazon used to, rather than allowing the publishers to set their own prices? Weren't there complaints before that Amazon's price setting was unfair for devaluing books? Or maybe they want Apple to rein in the publishers the way they did with the music industry. They should set up price tiers so if the book is between x and y pages, it costs $a.bc. Textbooks and magazines can have their own schemes separate...
I wonder, if the entire industry except HBO and Disney are on board with UV, does TV really have any hope anymore? Disney (and I assume, ABC) can try to hold out for Apple's sake, but I don't see how they'll be able to put up a service that competes with what everyone else is offering. On a side note, when did the iCloud symbol on AppleInsider's header turn purple?
New Posts  All Forums: