or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Blastdoor

It seems hard to draw inferences about demand when it isn't even available to purchase in stores yet. I suspect there are a lot of people, and maybe particularly women, who want to be able to try it on and then buy the one they want on the spot. Scheduling an appointment to try it on and then placing a separate order online is kind of cumbersome.    Until Apple has good availability at retail, I don't think we'll have a very clear sense of what the real demand is. 
So are you disputing the point that the federal government is essentially an insurance company with an army?  If so, what's your basis for arguing that?  If not, what's your point? My guess -- you're post is pointless. 
You're confusing issues. Medicare has a lower overhead cost than private insurers, thanks primarily to its size.  The issue of whether Medicare will be "solvent" or not is not a matter of efficiency. It's a matter of whether there will be enough tax revenue to meet Medicare's obligations. That's a different thing from efficiency. 
That's ideological BS. There are some things that the government does better than private corporations (for example, medicare is more efficient than private health insurance), other things not as well (the Soviets showed that governments don't make very good cars, for example).  In the case of the US, the federal government spends most of its money on the things it does better than private corporations. As Paul Krugman has said, you can think of the US federal government...
This is not only just a good thing to do, it's great for Apple's brand. I suspect the brand aspect of this will be particularly valuable in China, where the environmental costs of rapid development have been high. The Chinese can now afford to care about the environment, and they do. 
Hmmm.... reading 28nm for the main processor gives me pause about buying the first generation apple watch.    If Apple moves to 14/16nm for the second generation, it could mean a big improvement in performance and/or battery life. 
What he tried to do at JC Penny was nuts.  There is no single reason the Apple Store works so well, but here are some of them (and these were true from the beginning): 1. Compelling (and fairly unique) products2. A premium brand3. Affluent, loyal customers JPC had *none* of those things. JPC had: 1. Mundane, commodity products2. A discount brand3. Cheap customers with no loyalty Johnson tried changing all three for JCP at once. It was impossible and ill-conceived. He might...
 Exactly! I seem to recall a Steve Jobs quote along the lines of -- coming up with ideas is easy; implementing them well is what's hard. 
I seem to recall a report/rumor that Apple tried to make such an investment, but TSMC rebuffed it, saying that they had the capital necessary for making the necessary investments.  It's hard to know whether that was a mistake on TSMC's part or not. It really depends on the amount of money involved and what kinds of strings Apple attaches to that money. 
The royalty fees to ARM are trivial, so it's not worth buying them to get out of that. And ARM doesn't place restrictions on what you can do with their ISA -- Apple can make any design innovations they want, and they don't have to share them with anyone else. So buying ARM won't result in a better product from Apple. I suppose ARM has some smart people working for them, but Apple seems to have no trouble hiring smart people, so it's not clear they need to buy ARM just to...
New Posts  All Forums: