or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Blastdoor

Apple indirectly employs a lot of people in China. If the Chinese government is going to make it harder for Apple to sell products in China, some of those jobs are going to be lost.
  No, I have. I had an iPhone 4 for two years and now I have an iPhone 5. I also have an iPad 3.    Like I said -- it's utterly inconceivable to some people that everyone doesn't share their preferences, but that's the way it is. I think that's one reason why the iPad 2 is STILL BEING SOLD. 
  I submit that you're the one who is projecting your preferences on others. I'm not suggesting that retina displays should be done away with. I'm suggesting that a cheaper alternative should be offered for the large number of people who can't tell the difference. If I get my way, you'll still have a choice to buy retina products. If you get your way, I won't have a choice. I think that means you're the jerk. 
Economics 201   Diminishing Returns to Scale.   Example: Apple is operating at such a large scale that it can afford more diversification in the portfolio. There is currently considerably more variation in Mac models, despite far lower volumes. 
  Yeah, except that it would make a ton of sense to do a low cost iPhone without a retina display.    I know what I'm about to say is inconceivable to a vocal minority, but most people cannot perceive the difference between retina and non-retina displays unless they break out a magnifying glass. It's just silly for Apple to increase the cost of a product (both the cost for them to make it and the cost for people to buy it) over a feature that so few people are able to...
I think it might be more accurate to say that the carriers can greatly magnify/accelerate the rise and fall of a smartphone (or any phone). That is, Blackberry and Nokia didn't crash and burn because the carriers woke up one day and decided they just didn't like those guys. They crashed and burned because their products were not keeping up with the competition. The carriers can accelerate a decline (or rise) because of their large volume purchases. One other thought -- it...
Hmm... so here's my thought...    Apple can and should make it clear to these folks that you don't F with Apple. $100 million (or even $1 billion) is a rounding error for Apple, but if Apple were to spend that amount of money going after these people, these people would be done, regardless of who they are. 
  Umm.... sort of. Basically I'm a total idiot. I had multiple windows open and thought I was commenting on the Exchange bug. That's the thing that should have been caught.    It is pretty weird that apple keeps having problems with getting through the passcode, though. It's not a problem of QA, but a problem of design. 
Ugh. Shouldn't have gone out with this bug. Doesn't speak well to Apple's QA process. This usage case is too common not to undergo testing. Somebody should get smacked for this.   
Here's a question: Could Apple use cash held internationally to buy back AAPL stock on foreign stock exchanges without having to pay US tax? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like if foreign cash is being used to buy AAPL on a foreign exchange, then that cash would never come under the purview of US taxes. Yet, the benefit to stockholders would be the same as if Apple conducted a stock buy-back on an American exchange using domestic cash (because stock is fungible across...
New Posts  All Forums: