or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by drobforever

This comes down to a tradeoff between market share and profit margin. If iPad2 has 1GB ram, dual-core CPU/GPU, an improved screen (not retina, just better in some ways), and weight 1lb or so, and still keep the 16GB model at $499, it'll do well this year, nobody else can match this. If it only has 512MB ram, slower GPU, same screen, and >1.25lb weight, then it won't.
Then it's not making/receiving calls even without wifi. What they meant is, a phone with a cellphone capability, and you can use a sim card to access non-smartphone service (voice/text etc), but there's no 3G connection for data, instead you've to use only wifi for data needs.
This scares me. These guys usually know what they're doing, but I don't want ultra-thin glass that could be relatively easier to break if dropped to the ground.
If Apple wants to gain more market shares, there would be a need to create a phone with keyboard, given that most of the Blackberry non-corporate customers who are willing to stick to RIMM basically stay because of the keyboard.
You shouldn't blame AI, if you want to place blame, place that onto the readers. Nowadays we have demand-driven media and if readers want to read anything with an Apple label on it regardless of content, it's not AI's problem to generate them.
I don't see any benefit of music being stored in the cloud. Think about the case when you're listening to songs in a bus and your are being forced to go offline for a while because the bus has to go through the tunnel. Plus if you really have lot's of music, you can just get the classic iPod. It's probably cheaper in the long run than paying subscription online just to access the songs you already have.
Where did you hear that? All major manufacturers are producing dual-core tablets this year, there's no way Apple would produce 1 without it. Ram might be another story, Apple might use 512MB because iOS is a lot more efficient than Android/Win7 and so iPad won't need a lot of ram.
People here keep quoting Amazon's policy to justify Apple's policy. This is dumb on so many levels it's hard to resist commenting on it: 1. It doesn't matter what Amazon does, just because Amazon does something bad doesn't mean Apple should do the same. 2. Amazon is selling content, not subscription. Subscription has a completely different cost structure compared to content. 3. Apple is also not just charging for subscription, it's charging 30% of any bundle that...
Actually this new policy is about subscription of content, and there's no way to sideload "a subscription", unless through an app environment in which you consume the content you subscribed through the app. Of course, there's webapp but that doesn't run digital content well unless Apple can improve the Safari browser to a certain point or when html5 evolves to a certain point (neither of which would happen in the next few years).
If Apple allows sideloading apps then you're right. But right now Apple doesn't allow you to install apps except from Apple's app store, which basically bundles the iOS platform with the app store.
New Posts  All Forums: