or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by williamh

I wasn't referring to eye patches in the movies.  In REAL LIFE people don't HATE eye patches or the people who might need them.  I don't think people "hate" Google Glass.  What people don't like is some jerks getting all in their business.  You can't tell when you are being recorded by "glassholes" like you can when someone is holding up their phone or a camera.  We're talking about violations of generally understood or perceived rules of behavior in a free society. When...
 That's exactly what I thought.  He's a watchmaker who will wear an AppleWatch, what else could he mean?  Until I got to the end of the article.  I guess he'll have something on both wrists, but it sounds like he's acknowledging the likely failure of his upcoming product.
I concur with digitalclips on this.  History suggests this can work for Apple.  Pundits questioned whether people would want a $599 smartphone when the iPhone was introduced.  Or any smartphone.  The smartphone business wasn't nearly as big when Apple got into it.  Some people even questioned whether the iPhone even qualified as a smartphone.  Also consider that before the smartphone really took off with the iPhone, there wasn't so much impetus for upgrading a phone, but...
I didn't read anything into your comment.  Not sure why you disavow your own opinion, which you stated with clarity:  "I read all about that same theory but it was just as much speculation as the idea they did it."  You didn't address my question, which is whether the US should apply sanctions against another country based on their unproven theory.  I think the leaders of NK are evil people, but punishing for an act that they may not have committed is wrong.
I read the article that goes into detail for the reasons NK was not likely involved and I disagree with you.  Let's just stipulate that you're right and it is just as much speculation as the idea they did it.  Should the US sanction another country based on speculation? 
You seem to be making this into a bigger problem than it really is.  The hard drive was discontinued.  They need a replacement for that part.  They don't have to re-engineer to support a lightning connector.  They don't have to reinvent the click wheel.  What fans of the original iPod want is more of the same.   I'm not one of those fans.  Apple doesn't need any reason to discontinue it.  The fact that sales volume is small is a perfectly excellent reason. 
Yes, I am basically calling Tim Cook a liar.  It's not that hard to "get."  Apple designs computers, phones, tablets, peripherals, TV streamers etc.  Many of them employ non-standard interfaces internally if not externally but they deal with it.  They develop at least two operating systems, fingerprint sensors, their own line of 64-bit mobile CPUs, a programming language, and God knows what else.  Apple is the one of the most profitable companies with about the largest...
The reengineering argument is just nonsense. If the hard drives were discontinued, Apple could fit the classic with flash storage. It's not that Classic owners demand a hard drive, they want the great sound quality and a lot of storage (and perhaps the simplicity too).
It would not make a difference if it was double Samsung's profit.  The damages should be based on the value of what they stole, not their profit.  They can (and do) sell phones at a loss, but it makes no difference.  What they stole was not something Apple agreed to sell, and it was worth something.  Imagine someone steals some thing valued at $100 from you and sells the final product for a $10 profit.  Your loss was $100, not $10.  
New Posts  All Forums: