josu

ireland said:

And yet if the shooters were Christian this whole case wouldn't exist. Such hypocrisy.

jonagold said:

jkinsdca said:

I do not support Apple and these dumba@@ protestors. What if there was info on that phone that could prevent another attack.. one say at an apple store in san fran... do you think their tune would change? so stupid these idiots that have no concept of real life.. only the one that was spoon fed them by their parents who set no boundaries…

Unfortunately freedom isn't free…if it costs the lives of a few (or mine) it is well worth it.  Your comment is exact proof why terror is effective.  Bring down a country of 300M+ because 20 people died of gunshot wounds.  Why not go after tobacco, alcohol, driving, McDonald's french fries…I'll take the (non-existent) risk of terror any day if it means my iPhone is kept secure.

apple ][ said:

I'll be happy as long as I don't hear any Chinese voiceovers while watching it. Hopefully Apple is on top of things.

nhughes said:

Eezibleed said:

It's not Kuo but the elevation of Kuo to well connected insider that rubs us raw. So drop that superlative please

Name an analyst with a better track record.

Our stories are written so that our large audience of casual readers, many of whom are not necessarily familiar with Kuo's name or past predictions, and who do not participate in the comments, get an idea of how reliable he is. Calling him a "well-connected insider" makes it clear to the reader that this isn't just some run-of-the-mill rumor. Doing so better informs our readers.

This is the exact same reason that we continue to tell readers that Gene Munster was the "Apple is going to build an HDTV by 2010" guy when he makes claims about an Apple Car or virtual reality. It's an editorial decision we've made, and it's not going to change unless Kuo's track record changes. But our commenters are, of course, welcome to continue criticize Kuo in the comments.

foggyhill said:

josu said:

LCD screens degrade? When? Because my nine years old iPod Touch still looks bright and shiny to my eyes, even besides my sixth gen one. And my eight year old Laptop still looks the same even besides my year old retina one. I can't see the degradation, but OK maybe is that I'm accustomed to it, like when you are seeing a show for years and years and suddenly you see a first season episode and then notice how older the actors are now. Oh, I forgot, my seven year old LCD TV looks very good too.

I know, I know, you are arguing against OLED, and defending LCD, but I'm only asking, seriously. Because in the LCD front, the degradation must be negligible by now, given my experience with LCDs live span.

The backlight fades  with time, people often don't notice it because they just push the brightness up.

If you have a reallly old LCD which you put at its original setting, you'll see that. I have LCD's from 2002 and they;re DIM.
The 3GS I have is also certainly dimmer than initially at its default settings; I still use it as an Ipod.

With this, they could automatically adjust this over time to an exact level (which you can't do yourself without an instrument to calibrate the screen).

knowitall said:

After so many posts here on AI, I think it's your thinking that lacks depth.  

The iPhone price, with 64GB of storage is $749 (I'm using U.S. currency, you're mileage by vary, but the argument I'm making remains the same).  For that you get a 64GB model of the iPhone 6S, a more capable, faster handset than you got a year earlier at the same price, and larger and faster than you got two years ago at the same price.  That's the first part of the bargain Apple has with its customers.  For years, the price of the product remains unchanged while what you get becomes more capable.  That's the bargain everyone gets in the technology space across all vendors.  Oh, and for customers who don't need as much storage, because maybe they use the cloud, there's a $100 discount off that price for a 16GB model, a phone with all the same performance and features of the 64GB model.

How quickly some have forgotten how many stand-alone products a smartphone replaces.  Single-function cell phone, video camera, still-photo camera, portable video playback system/television, computer, radio, alarm clock, calculator, the list goes on and on.  Now how much would you pay?  

These same people throw out an argument that Apple's handsets are so much more expensive than others, ignoring the fact that other vendors (Samsung, LG, HTC, etc) also sell premium handsets at similar prices.  Apple happens to sell only premium handsets; they don't also sell cheaper models like those other companies do.  

And the same people conveniently forget the resale value retained by Apple's handsets, and the usable lifespan, both of which reduce the total cost of ownership.  Apple should be able to charge premium prices across its entire line of handsets because they are the only ones on earth that can readily take an OS upgrade three or four years in-a-row after they have been introduced.  An OS that offers better security than rivals, is more tightly integrated and therefore allows better performance while sipping less juice.  Apple takes the higher ground in the form of engineering its products to be more power efficient per unit of computing performance, allowing the company to deliver decent time between charges, comparable to its competition, with a smaller battery.  That translates to less aggregate volume [mass] of batteries ending up in landfills or needing to be recycled years down the road per million phones versus the competition, and fewer tons of coal burned (or whatever fuel is used in the power plants that provide electricity to the homes of Apple's customers where iPhones are being charged during their useable life).

All of the above applies equally to Apple's iPad line.

Tell us again whose thinking lacks depth.

You are.
iPhones are extremely expensive, the iPhone 6s espessially, it costs €859 (64GB) in Europe, that's enough to buy 3 laptops from the competition.
Sadly it's battery life is a major complaint and lasts only one day (my iPhone 5s lasts easily 2 days), the estimated production cost is about $200 and that's similar to the iPhone 3s, buts it's €150 more expensive to buy.
Apple tries to maximize its profits but sadly burns (which is an insult to its customers) its profits and seems to have an eye for shareholders only.
They should sell the top end phone for $350 or less..

rogifan_old said:

josu said:

Being honest, Google beat WS estimates, when Apple do that it goes up too, fourth quarter beat market expectations and the stock went up.

Apple never goes up as much as other tech stocks after they report earnings. (Facebook was up like 12% the day after their earnings). And often times Apple comes right back down. The last time I remember Apple getting a huge bump after earnings was January 2012 (that was the 1st quarter of the 4S).