- Mike Wuerthele
- Last Active
carnegie said:AppleInsider said:...
Qualcomm was shady in going to this particular court, and arguing for the ban how it did. It should be ashamed of itself. But, we aren't fans of Apple's tactics either. Apple should fulfill its contractual obligations, while it challenges the legality of them in court, and seek recompense later should it prevail.
Apple's tactics aren't hurting consumers, and any ban induced by Qualcomm is -- and that's inexcusable.
dalstarz25 said:damonf said:emoeller said:Download and operates fine - Sinus Rhythm, I'm going to live another day.
FYI, my Xs bricked on the 5.1 update, but no problems with this update.
SpamSandwich said:This story is incomplete without a critical assessment of this ananlyst’s track record. Have they been wrong before? Are they more wrong than right? Are they almost always right?
FTA: "Historically, Zhang has under-estimated not just Apple's actual unit sales, but also the contribution of Services to Apple's bottom line. He was part of the chorus claiming that the iPhone X sales were bad -- which was proven wrong by Apple's actual sales numbers and repeated remarks by Apple that the iPhone X was the best-selling iPhone after release in 2017 and well into 2018."
techprod1gy said:Since everyone is blocked from posting on "certain" articles I will post it here. I find it very amusing that the very people that rely on "free speech" block that very thing on their own site. What you are saying is our opinion does not matter. Ban the trolls but don't ban discussion on sensitive issues. It is "not the right thing to do".
Pro tip? We have the ability to post a news item with no comment thread at all. If there's a forum post with zero comments, and it's locked? We tried keeping it open, but forum-goer behavior forced it shut. I like you guys, but you collectively have no idea how to police yourselves when it comes to the political bicker-fests.
Don't do this kind of derail again. Your relevant and respectful opinions matter -- yes, even dissent. Anything short of that does not. Do not construe my reply as an indication to continue the discussion on this topic, because there is not one to be had.
sirozha said:Tesla Model S for over $100,000 is way overpriced. Ten years from now, an EV sedan comparable to Model S will cost under $50,000 in today’s dollars. If an EV manufacturer jacks up the price from $50,000 to $75,000 ten years from now, should you be comparing the price to the price of Model 3 ten years prior or should you base such a comparison on the contemporaneous prices of competitive EV sedans?
It’s obvious that prices go down as the technology matures. To go decades back in time to bring those prices from the dead seems to be a curious thing to do.
This is what we wrote. This isn't about cars, it isn't about comparing to Windows. This is literally addressing the whining that only Tim Cook has sold macs for so much money -- which is nonsense.In a static technology, like cars, prices can drop as technology matures. They don't always. I don't think electric cars will. Given Moore's law up until a few years ago, and the slowing now, computer technology isn't static and you are getting more computer for the same money -- or less. That is literally the point of this article.