RTM

qwerty52 said:

RTM said:

While some people won't read the text of this the article and comment here - what he's actually saying is true. And he doesn't dis on Apple, despite how this headline might think it is. He's simply stating the reality of the banking industry. And in fact, he even gives Apple credit. As always, reading matters. Understanding words matters.

What Apple did *was* add just a *few* new innovative features. They didn't overhaul the credit industry, as the last week as most certainly proven. They didn't offer some fantastic new thing that everyone needs to go out and get. They added a few things that some people find useful. As much you or I would like to dismiss this as just a random Putin dude (and he is of course), it doesn't make the content of what he's saying incorrect.

And, if you're into banking enough, there's some solid nuance into it too. For example, the inclusion of wanting to get folks to put money into FDIC insured places is directly a ding against Cryptocurrencies (setting aside banks desire to keep money in their banks).

Just because Apple/Goldman claim something is the "most successful card launch ever", doesn't mean it's the most innovative or the best card. It just means they signed up the most people (assuming they did). In fact, for a lot of people, they'd be far better off choosing cards with more/better rewards (albeit without the Apple privacy restrictions).

It is not his business to brakes down what Apple is doing, but to bring some innovation himself (if capable at all)

But he wasn't attacking Apple's model. It seems like you didn't read what the article said. Or didn't understand it. In fact, the entire article (aside from the headline) actually does a good job of talking about what they're doing.

That's the problem with taking quotes out of context (as the title did). The rest of the article does explain the context, and what they're doing. But I'm not aware of magical rule (internet or otherwise) that says you can't talk about other products in the market. After all - didn't Apple just do that last week with Chromebooks? It sounds like they should stop doing that based on your comment. After all, if they were to only talk about things they were doing - then using your comment they shouldn't discuss it until they can match the Chromebooks on price, no?

My point is simple: Read. Understand what's written, and provide meaningful commentary.

I'm just as happy as the next guy to make Russian jokes here - but what was actually said is rather truthful, and it wasn't actually a knock on Apple.

While some people won't read the text of this the article and comment here - what he's actually saying is true. And he doesn't dis on Apple, despite how this headline might think it is. He's simply stating the reality of the banking industry. And in fact, he even gives Apple credit. As always, reading matters. Understanding words matters.

What Apple did *was* add just a *few* new innovative features. They didn't overhaul the credit industry, as the last week as most certainly proven. They didn't offer some fantastic new thing that everyone needs to go out and get. They added a few things that some people find useful. As much you or I would like to dismiss this as just a random Putin dude (and he is of course), it doesn't make the content of what he's saying incorrect.

And, if you're into banking enough, there's some solid nuance into it too. For example, the inclusion of wanting to get folks to put money into FDIC insured places is directly a ding against Cryptocurrencies (setting aside banks desire to keep money in their banks).

Just because Apple/Goldman claim something is the "most successful card launch ever", doesn't mean it's the most innovative or the best card. It just means they signed up the most people (assuming they did). In fact, for a lot of people, they'd be far better off choosing cards with more/better rewards (albeit without the Apple privacy restrictions).

I'm confused by the usage of "sketchy" in the title here. The entire post here basically says that this data matches every other leaked bit of data, and then the post ends with the fact that the company may simply be using their own lingo. Why is it somehow sketchy?

I don't think you're reading the same interwebs the rest of us are.

As other commentors have pointed out, there's plenty of media attention in the last 24 hours as units started to break. And your use of selective quotes from people is bizarre. In almost every 'favorable' quote you used, they follow with 18 million reasons why you shouldn't buy the unit. That's sorta what journalism is about (pros and cons, showing both sides), not hit pieces. In fact, it's actually really hard to find any review that's gushing favoritism for the Fold.

Almost everyone is basically saying the same thing 'Interesting first run concept, but it's not worth the cash'. Whereas this piece here seems to act just like the intro paragraph notes: A small child.

"Obviously, RF emissions control is a big concern for embassy security staff, and a big avenue of exploitation by agencies wanting to listen in. To this end, embassies are heavily shielded against radio frequency emissions, both coming in or exiting the facility....

And, if Khashoggi was allowed to connect to the consulate Wi-Fi, that would be one of the largest breaches of embassy RF and data security ever recorded. This seems especially improbable."

I'm not sure why this keeps on being said - because it's factually incorrect (and laughable).

The vast majority of embassies and consulates around the world by most countries do not have such RF shielding for the full building. Seriously, they don't.  Most are housed in buildings built decades ago, and even the newest of facilities by most countries don't have such shielding. Typically any sort of shielding would be reserved for a SCIF, or basically a room/place where classified conversations could occur. And even shielding that is rare in most cases - instead most diplomatic and even most military installations rely more on policies than blocking of signals. It's plausible that a room for a given staff member would be shielded, but again that's rare - and likely even more so for Saudi's consulate.  The fact that there's an audio recording at all tells you right there that signals weren't likely blocked. Because whether that came from the individuals watch or other signals intelligence, it's a good indicator there's no RF blocking (unless the transmission from watch to phone occurred during the short timeframe outside).

Remember: Blocking of signals is problematic for embassy staff themselves, as they too utilize cell phones in most public places in the embassy - one only needs to go into any number of nations embassies to see that (including US Embassies/Consulates, and Saudi Embassy/Consulates in a variety of nations). Don't believe me? No problem - simply find an embassy/consulate of your favored nation in a city closest to you and schedule an appointment for a visa. Watch how many employees are on cellular phones inside.