cnocbui

I wonder if there might be a tax minimisation angle?....

9secondkox2 said:

Wow.

My estimation of Oculus folks has gone down.

To make a statement that Apple, who builds the best computers money can buy, is somehow not providing "good" computers is simply a ploy to attack Apple.

And to say they don't add high end video cards is a play on the TYPE of video card.

Apple uses video cards in the Mac Pro that are meant for WORK and not GAMES.

So they could have stated the truth and still had the intended effect of both providing an excuse for not developing for Mac as well as compelling anyone who cared at Apple to take another look at the video cards they put in their systems.

While they are "good" cards generally, you'd think that what you pay for a Mac would score you a high end consumer level chip CAPABLE of high end gaming at the very least.

Still doesn't excuse irresponsible and factually incorrect statements like that. Oculus is treating their potential fanbase as idiots who don't know the real situation.

EA did that in the past. It hasn't done much for their reputation (though they keep making money).

What did he say that was factually incorrect?

I am having a real laugh reading all these bruised ego comments criticising him for being blunt and insensitive.  I'm trying to remember the last time Steve Job's ever made a diplomatically negative comment about someone else's tech ......  no, can't recall him ever doing that.

davidw said:

singularity said:

Malaysia Airlines doesn't appear on that list and a quick search implies that m370 didn't have in flight wifi either 

I wasn't referring specifically to this Malaysia flight, but that Apple could in fact help where the telecoms (and maybe Android devices) couldn't because it is a possibility to get a network connection in flight, even if a cellular connection is not available. And even if Malaysia had WiFi, I'm sure the pilot would have turned it off, like he did the all the other electronic devices that could have tracked this plane, way before he took it off course. 

Like the article, you are trying to imbue Apple with qualities it just does not possess.  Apple is not in a superior position to network operators in the aircraft's vicinity.  If there are active phones on board a missing aircraft it will be the network operators at the forefront of any location assistance, but it is all preposterous nonsense anyway.  If the plane is in the air and in range of mobile phone towers, it will be on military radar screens.  If it's not in range of military radars, it certainly won't be in range of any mobile phone towers.  Given a plane over the sea and beyond conventional radar range, the only technologies that might be helpful would be the likes of Australia's Jindalee over the horizon radar or phone monitoring spy satellites.

As for WiFi, once again, it is the providers and operators of the infrastructure who would be in the front seat and best placed to provide assistance, but that is a pure fantasy-land scenario anyway.  The primary mechanism for locating an Aircraft is it's transponders.  If those aren't working, I doubt anyone's surfing the internet at 12 k meters as I doubt the WiFi would be working either.

sflocal said:

AppleInsider said:

"When the Malaysia Airline[s] went down -- within one hour of that plane being declared missing -- we had Apple operators cooperating with telephone providers all over the world, with the airlines and with the FBI to try to find a ping, to try to find some way we could locate where that plane was," Sewell said.

And one never hears about the government asking any of the Android trash companies if they are even capable of doing the same thing...

So what you think it was that Apple were able to do exactly that was helpful that Android companies couldn't?

My guess is that it is actually the network operators who could be helpful, not Apple, but if you know of a network of secret Apple satellites in obit that can get a signal from an iPhone directly without going through a network operator, do tell, as that would be fascinating.

sog35 said:

msantti said:

Man, the Apple apologists here are amaing.

I like Apple but I can call them out sometimes.

Learn to take care of your things. I've never needed a water proof phone.  Water proofing just adds bulk to the phone that 99.9% of the population don't need.  The iPhones are already water resistant and can be in a couple of feet of water for a few seconds. Only .0001% need a phone that can go swimming with them.

So I'm an apologist for not wanted a feature that very few want?
You seem like the apologist for Samsung. What next? A water proof laptop?

Interesting fact - 90-95% of phones sold in Japan are waterproof.

Waterproofing does not add bulk.

Rain, steam, humidity, dust, dirt, fog, drizzle, snow, sleet, spilled drinks, pools, sinks, toilets, children.  Given that water damage is the second largest single reason (24%) for iPhone damage, I would say that 99.9 % of the population could do with a waterproof phone.