george kaplan

5 ghz WiFi connections allowed. No more router voodoo needed during installation because the device requires 2.4 ghz alone.

Gilliam_Bates said:

I have an idea. Apple should end its current contract with Google. Then instead send them a $10B invoice for developing an Apple search engine and not using Google's …thereby saving them from the DOJ.
  

Google should encourage Apple Search, just to take the pressure off from DoJ. As long as the user can pick the engine, Google can still have its money from search, too. They just won’t be default, just as they aren’t default on Windows, yet they get dominant search business on Windows (not Bing).

Marvin said:

larryjw said:

The price is set for fools who have too much money. 

I expect the price is based on an anticipated outcome for ticket sales, this movie could have easily made this much in the cinema.

Not really, no.

Someone earlier posted the global ticket sales for the last few Bond films, and none approached that figure. In addition, ticket sales is not what the Studio earns, since it splits that amount (in varying degrees) with theater owners, distribution companies, and state governments.

$600M isn’t relevant to the history of the Craig-era Bond films. And as I stated before, with the theater distribution model in complete chaos, the likelihood for a big theatrical payday for the Bond producers now is very slim, even if they wait until Spring (“Tenet”, which should have been a $400M film in the US, returned like a very successful rom-com, with theaters in NY and CA unavailable, and theaters in other states open to limited crowds). But while they wait, the various companies with equity stake in the film have bills to pay but no income from the film.

IF there is a decision by MGM to sell the film to a streaming company, it will be for significantly more than the $70M Paramount received for “Greyhound”, but nothing near $600M—those are the musings of someone huffing something.

pulseimages said:

“Sadly you cannot use a HomePod and a HomePod mini as a stereo pair together, as you require two of the same speaker.” Is this a design disadvantage of using two different chips (S5 vs A8) or does Apple purposely do this so you have to spend more money to pair two speakers together? 

Seriously? Is it necessary to point out stereo pairs need to have identical sonic characteristics? It is clear HP and HP mini won’t sound alike, and it would be pointless to use them as a stereo pair. Enough with the half baked conspiracy theories. 

If I can present a differing point of view:

We are prepping to move, second time in 14 years. There is stuff I am going through in prep for a garage sale. I have discovered so many USB power bricks: Kindle, electronic accessories, old Android phones, old iPhones/iPads/AppleWatch/etc. Each of the 7 Arlo cameras I have shipped with a USB charger, and each of the 4 Arlo lights. On and on it goes, and I think we are numb at this point to how many new bricks we have accumulated.

The cynical view of this is Apple being cheap, but for most uses a brick is a brick—sure, an iPad brick will charge more quickly, but in practical terms if that is such a big deal then one should by a 3rd party charger, which is what I did. I bought a couple of Anker’s 36-watt dual-output bricks. Because I paid actual money for them, I take care of them (funny how that works), and I have no need for something a company tosses in a box, One is $25, the other is $11, hardly a back-breaking amount of money.

But think of all these little bricks which will find their way to the trash, where the heavy metals will leach into groundwater at the dump. Each little brick seems insignificant, but en masse it makes a huge difference.

Apple is doing the right thing.