That's just the thing. Jobs did not want to be involved in the race to the bottom in terms of price. If they are going to cut expenses, they are not going to want to drop the price with it.
Jobs kept on putting out ever cheaper iPods, whilst maintaining a top of the range model. What they are now doing with the 5C and 5S is very much in the same vein.
People really need to stop saying "Jobs wouldn't do X". These statements are nearly always mistaken. Even those where we can't come up with a close equivalent, the writer doesn't actually know what Jobs would have done.
I'm personally of the opinion that anyone with an inclination to volunteer to take what will invariably amount to a one-way trip to Mars based on the technology that we have so far is probably somebody that the world may be better off without.
They are people with "the right stuff". While the Apollo astronauts knew the plan was to come back, they must have been ready to face a one way trip, as the probability of that was, or must a least have seemed high.
There's no guarantee pre-orders will be received on release day. The iPhone 5 came out Sept 21st, but pre-orders were still being fulfilled in October.
So people who missed out on getting a first day slot for their pre-order may well cancel and choose to line up for it at a store.
You have no evidence for such a thing. Both because I don't do it, and because there is no way of you being able to know if I had.
Rather, you simply don't understand why I'm getting modded up for posting the question that linked tobacco cancer denialism with AGW denialism. While you're getting modded down for your blatant avoiding that question, and implication that it wasn't the tobacco companies that were doing the misleading.
You think your posts are worth more than mine, but people with the modding points disagree. That isn't evidence of sock-puppeteering. It's just hubris.
Cancer is probablistic. Some people are lucky and the cigarette smoke never triggers a cancer. Presumably there must be some other people that get cancer from their first pack.
I haven't ignored any of your posts. I've explained and re-explained the difference, and concluded that you either can't or won't understand it. But I certainly haven't ignored.
The conclusion that you are a troll is becoming more likely.
Jane Q Public won't answer that. She knows that the parallels between the denial that smoking causing cancer and the denial of AGW are very clear. So she avoids it.
There have been no insults in this thread. You're just avoiding.
So you do know the tobacco industry used the media to deny the scientific reality of the fact that smoking is carcinogenic. And they did if for decades.
And yet you implied in your earlier message that it was the other way around. Why is that?
Hogwash. Pretty much everyone who buys a smart phone knows at least if its an iPhone, a Windows Phone or an Android phone.
I'm afraid you are mistaken. Yes, iPhone users, Windows Phone users and Samsung users will usually know. But most of Android phone sales are cheap phones to people who used to buy feature phones. People who just aren't interested in phone operating systems.
And even if they are completely ignorant they can be guided by the salesman to the platforms which has the "most apps" on it.
A salesman will guide them towards the phone that he earns the best bonus for. If specifically asked for apps, he might drop Windows Phone from the possibilities. But if you think there are salesmen out there recommending Android for the number of apps, you're mistaken about that too.
It is quite obvious that Android would have been a better fit for Nokia.
There's only one company having a big success with Android: Samsung. All the others are either cheap no-name Chinese brands or are bigger companies that are struggling. The only position that would have worked for Nokia would be knocking Samsung off it's throne as premium Android manufacturer. And several companies have tried and failed at that.
Nokia would have failed just as much if they'd picked Android as they did picking Windows Phone. At least this way they got a buyer for their phone division.
Their real mistake was made a decade earlier when they took the OS with a touch screen UI and SDK that was Symbian, and spent a decade using it for non-touch screen devices. They could have been the one with the iPhone like phones many years before iPhone and the Android came along. I actually saw a iPhone like prototype based on Symbian in 1998 or 1999.
And when was it that you accepted that was the case?
Did you even notice that it was the tobacco companies that were the "organizations with an agenda" spreading misinformation in the media, in conflict with the science?
It seems more like their intent is diversify in a number of markets that all seem to eventually become sustainable.
It's not a question of making markets sustainable. Virtually all of Amazon's markets already are. It's a matter of driving other companies out of business to make monopolies. For example the time when it will be impossible for you to peruse a book locally before you buy it will very soon be here. Amazon is driving most physical book stores out of business. They are planning to do the same in other product areas too. And not just physical stores, but other web stores.
I'm saying you don't know if I did or didn't. The word "context" has a specific meaning in computing, and you're not using "context" in this context.
I've been a programmer for more than 30 years. The use of the word "context" in computing is far more widespread than that stub wiki page suggests.
"It the "bill" user is looking at this page in Slashdot, logging in to the "ted" username will do many things including starting a different web browser context, with no page or a different page displayed." That is possible if they want to do implement it like that. Please note, the patent doesn't give specific implementations, instead it gives generalisations. In any case, this is already doable in linux or unix.
WTF? I'm describing the limitation of linux, other unixes and Windows for that matter. The limitation that means it is NOT the same as this Apple patent. And you then claim that Linux can be made to do that?
How much simpler can I make it? Log out a user and the applications close. Log in another user and the applications may reopen. But not in the same state as the were under the first user. That's different from this Patent. This patent allows the existing user access to more applications without losing the state of the already open applications.
(Now of course you don't NEED to log out one user to log out another in most OSs. But the key point that the applications will not be in the same state for the new user remains.)
I'm afraid this is simple stuff, and you're coming across as an idiot. Or a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just the thing. Jobs did not want to be involved in the race to the bottom in terms of price. If they are going to cut expenses, they are not going to want to drop the price with it.
Jobs kept on putting out ever cheaper iPods, whilst maintaining a top of the range model. What they are now doing with the 5C and 5S is very much in the same vein.
People really need to stop saying "Jobs wouldn't do X". These statements are nearly always mistaken. Even those where we can't come up with a close equivalent, the writer doesn't actually know what Jobs would have done.
I think they are finally admitting that OSX has been a failure.
And just how would an iPhone (running iOS) launch event say anything about OSX? You're an idiot.
You're extrapolating from the app approval process. AFAIK there is no such review per listing for TV media. They just approve the account.
You're sounding really intelligent.
The colourful iMac DID sell like crazy compared to other Macs and clones.
I'm personally of the opinion that anyone with an inclination to volunteer to take what will invariably amount to a one-way trip to Mars based on the technology that we have so far is probably somebody that the world may be better off without.
They are people with "the right stuff". While the Apollo astronauts knew the plan was to come back, they must have been ready to face a one way trip, as the probability of that was, or must a least have seemed high.
But plenty of nougat, caramel and chocolate.
There's no guarantee pre-orders will be received on release day. The iPhone 5 came out Sept 21st, but pre-orders were still being fulfilled in October.
So people who missed out on getting a first day slot for their pre-order may well cancel and choose to line up for it at a store.
Do you not remember it's an agency model.
Hardware wise we don't know how much of a change it will be yet. But software wise, it's by far the biggest change to iOS yet.
Of course defects in the software matter less as they can be fixed later.
Well other than the obvious reason that they want to get the new iPhone before anybody else.
You have no evidence for such a thing. Both because I don't do it, and because there is no way of you being able to know if I had.
Rather, you simply don't understand why I'm getting modded up for posting the question that linked tobacco cancer denialism with AGW denialism.
While you're getting modded down for your blatant avoiding that question, and implication that it wasn't the tobacco companies that were doing the misleading.
You think your posts are worth more than mine, but people with the modding points disagree. That isn't evidence of sock-puppeteering. It's just hubris.
It's 100% fatal
You'd have thought so. But it's only 90% successful. It sees some people do have brains small enough to miss.
I said "that you read in an anti-piracy rant". WTF does that have to do with the length of your post? Reading is not the same as writing.
Cancer is probablistic. Some people are lucky and the cigarette smoke never triggers a cancer. Presumably there must be some other people that get cancer from their first pack.
I haven't ignored any of your posts. I've explained and re-explained the difference, and concluded that you either can't or won't understand it. But I certainly haven't ignored.
The conclusion that you are a troll is becoming more likely.
Jane Q Public won't answer that. She knows that the parallels between the denial that smoking causing cancer and the denial of AGW are very clear. So she avoids it.
There have been no insults in this thread. You're just avoiding.
So you do know the tobacco industry used the media to deny the scientific reality of the fact that smoking is carcinogenic. And they did if for decades.
And yet you implied in your earlier message that it was the other way around. Why is that?
Cherry picking it's "facts". It's deception. Moron.
It's only been a year and I'm down to 235.
Come back and let us know what your weight is after 5 years.
Many people can lose in the short term on diets and or exercise. Even out to a year. Few keep the losses in the long term.
It's way too early to be smug at only a year.
Hogwash. Pretty much everyone who buys a smart phone knows at least if its an iPhone, a Windows Phone or an Android phone.
I'm afraid you are mistaken. Yes, iPhone users, Windows Phone users and Samsung users will usually know. But most of Android phone sales are cheap phones to people who used to buy feature phones. People who just aren't interested in phone operating systems.
And even if they are completely ignorant they can be guided by the salesman to the platforms which has the "most apps" on it.
A salesman will guide them towards the phone that he earns the best bonus for. If specifically asked for apps, he might drop Windows Phone from the possibilities. But if you think there are salesmen out there recommending Android for the number of apps, you're mistaken about that too.
It is quite obvious that Android would have been a better fit for Nokia.
There's only one company having a big success with Android: Samsung. All the others are either cheap no-name Chinese brands or are bigger companies that are struggling. The only position that would have worked for Nokia would be knocking Samsung off it's throne as premium Android manufacturer. And several companies have tried and failed at that.
Nokia would have failed just as much if they'd picked Android as they did picking Windows Phone. At least this way they got a buyer for their phone division.
Their real mistake was made a decade earlier when they took the OS with a touch screen UI and SDK that was Symbian, and spent a decade using it for non-touch screen devices. They could have been the one with the iPhone like phones many years before iPhone and the Android came along. I actually saw a iPhone like prototype based on Symbian in 1998 or 1999.
So you have no excuse for the cherry picking you believed. Moron.
And when was it that you accepted that was the case?
Did you even notice that it was the tobacco companies that were the "organizations with an agenda" spreading misinformation in the media, in conflict with the science?
It seems more like their intent is diversify in a number of markets that all seem to eventually become sustainable.
It's not a question of making markets sustainable. Virtually all of Amazon's markets already are. It's a matter of driving other companies out of business to make monopolies. For example the time when it will be impossible for you to peruse a book locally before you buy it will very soon be here. Amazon is driving most physical book stores out of business. They are planning to do the same in other product areas too. And not just physical stores, but other web stores.
I'm saying you don't know if I did or didn't. The word "context" has a specific meaning in computing, and you're not using "context" in this context.
I've been a programmer for more than 30 years. The use of the word "context" in computing is far more widespread than that stub wiki page suggests.
"It the "bill" user is looking at this page in Slashdot, logging in to the "ted" username will do many things including starting a different web browser context, with no page or a different page displayed."
That is possible if they want to do implement it like that. Please note, the patent doesn't give specific implementations, instead it gives generalisations. In any case, this is already doable in linux or unix.
WTF? I'm describing the limitation of linux, other unixes and Windows for that matter. The limitation that means it is NOT the same as this Apple patent. And you then claim that Linux can be made to do that?
How much simpler can I make it? Log out a user and the applications close. Log in another user and the applications may reopen. But not in the same state as the were under the first user. That's different from this Patent. This patent allows the existing user access to more applications without losing the state of the already open applications.
(Now of course you don't NEED to log out one user to log out another in most OSs. But the key point that the applications will not be in the same state for the new user remains.)
I'm afraid this is simple stuff, and you're coming across as an idiot. Or a troll.