Battery life != battery capacity. The new smaller in capacity but all the reviews I read said the life is actually better. Perhaps the new hardware/software combination yielded better life.
I don't know if you are the best person to comment on someone's honesty considering the number of posts where you've posted factually wrong information over and over again.
What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about tires. Tires. Nowhere in any of gobbly techno babble did you mean tires and instead on the car manufacturers. You do know that they don't make tires right?
I think Apple generally does this every few years because they can. Having vertical integration makes it easier to remove legacy stuff. Google can do that with Android but every change they make has an impact on their partners.
It depends on the metric that is being used for more efficient. IOS 9 dramatically reduced the file size requirements as I assumed Apple removed a lot of unneeded legacy cruft. Processing wise, it was slower on older CPUs as it made there were more background processes running. In general I don't know if the example of smartphones is a good one as from the 4S to today, there were huge advances in all mobile CPUs not just Apple ones and now it may be starting to plateau. For desktop/laptop CPUs, it's more an issue as the processing power needed by the consumer hasn't changed that much. These days, more apps want to run in the background for notifications and such even when it isn't needed.
Where in my post did I say that multiplayer never existed before? Nowhere. What I said is that a subscription model is a sometimes a necessity. If you don't want to pay for a subscription that's your choice, don't take that choice away from people who want it.
Yes back in the day, you paid for a video game once and that was it. And no one is arguing that more games shouldn't be like that; however, if you are playing a multiplayer game online, it's just a matter of reality that someone has to pay to keep the infrastructure working. Subscriptions are one option if players choose that option.
Where we should object is if a game is required to be online for no reason (SimCity). Where we should object is where additional money is required for content that should have been in the game (DLC packs to complete the storyline). Where we should object is where additional money is required to progress in the game (Battlefront).
Choosing to fight against any online game that requires subscriptions is takin away choices from players. Some players want to play against someone else online.
But you don't deny that you were completely inaccurate as to the term "their own people". The question is whether your knowledge of history is incorrect or have a bias in claiming Africans from different tribes are the same people. It boils down to whether you are wrong or racist.
1. The new iPhone has 2 SIMs. One of them is traditional nano-SIM and is swappable
2. The eSIM is reprogrammable and Apple has already given instructions on how to do it.
The problem is that what you propose isn't technically impossible and no one is arguing that it's technically impossible. It's going to be much more expensive and it won't happen overnight. That's the problem.
Sorry my example was about avoiding tariffs by Chinese Apple manufacturing locally to avoid tariffs. To the benefit of the local economy, market share.
You understand what a "tariff" is, right? The US is proposing a tariff on China made goods that is imported into the US. The tariff is not only US companies. All companies that import goods into the US is affected. Which affects Samsung, LG, HTC, Dell, HP, basically everyone. You Xiaomi example is irrelevant since they don't import into the US.
It's like dealing with a toddler. Any deal or plans that anyone will try to make may be useless. For now companies have to plan for two contingencies: 1. Nothing will change. 2. Everything will change.
Yes, as an accountant. I am saying profits will fall.
There's a huge difference between WILL fall and CAN fall.
lol, stop spreading fake news, and calling people liars, Apple deliberate do not pay for hospitals, and welfare...because they legally(sic) can...Ireland was famously forced to collect €13bn in tax from Apple. I hope they Apple pay you. Because their anti American policies are everywhere.
Try to follow me here: 1. Apple HQ is in the US; therefore Apple is under IRS rules . 2. Apple has paid US taxes for its entire existence. 3. The US is part of world. Therefore Apple has paid taxes in the world. As an accountant I find it hard to believe that you haven't read Apple's 10K. Thus YOU LIED.
A company who has become the market leader when faced with the same problem with tariffs by manufacturing in that country is a working example it is possible to not only avoid tariffs, but benefit the local economy, and make it successful. You are saying Apple cannot do it...and I am fine with that.
Again try to follow me here: You are using the example of Xiaomi as an example of a company avoiding tariffs. 1. The tariff situation is between the US and China. Not China and India. Not US and India. 2. Xiaomi manufactures in India. 3. Xiaomi does not sell or import phones to the US and sells mostly in China. 4. Thus Xiaomi is entirely irrelevant. If China and India ever get into a tariff, you'd be 100% wrong in all your points.
Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.
Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,”
Where is "laugh"? In your example, there is no "laugh". So are you lying?
They should talk about a deal. Because not talking is working out worse than talking. And a deal might work out better than the alternative situation of not making a deal.
. There are deals in place. With this President, no deal is ever safe as he changes his mind on a whim.
The solution for this "problem" is for cities to negotiate a better service level. This is business-as-usual elsewhere e.g., first rights to diesel fuel supplies, etc.
And how would they do that? If you are a fire company from a small town with a limited number of cell phone companies, how much negotiating power would you have? Not much. They have to accept whatever plans are offered. Now if they were the city of LA, they might have more negotiating power.
Yes, that's correct, that was the entire point. What did you assume the issue was? Perhaps criminality instead of civil law is hyperbolic, but I'd have thought it would have been obvious enough to get the point across.
So you admit to changing the context of the conversation? Doesn't that makes your point moot then?
I most certainly have not. I gave a direct quote [perens.com] of the title and leading sentence of his blog post on the subject. I made no assertion of his claims of expertise whatsoever (see my comment below also)
What does "expert in [XXXX] law" mean to you? That means a lawyer. You'd be hard to find anyone who has an expertise in law not to be a lawyer. And Perens has stated that he is not a lawyer which you failed to mention.
I did not change what was written, anyone can verify that, and I'll ask you not to continue making false claims. You'll note I was extremely careful in making my analogy in that I explicitly mention an expert witness, and not an attorney; this being the closest analogy.
Again. An expert in law is generally a lawyer. You NEVER stated he was merely an expert witness which is not the same thing as an expert in "law". The word "law" being use changes the expertise significantly.
And yes, I again urge you to carefully re-read the post. Please don't take it as a throwaway insult, I am seriously suggesting you re-read if you did not already do so. I note that others have also complained to you on the comments under this story that you've misread what they've said, too.
And I urge you to be careful with words you use. An "expert in law" means something. In the legal profession, lawyers have to be careful to use the terms "Law Office" vs "Law Firm" as well as "Attorney-at-law" vs "graduated law school".
My understanding of Apple product pricing is clearly flawed. Apple have always priced their products on maximising product margins; Not focused on market share.
Are you faulting Apple for not trying to monopolize the entire market on smart phones and instead trying to earn as much profit as they can on the market share they have?
How can this possibly raise the price of any of Apple's hardware?
You do understand how basic accounting works right? If the cost of a good increases, either profits fall or prices get increased.
All I can see is successfully taxing Apple who have worked tirelessly to pay tax nowhere in the world.
Well this is a bold faced lie. Apple does pay taxes. They just pay little taxes in some parts of the world. For example, I would consider the US a part of the world. Do you want to know what Apple paid in corporate taxes in the US?
I notice that xiaomi don't have the same problem with market share/Tarrifs in India sine they now manufacture 95% of phones there...maybe Apple should follow suit.
And that is irrelevant to Apple who is facing problems with US/China tariffs?
They laughed at Obama for suggesting manufacturing in America...They don't laugh at Trump.
Please show me where they "laughed at Obama". Under Jobs, Apple stated to Obama that they were not moving the majority of their manufacturing to the US. I don't see anywhere where Jobs "laughed".
So your point isn't that there are no American manufacturing plants that can make Apple products but Apple and only Apple has to make a plant when Dell, HP, etc. and everyone else who uses the exact same manufacturer as Apple doesn't because . . . Apple has money.
Slashdot Mirror
Battery life != battery capacity. The new smaller in capacity but all the reviews I read said the life is actually better. Perhaps the new hardware/software combination yielded better life.
I don't know if you are the best person to comment on someone's honesty considering the number of posts where you've posted factually wrong information over and over again.
And how would you know considering reviews say the battery life is better than the X
Did you miss the part where he admitted to being wrong on purpose?
What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about tires. Tires. Nowhere in any of gobbly techno babble did you mean tires and instead on the car manufacturers. You do know that they don't make tires right?
I think Apple generally does this every few years because they can. Having vertical integration makes it easier to remove legacy stuff. Google can do that with Android but every change they make has an impact on their partners.
I have to agree especially with cars lasting longer these days. I think they could make tires last that long, but it wouldn't be $0.15 per tire.
It depends on the metric that is being used for more efficient. IOS 9 dramatically reduced the file size requirements as I assumed Apple removed a lot of unneeded legacy cruft. Processing wise, it was slower on older CPUs as it made there were more background processes running. In general I don't know if the example of smartphones is a good one as from the 4S to today, there were huge advances in all mobile CPUs not just Apple ones and now it may be starting to plateau. For desktop/laptop CPUs, it's more an issue as the processing power needed by the consumer hasn't changed that much. These days, more apps want to run in the background for notifications and such even when it isn't needed.
Where in my post did I say that multiplayer never existed before? Nowhere. What I said is that a subscription model is a sometimes a necessity. If you don't want to pay for a subscription that's your choice, don't take that choice away from people who want it.
Yes back in the day, you paid for a video game once and that was it. And no one is arguing that more games shouldn't be like that; however, if you are playing a multiplayer game online, it's just a matter of reality that someone has to pay to keep the infrastructure working. Subscriptions are one option if players choose that option.
Where we should object is if a game is required to be online for no reason (SimCity). Where we should object is where additional money is required for content that should have been in the game (DLC packs to complete the storyline). Where we should object is where additional money is required to progress in the game (Battlefront).
Choosing to fight against any online game that requires subscriptions is takin away choices from players. Some players want to play against someone else online.
I plan on starting and finishing the "Where's Waldo" book series. I missed out on it as a kid. And I don't want anyone here to post any spoilers!
But you don't deny that you were completely inaccurate as to the term "their own people". The question is whether your knowledge of history is incorrect or have a bias in claiming Africans from different tribes are the same people. It boils down to whether you are wrong or racist.
How? You can reprogram the eSIM.
1. The new iPhone has 2 SIMs. One of them is traditional nano-SIM and is swappable
2. The eSIM is reprogrammable and Apple has already given instructions on how to do it.
The missiles are delivered and installed. Now they are never used which is a different matter.
The problem is that what you propose isn't technically impossible and no one is arguing that it's technically impossible. It's going to be much more expensive and it won't happen overnight. That's the problem.
Sorry my example was about avoiding tariffs by Chinese Apple manufacturing locally to avoid tariffs. To the benefit of the local economy, market share.
You understand what a "tariff" is, right? The US is proposing a tariff on China made goods that is imported into the US. The tariff is not only US companies. All companies that import goods into the US is affected. Which affects Samsung, LG, HTC, Dell, HP, basically everyone. You Xiaomi example is irrelevant since they don't import into the US.
It's like dealing with a toddler. Any deal or plans that anyone will try to make may be useless. For now companies have to plan for two contingencies: 1. Nothing will change. 2. Everything will change.
Yes, as an accountant. I am saying profits will fall.
There's a huge difference between WILL fall and CAN fall.
lol, stop spreading fake news, and calling people liars, Apple deliberate do not pay for hospitals, and welfare...because they legally(sic) can...Ireland was famously forced to collect €13bn in tax from Apple. I hope they Apple pay you. Because their anti American policies are everywhere.
Try to follow me here: 1. Apple HQ is in the US; therefore Apple is under IRS rules . 2. Apple has paid US taxes for its entire existence. 3. The US is part of world. Therefore Apple has paid taxes in the world. As an accountant I find it hard to believe that you haven't read Apple's 10K. Thus YOU LIED.
A company who has become the market leader when faced with the same problem with tariffs by manufacturing in that country is a working example it is possible to not only avoid tariffs, but benefit the local economy, and make it successful. You are saying Apple cannot do it...and I am fine with that.
Again try to follow me here: You are using the example of Xiaomi as an example of a company avoiding tariffs. 1. The tariff situation is between the US and China. Not China and India. Not US and India. 2. Xiaomi manufactures in India. 3. Xiaomi does not sell or import phones to the US and sells mostly in China. 4. Thus Xiaomi is entirely irrelevant. If China and India ever get into a tariff, you'd be 100% wrong in all your points.
Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked. Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,”
Where is "laugh"? In your example, there is no "laugh". So are you lying?
They should talk about a deal. Because not talking is working out worse than talking. And a deal might work out better than the alternative situation of not making a deal.
. There are deals in place. With this President, no deal is ever safe as he changes his mind on a whim.
The solution for this "problem" is for cities to negotiate a better service level. This is business-as-usual elsewhere e.g., first rights to diesel fuel supplies, etc.
And how would they do that? If you are a fire company from a small town with a limited number of cell phone companies, how much negotiating power would you have? Not much. They have to accept whatever plans are offered. Now if they were the city of LA, they might have more negotiating power.
Yes, that's correct, that was the entire point. What did you assume the issue was? Perhaps criminality instead of civil law is hyperbolic, but I'd have thought it would have been obvious enough to get the point across.
So you admit to changing the context of the conversation? Doesn't that makes your point moot then?
I most certainly have not. I gave a direct quote [perens.com] of the title and leading sentence of his blog post on the subject. I made no assertion of his claims of expertise whatsoever (see my comment below also)
What does "expert in [XXXX] law" mean to you? That means a lawyer. You'd be hard to find anyone who has an expertise in law not to be a lawyer. And Perens has stated that he is not a lawyer which you failed to mention.
I did not change what was written, anyone can verify that, and I'll ask you not to continue making false claims. You'll note I was extremely careful in making my analogy in that I explicitly mention an expert witness, and not an attorney; this being the closest analogy.
Again. An expert in law is generally a lawyer. You NEVER stated he was merely an expert witness which is not the same thing as an expert in "law". The word "law" being use changes the expertise significantly.
And yes, I again urge you to carefully re-read the post. Please don't take it as a throwaway insult, I am seriously suggesting you re-read if you did not already do so. I note that others have also complained to you on the comments under this story that you've misread what they've said, too.
And I urge you to be careful with words you use. An "expert in law" means something. In the legal profession, lawyers have to be careful to use the terms "Law Office" vs "Law Firm" as well as "Attorney-at-law" vs "graduated law school".
My understanding of Apple product pricing is clearly flawed. Apple have always priced their products on maximising product margins; Not focused on market share.
Are you faulting Apple for not trying to monopolize the entire market on smart phones and instead trying to earn as much profit as they can on the market share they have?
How can this possibly raise the price of any of Apple's hardware?
You do understand how basic accounting works right? If the cost of a good increases, either profits fall or prices get increased.
All I can see is successfully taxing Apple who have worked tirelessly to pay tax nowhere in the world.
Well this is a bold faced lie. Apple does pay taxes. They just pay little taxes in some parts of the world. For example, I would consider the US a part of the world. Do you want to know what Apple paid in corporate taxes in the US?
I notice that xiaomi don't have the same problem with market share/Tarrifs in India sine they now manufacture 95% of phones there...maybe Apple should follow suit.
And that is irrelevant to Apple who is facing problems with US/China tariffs?
They laughed at Obama for suggesting manufacturing in America...They don't laugh at Trump.
Please show me where they "laughed at Obama". Under Jobs, Apple stated to Obama that they were not moving the majority of their manufacturing to the US. I don't see anywhere where Jobs "laughed".
They can either help try to fix it or surrender to it and be a victim of whatever happens.
So then you'd argue Dell and HP and other do the same then? They use some of the same plants Apple uses.
Chinese manufacturers might want to suggest to the government that they negotiate a deal.
So now you're saying is that Chinese manufacturers have to give in to whatever a foreign power says because . . .
So your point isn't that there are no American manufacturing plants that can make Apple products but Apple and only Apple has to make a plant when Dell, HP, etc. and everyone else who uses the exact same manufacturer as Apple doesn't because . . . Apple has money.