At which point you could either get it from a different app store or just skip the app stores altogether and side load it.Or of course pirate it.
FTFY - and the exact reason why a $300 app isn't available for Android.
It's still on the device, but they're worries that they won't be able to get app updates and that an iOS update may break the app
Then they should buy an Android tablet, then they can be certain there won't be any OS updates.
If most people don't use Ethernet most of the time, don't include it.
Half the offices I work in don't have wireless, and everyone plugs in their laptops. I'm skeptical that a signficant majority of people using macbook pro's at work are wireless.
Instead they will have a docking station with ethernet constantly connected.
You're already can, the $29 adapter on the store is just a 10/100 usb2 adapter. The Thunderbolt GigE one will likely be a *hair* more expensive.
$0.00 to be precise.
The price sticker will probably say "Free".
Probably right, that is unless the upgrade is unavailable for your device (i.e. older iPhones), or breaks it. Under those circumstances, I contend the upgrade price will be the price of whatever phone Apple is pimping at the time of iOS 6's release.
Let me get this straight:you are an Android user complaining about the upgradability of Apple's phones. Good one.
22 years ago last December, Judge Posner presided over my marriage.
Yeah, right, a married Pope.
Copy? Android is being developed since 2003, the T-Mobile G1 was released 2008 only a couple of months after the iPhone 3G (which was the first "smartphone" iPhone, the iPhone of 2007 not offering apps), so I guess Android was really quick at copying the stuff,
Nobody claimed that Android copied the iPhone from the start - first they copied Blackberry (notice the keyboard on that G1 - knew you could). Only after the iPhone was presented did Android suddenly have touch in mind from the start.
Compare the iPhone 1.0 to the LG Prada phone.
You really think these phones look alike, while these don't? And the Prada doesn't even have the slider keyboard out.
> Except that X thousand people buy new TVs every year.
Other companies that actually make TVs are already seeing demand fall off. The big forced upgrade is over with now and people are generally resisting further attempts to create another one.
People arne't that rich and the economy isn't that good either.
Which is why Apple is on the brink of bankruptcy - oh, wait... Face it, if there is any company that could completely turn the TV set market on its head, it would be Apple.
While DirecTV's Chairman is crowing about his viewers lacking an interest in paying for an "extra box" on top of what he provides? Viewers will continue to drop DirecTV service completely,
This is inevitable, broadcast services are dying a slow death as multi-cast and on-demand services become more prevalent.
once they use boxes like AppleTV
This made me laugh. Apple has had no success with AppleTV and for good reason, they are trying to follow the same "micropayment" model that is killing the other companies, when you look at it, paying $2 per episode is no different then pay-per-view. AppleTV has completely failed to take off and unlike Microsoft they are unable to bundle it with their other offering due to the fact it's a bit of hardware. This "Direct TV" guy (they don't exist in Oz) is right about that, people don't want another box, his or Apple's. They want this shit built into their TV sets and not have it controlled by someone else. This is why Napster and Bit Torrent is such a huge success, not because it's free but because it provides people with what they want. Apple TV is a failure. A successful on demand service will integrate with what people already have and provide access to what they want without asking for payment every single time.
Do you even have a clue what "Apple TV" is? [looks at posting history]. Quite obviously you don't have any clue about anything, so why should we be surprised. Here's someone with a clue.
As far as I can tell, it would have been slightly smaller (about 10mm x 8mm instead of 12.3mm x 8.8mm) and would have had a different layout for the contacts. The winning design can also be jammed sideways into a 12mm wide mini-SIM slot and get stuck, which Nokia designed theirs to avoid.
Which everybody but Nokia's engineers could easily disprove.
Right now, Apple's got NO patents in the ring, so to make an iPhone, they have to license it all. Their nano SIM standard is covered by an Apple patent that Apple has vowed to license for free. However, it means Apple has patents now, and in the whole FRAND business, it means Apple will pay Nokia/RIM/Motorola less money because of it.
That's why everyone is upset - Apple's making tons of money, and now they'll be paid LESS money for their patents.
And by "Everybody" you mean "Absolutely nobody but Nokia/RIM/Motorola".
The purpose of a patent is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". (Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution)
Since sitting on a patent cannot possibly promote progress of any sort, doing so ~should~ invalidate the patent.
Somebody invents something and intends to "sit on it". If he patents it, everybody can use it after the patents runs out. If he doesn't, nobody will ever even know about it. Which solution promotes progress?
Well, if Apple sues Samsung for making a tablet with the same dimensions, but black, despite prior art (Space Odysessy 2001)
Thanks for proving you're a moron. As well as the Moderators. But what else is new.
Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.
