Well if you just looked at the photos of the cables, you would see it is not a common consumer cable. It is a 64 optic fiber cable that does not exist in other fields. The Denon AKDL1 is simply an ethernet cable. AudioQuest Diamond is simply an HDMI cable. AudioQuest K2 is simply speaker cable. The Intel cable probably will be expensive but it will be used for back-bone usage and not consumer usage.

iOS shares the same core systems as OS X but it's not the same due to architecture differences. As for pressuring Intel, Apple has worked with Intel so much in the past on the MacBook Air chips that Intel came out with the Ultrabook specification based largely on what Apple did. Apple's use of ARM has to due mostly with power efficiency as the first iPad prototypes were x86 based but their power consumption was unacceptable to Apple.

RT has no backwards compatibility but apps built using new frameworks by MS can run in RT and 8.

Oh yes I know the core of iOS is OS X but it is not same OS. Things do not work the same in both systems; they work alike. It would take some work for Apple to get OS X apps to work in iOS like even their own AppleWorks. Instead they create separate versions; these separate versions are due to both UI differences as well as architectural ones but my point is that Intel X86 isn't the only chip that has both.

I meant "other than the contention that pressure from Google"

Well if you read any of the articles, there is no real information or than the contention that pressure from Google has delayed the release of this tablet. It is not explained further. I don't know how reliable this considering the following statement:

ARM runs on multiple operating systems and in fact, Windows RT and Android can run on the same tablet if MS chooses this path not ARM. Apple could make OS X for ARM; however, the performance may be lacking.

The last known position was over the ocean.

My reading is that ACARS updates position only few minutes whereas radar update times is faster. As for search area, the initial search area is where the plane disappeared off the coast of Vietnam. The max search area is based on remaining fuel. It is theoretically possible as the plane may have changed courses. Not probable, but possible.

No I didn't. Your point is irrelevant.

What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.

What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.

What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.

What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.

What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.

What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.

Finally, some semblance of a point. Apple has said they will trust a court. Period.

Again, her death certificate only says she died. The will and solicitor only says that her children get her possessions. Nowhere has anyone said legally that the iPad they have was once her possession. All they have is the word of her children which does not protect Apple from any legal liability. A court can say this. Apple will unlock the device when they get this legal proof. I'm sure that this isn't the first time that someone has tried to game a situation.

You seem to miss the whole point. If your relative died and they had an iPad, you can claim that it was your relative's to get it unlocked, but Apple only has your word that it was your relative's iPad. You don't even know the AppleID to which it was locked. . What it turns out it was not your relative's? What if it was a borrowed or stolen iPad. People lie all the time about what they own. From Apple's standpoint, a court order resolves them from liability if you are not the legal owner. They don't require absolute proof just legal protection.

You don't get the point. Apple can technically unlock the device. They cannot be certain that the iPad that the children have is actually their mother's. Anyone can lie. They are not going to find out as this is a legal question. When the court gives them a court order, they'll do it.

Again you don't get the point. A MAC address or serial number tells nothing about who owns any particular iPad especially when the children don't know the AppleID (user account information) of their mother. AppleID accounts do not have to contain any identifying information other than a email address.

I think you fail to understand my point. Apple cannot be sure whose iPad it is. The family can claim that it was their mother's just like I can claim that iPad was mine. The family does not have an AppleID which the iPad appears locked as they don't have the information. All Apple is asking for is for a court not the family to absolve them from any liability.

Apple knows whose Apple ID the device is locked to. The children do not have the Apple ID or password.

Only if someone provides such information to Apple. An AppleID does not require an address or credit card. Only an email address. As for purchasing, remember that iPads are given as gifts. Even if Apple could track down who sold the device and to whom it was sold, they still can't sure who the owner is.

I don't think that's the real crux. I think that without any sort of proof that the iPad was hers, Apple can't unlock it. My reading of it is that the will divided the estate but did not name the iPad specifically. Without an AppleID or some sort of identifying information, Apple can't know that was her iPad and not someone else's. People probably have used situations like this before to game Apple. So they want a court order that essentially absolves them from deciding that. They'll unlock it when a court tells them to.

A building's provenance is generally more clear as the owner is registered somewhere. If you have an iPad, I can claim it as mine when my grandma died and so Apple has to unlock it without any proof that the iPad was really my grandmas'?