Re: $10000 is unlikely
... but he apparently fooled the girl, which is what the watch was for.
486 posts • joined 12 Mar 2007
... but he apparently fooled the girl, which is what the watch was for.
Nevertheless, a high price serves a purpose. A gold designer watch declares "if you mate with me, there will be money for some fun, and for the child". Any other functionality is incidental.
The latest news is that Apple's 18 carat gold is not an alloy with other metals, but a composite with lightweight ceramic material. Still 18/24ths gold by weight, but only about 7/24ths by volume. See how Apple gives you less, but still gives you what you want?
The main purpose of the watch is to handle 95% of interactions without taking the iPhone out of your pocket/bag, and to register notifications instantly instead of next time you happen to look at your phone. It's the iPhone giving us back our lives at last.
It can compute. The implication would be that Apple's product does not implement the full LTE standard. Apple desires to licence the patent in order to fully implement the standard.
Frequently, a licence is included with the relevant chip, negotiated by the chip maker. Because Apple has so much money, patent holders have been known to sell a royalty based chip licence, excluding use of the chip in Apple products, precisely in order to charge Apple more than other users. If the royalty is 1 cent on a $5 chip, the patent holder will likely ask for the "same rate", i.e. $1 on a $500 iPhone. With tens of thousands of patents needed for a smartphone, this isn't really viable. Meanwhile Apple's competitors get a licence for $0.01.
It's easy to see that there may be something for Apple and Ericsson to argue about.
1. Sometimes a far east ebay seller will package in such a way as to make VAT and duty unlikely, and offer to reimburse any vat and duty levied. You have to send them the paperwork after you've been charged, and they reimburse. The fact that they're willing to indemnify against HMRC doing their job shows that HMRC don't usually do their job.
2. Dripping with integrity as I am, I did once try to pay the VAT and duty HMRC had failed to levy. They didn't want it.
3. A previous poster has said Apple has worldwide warranty. Not quite true. Worldwide for portable equipment, country of sale for non portable.
Wikipedia (and elsewhere) re Foxconn suicides:
Although the number of workplace suicides at the company in 2010 was large in absolute terms, the rate is low when compared to the rest of China. (However, the country has a high suicide rate with over 20 deaths per 100,000 persons.) In 2010, the worst year for workplace suicides at Foxconn with a total of 14 deaths, the total employee count was a reported 930,000 people.
When did Apple say they they were better than me, or better than a competitor, or patronise me? I accept there's a lot of bullshit marketing, but they really say no more than "we try harder". And I don't think the fact that they don't like you jailbreaking your iPhone or installing malware is patronising. It's simply a differentiating feature; buy something else if you don't like it. You can still install malware on your Mac, or on your Android device.
Are you sure Apple don't lead by example? Where are the online supplier lists for Sony, HTC, HP or Dell, and where are the supplier audit reports? These are the very things that make it easy for lazy journalists to cobble together Apple centred programmes like Panorama's.
The Panorama programme could have been so much better if, having identified issues in Apple's supply chain, they looked at how those issues might best be resolved, instead of vaguely implying Apple could do better in some unspecified way.
Why didn't we see workers being punished or sacked for sleeping on the job? Because it's clearly part of the long hours culture to sleep on breaks, and they were being left in peace.
The only thing that I can see is a direct result of Apple's business model, is the stress created by keeping the products secret, then shipping ten million the day after the first public demo. Of course this creates huge stress on hiring, working hours etc.
Lady boarding an ancient DC3 of tin pot airlines to stewardess:
"This plane seems awfully old. Is it safe?"
"Madam, how do you think it got so old?"
Apple's an easy and lazy target, because they do make some effort to be transparent. Full lists of suppliers on their web site, published standards and summaries of audits etc. But Dell, Lenovo, Sony, Asustek and others are a larger proportion of Pegatron's output. But it has to be said that Apple's business model (10 million of a new model delivered to end users within a couple of weeks of the unveiling) places tremendous strain on suppliers during the first few weeks of production. At least the workers were being allowed to sleep!
Now give a moment's thought to the people in the supply chain for your christmas lights, and all the other disposable crud you buy with tin in it.
99.9% of users aren't using it:
You can rip CD's; you can buy music and copy it where you like; you can play it on any player or phone you like. You can convert it to any format you like (with iTunes if you want). How ever much you may hate them, it's Apple that made all that happen against the fervent desires of the music business, backed by the Microsoft monopoly. It's not surprising Apple's market cap has grown a hundred fold since 2003.
And now, we've finally realised we don't want to own music anyway.
No, it was Apple's dominance of distribution in the face of incompetent competitors that forced the music biz to give Amazon DRM-free distribution rights more than a year before Apple. Of course Apple had a most favoured nation clause entitling them to the same deal, but the music biz failed to honour that for more than a year. You don't get far by suing your business partners, so Apple kept quiet.But you can be sure Apple was on the point of litigation when the music biz finally conceded their legal obligation. By then Amazon was established.
If Real had gone to court and won the right to hack Fairplay, we'd have DRM to this day. So blocking the Harmony hack turned out overwhelmingly favourable to the consumer.
To understand what went on, you must drop your emotional attachment to theories that suit your preconceptions. Steve Jobs was ruthlessly logical in his decisions, and he got us to where we are now. It is Apple's actions that gave Amazon the right to sell DRM free, because the music biz ended up playing that card to prevent Apple controlling the market. The stage on which Apple fights on the consumer's behalf is at the midpoint between consumer and incumbent, and that's how they change the world. They become the new incumbent because they force what users want when the incumbent won't offer it.
Everyone knew we had to move off CD's. But the music biz was terrified of losing control to rampant copying. If Apple ever put a step wrong, they were a big target for the music biz to sue. To sell music files, the music biz demanded copy protection that couldn't be defeated, even though every copy protection scheme had always ended up defeated.
Job's first, brilliant, audacious step was the "Rip, Mix, Burn" campaign that went with offering CD/RW in the iMac. Apple, supported by artists, advertised that it was definitely legal to rip CD's, and definitely legal to write the music to a new CD, provided it was new "mix", and iTunes made it easy to do. If you could do it with iTunes, it was legal. The music biz hated it, but it was Steve Jobs and Apple that stood up for the consumer, and interposed themselves as target for any litigation the music biz might attempt. Thank you Apple for a brilliant, and successful opening move.
When it came to selling music files, the music biz demanded DRM. How come Apple was able to offer acceptable DRM, when Microsoft et al didn't, and didn't even seem to know they didn't, even though any punter could have told you?
Others, like Microsoft Playsforsure, only offered rental of music, and restricted too rigidly where it could be played. (when you "bought" Playsofrsure music, it still had to be refreshed by a touch from the central servers every month, even though there was no further fee). After a month, your music player would stop playing a playsforsure file unless it was refreshed with another sync. When Microsoft eventually shut down Playsforsure, they told everyone to burn all their music to CD (thank you Apple), or they would lose it.
Apple had negotiated a deal where you could play on five computers, and on unlimited iPods provided they synced to one of your five. And your music would play forever, without any further touch from a central server. Apple fairplay was the only DRM system that actually felt like owning the music. How did they pull that one off?
Apple only had the Mac which didn't have Windows, or even an X86 CPU, and an expensive iPod that only synced to a Mac, using a Firewire interface that wasn't on Wintel PC's. So Apple was making a deal for 2% of the market, for hardware that didn't even connect to a PC. And Apple controlled ALL the player devices, and could update every player firmware if Fairplay was ever hacked. Only if you didn't ever want any new music on your iPod could you avoid a compulsory fairplay/iTunes/firmware update. Apple delivered unbreakable DRM by controlling all the player devices in perpetuity. Even Microsoft couldn't offer that. Everyone else delivered unbreakable DRM by having all music automatically die within thirty days unless it was re-touched from central servers.
Apple didn't let the music biz restrict them legally to Mac and firewire. The music biz presumably figured: if this works on the Mac, we can stitch up asimilar structure for the other 98% of the market before Apple starts again with USB, Windows, and X86, and zero market share.
So it did work, enough people accepted Apple's DRM, even though you could still buy CD's and rip them to unprotected music on iTunes. Apple smoothly switched to USB, and put iTunes on Wintel. But the music biz failed miserably to copy the benefits of Fairplay in the Wintel market. That's why they gave Amazon and others DRM free rights which Apple didn't have. It was their last card to play. Apple had finally forced the music biz to do what they should have done in the beginning: trusted the punter with DRM free music.
Of course Apple's not stupid. After they'd done all the hard work, the music biz was giving competitors a better deal, putting Apple out of the business. Of course Apple had a "most favoured nation" clause: if you give someone else a better deal, you have to offer it to us. But the music business hung on to that differentiation for over a year before capitulating. I'm sure Apple was on the point of litigation when the music biz finally gave Apple the right to DRM free music. I believe Amazon was established as a viable alternative channel in that year.
So there you have it: it was Steve Jobs who forced the music biz to allow DRM free music files to be sold, and it was Steve Jobs who got the music biz to give Amazon that right more than a year before Apple itself got it. Before that time, if Apple allowed Real to hack Fairplay music onto iPods, Apple could lose the ability to change the implementation of Fairplay while preserving all a users owned music on an iPod. DRM requires tight control all the way from publisher to analogue-out in both audio and video. Apple couldn't possibly allow Real to break that chain, and if they have any sense, that's what Apple will say in court: the music biz demanded unbroken DRM so Apple required complete end to end control. Allowing the Harmony hack would break the control that Apple needed to meet contractual obligations for music distribution.
So now go read The Art of War (2.5K years old). It's a free download, and it's very short. It's business basics.
Just the usual brutal negotiations in a high value contract. I certainly wouldn't want to be an Apple supplier. Up front money came from Apple, so Apple wrote the contract. Despite the legal terms, Apple has, Mafia capo style, historically been supportive of suppliers who despite best efforts, are in breach. Apple has presumably lost more dollars than GTAT, and Apple will have greater difficulty in negotiating future supplier contracts. It's not as if Apple has obtained some benefit here. It's the usually hidden side of Apple's efforts to slow down the "fast followers" copying its product innovations: ensuring that copiers can't get volume supplies and can't get competitive pricing for the first couple of years.
Apple (and every other manufacturer) can already carrier lock a phone. They already had technology to take away consumer choice. So the idea that a soft SIM will take away consumer choice because it can is not particularly useful. It's far more likely that carriers will be able to offer soft SIMs in exactly the same way they offer hard sims, and you can pick whichever you want.
The real significance of this is that Apple are now nearly in a position to buy airtime wholesale, in real time, potentially creating a monopsony with the power to end the carrier-consumer relationship. It's not that carriers couldn't continue to offer service, it's that they couldn't compete On price or coverage with an Apple multi carrier MVNO. How barren would our high streets be then?
But Apple are cleverer than that. They already only have to glance towards the cash pile as they say to a new industry "we'd like to work with you". So the soft SIM may well appear to make little difference to the consumer. But it does substantially alter the balance of power between Apple and carriers. It's not clear how Google could follow without becoming a manufacturer. It's already miserable enough being an Android licensee, and soft sims under Google control would just make it more miserable.
@Andy - Apple don't channel stuff (at least not since the '90's). Apple are grand masters at supply chain / channel logistics. Inventory is evil whether it's upstream or downstream. They are, on the other hand, grand masters at getting big volume commitments out of carriers.
The token technology is not Apple specific, and others will offer similar payment systems. Whether they are as frictionless as Apple's with Touchid remains to be seen. Apple also remain as arms-length to the transaction as they can be, which pleases all the interested parties, unlike, for example, Google wallet. If the potential to more or less eliminate fraud is realised, there will be strong motivation for people to adopt it.
It's unlikely that Apple didn't have a viable way to use sapphire if it spent half a billion on volume production. More likely there were problems in achieving volume production that prevented use in iPhone 6, and hence suspended the next prepayment from Apple. It may simply be that the watch has slipped, and GTAT hit a cashflow wall.
Right now the most powerful reason for me to go 4k is that I can crop or scale and crop HD video out of the 4K frame. The type of thing stills photographers do all the time.
So that's why they bought Beats - to make digital headphones with end-to-end encryption like HDMI. If they do that I'll know that they can't survive without Steve Jobs after all. What did he say about DRM and "a world of hurt"?
Not true Cowyard, your post is fantasy. The premium price tag pays for a better product, and for Apple's enormous profits. If Apple were bribing the carriers with money, they wouldn't be making the profits. It's Samsung that spends $14Bn on marketing, including spiffs; when you buy a Samsung, you're directly bribing the channel. Apple does not pay the networks to keep them sweet; they deliver the subscribers who have the highest ARPU by far, because they make the products those subscribers want. The networks don't like it, but they have to offer iPhone, or they will lose their best subscribers to churn. And they have to push iPhone hard, because Apple won't let them have it unless they commit to high volumes calculated by Apple to stress them. Carriers would love not to need iPhone and have to be bribed to take it, but that's the exact opposite of the truth. The customer relationship belongs to Apple, and the networks need the customers.
Press jollies and fine dining would show up as marketing expense too, and Apple don't do it that way. Again, it is discipline in controlling the information disseminated that gets the media eating out of their hands, not "press jollies". That would be so last century.
The iPad, the android tablet and the windows tablet are not interchangeable. It is a mistake to think they are equals competing in an imagined god-given tablet market. Ipad will take a major share of the market now served by Windows PC's, but it will take ten more years. The last thing Apple wants is to allow competitors to attach themselves to the iPad market. The products will move apart, and iPad volumes and margins will be almost unaffected by competition.
Component level repairs are a major source of unreliability whoever does them. My advice these days: if your digital device fails out of warranty, sell it for parts on eBay and replace with new. You'll get a remarkably high price, and a brand new gadget, with a new lifetime, and thanks to moore's law, a better spec.
15-20 years ago, Apple used to think they could make reliable component repairs to exchanged modules, whereas IBM didn't. The result was flakey repairs by Apple dealers, solid repairs by IBM dealers. Apple's current approach is fine by me, especially now that there are no moving parts apart from laptop keyboards.
So far as I can tell, hardware problems with current Apple products are almost entirely with third party batteries, chargers, memory, cables and connectors.
The take-home here is that flatscreen TV audio is uniformly crap. Almost anything sounds better. You need separate speakers in some form. You can usually get an Airplay (and lots of other things) compatible AV amp for £200 or less. (I paid £169 for Pioneer 527, which also comes with a microphone to set up speaker delays, speaker and room acoustics matching). You don't actually need to spend much extra on speakers to get pretty good sound. The AV amp will switch among your DVD player, set top boxes, etc.
(I'd also like to nit-pick a couple of posts, and point out that criteria is the plural of criterion. You should write "Sound quality is not the only criterion ...", or "Sound quality and price are not the only criteria...". Don't they teach ancient Greek in school any more?)
All in-range humans would be good. Plus an auto-freeze when they come into range, to give me time to formulate my evil plan...
Google themselves are leading owner of software patents, on which their entire business is based. Google has done some wonderful things, but they operate double standards on patents. Unless Google will indemnify others from patent suits over VP9, they shouldn't press for it to be a standard; it will be a members-club setup just like mpeg.
When you sell a generic product, the customer is very likely to buy a different manufacturer's product next time. All updating Android does is to possibly delay a hardware upgrade sale; it doesn't get you the next hardware sale. Android updates only benefit the user, not the manufacturer.
Google is aware of this, hence the bundling of many updates into Google Play Services instead of Android updates.
Google's expansion of its business beyond its original search basis has been largely based on stealing other people's intellectual property, protected from consequences by the slowness of legal process. So of course their use of patents is defensive; having stolen what they want, they won't initiate a legal battle over ownership, just fight dirty if the owner tries to do anything in court. Without patents of their own, Google's negotiating position was weak. They first tried to buy the Nortel patent pool for an excessive price so they could troll against those whose IP they had stolen. After an ad-hoc consortium of competitors (Rockstar) kept the pool out of Google's hands by paying an even more excessive price, Google bought Motorola for their cellphone patent pool instead, and has been using it (largely unsuccessfully) instead.
Google's protests are a joke. Rockstar isn't a troll; it's a purpose made vehicle for a group of existing companies to defend themselves from Google's desire to destroy the basis of their profitability.
Of course software patents are a dubious concept, so all of this action is literally a farce. And there is no moral high ground here, it's just a corporate power struggle.
Shouldn't the EU be standardising the mains plug on the charger? That would be far more useful. The USB plug is already standardised. Yes we'd have to retire our uk homes, but think of the harmony that would follow.
Apple's lightning connector is clearly superior to micro USB in usability. It's actually Apple's first completely purpose designed dock connector for IOS devices; the old one was simply a transitional hodgepodge of disparate interfaces on the same connector: dual charging systems, FireWire, USB, video and audio. The lightning connector is also a key component in Apple's walled garden management of the third party accessory market, because it has to be licensed. Clearly, a lot of users value this approach, which gives a sort of uniform trustworthiness to accessories.
A variety of lightning adapters is available, and the same approach is used on the mac with Thunderbolt. For the EU to outlaw Apples product architecture and business model would be moronic. No-one has to buy an Apple product if they don't want to.
This negotiation has been going on for years, and is effectively with the Chinese government. Apple's planned roll out of stores across China has been more or less suspended, presumably because of it. Apple is indirectly a major employer in China. Foxconn has just done a deal with Blackberry that can begin to change the power balance between Western brand and Chinese assembler, as happened with PC's. Apple has started building PCs in the USA again after 25 years or so. Robotics are changing the balance of costs between east and west. This negotiation is a reflection of bigger issues.
Apple's high prices and tight control of the user relationship made Verizon, Docomo and China Mobile stay away. But they steadily lost subscribers to smaller carriers with an iPhone deal. Verizon and Docomo have capitulated. Large though China Mobile is, Apple won't scrap their business model just to get a deal. And for China, January is the crucial date, not December, when product is needed, and Apple might have some spare capacity.
The weird thing is that books are all different. For each title, there is only one publisher, so there's no real possibility of competition driving the price down; there are no other suppliers. Fore books it's arguable that the author or publisher should set the end user price, and the distributor (Apple or Amazon) should charge the author/publisher a distribution fee. Apple likes this, because price is no longer a factor in the buying decision. Amazon doesn't like it, because they are establishing a monopoly by selling below cost.
There does seem to be some validity to Apple's complaint that the way this has been done means the judge has set herself up as Apple's litigation adversary, with no possibility of legal representation for Apple, when the supervision should have been independent, with reports back to the judge open to Apple to inspect and respond to. That would leave the judge as impartial judge, with legal representation available to Apple.
I think what he must be trying to say is that the operation of the building (as opposed to its contents) won't add to atmospheric co2. Even if what he actually said implies that no life form that enters the building can ever leave.
It would of course be GOOD for the environment if the building emitted megatons of carbon atoms, presumably converted from human emissions of CO2.
@Terry Barnes: Remembering that in the crazy digital photography world 2/3" (two thirds of an inch) denotes an 11mm sensor (diagonal): it's apparently the outside diameter a 1950's glass vidicon tube would need to be to contain a sensor of that size.
I really thought mr Dell was aiming to be beaten by a better offer, and thus sell his remaining stock for a decent price. But apparently not. Dell was never a creative engineering company (apart, of course, from the financial engineering), and Michael Dell always shared an office with the CEO; it's been his show all along. The cash flow of recent years has been largely illusory; it's bought in like HP's: borrowed cash made to look like revenue by acquisitions shown on the balance sheet as goodwill etc.
I guess it's what he deserves, which is nice.
It's called "running interference". Eventually the punter will give up, because it's not worth it. One reason to use one of those companies that do it for you. The good ones will have taken Halifax all the way to bailiffs at the head office wanting to distrain their goods, and Halifax will be paying up rather more readily. Having said that, the banks hate those companies and want to make life hell for them too. Another factor is the correct calculation of interest charges. If at any time since, you became overdrawn, but wouldn't have done if your account balance at the time had been correct, that's also a consequent loss they owe you, with 8% interest ever since. The difference between what they give you voluntarily, and what you can get by carefully analysing the financial consequences ever since the PPI can be huge. Very frequently they are unable to produce the document you originally signed, or they only scanned the signature page, so they have no basis in court to justify the money they took at all.
Of course no rational person ever signed up for PPI in the first place, so it's all academic.
I suppose the theory goes that if you buy AAPL, you value the company more highly than the cash. But a third of your cash is used to buy Apple's cash. So if Apple buys back shares with its cash, the remaining shareholders own a bigger share of the company for no more money. Most of the cash is offshore, where it can be used to buy entire factories, fabs etc for suppliers to operate risk-free but reserved for Apple. That cash repatriates in the form of non taxable depreciation. If it's repatriated as cash there's currently a big tax bill to pay. So by borrowing the money, the evil tax bill is deferred, but the shares are bought back, and the original cash is still available to change the world. The downside is the interest on the borrowing. But that's actually free, because the money buys back shares on which the company was paying a dividend, and the interest payments are also tax deductible where the divi's weren't.
So if the share price stays the same or goes up, it turns out to be a brilliant idea. But if it goes down, you've pissed away the company's cash for nothing (like Dell). Check yahoo finance for the net tangible assets compared to market cap on the balance sheets of Dell, HP, and Apple. Icahn wants to make Apple more like Dell. I'm not convinced.
yet another patent of the bleedin' obvious.
No, it doesn't look like Apple are going to do this on their own devices, but they might do something rather similar using Bluetooth LE. So they patent the closest thing done with NFC to keep a wide "moat" round their "user experience".
I don't think Apple are obsessed with DRM on their own account; they just want be able to assure content owners that paid content is safe when distributed by Apple. So that they can actually offer paid content.
Ensuring that there can be a viable economy around content creation is, in my view, on the whole a good thing, which strengthens creators more than aggregators.
So where did Gartner get these numbers from? Samsung stopped reporting numbers two years ago. Apple may be the only one left reporting audited quarterly numbers including sell through to end users. And Netmarketshare still reports equal web activity for iPhone and Android.
It was also Scully who licensed the Mac UI to Microsoft in exchange for Excel on Mac for two years. Apple was able to stop everyone but Microsoft copying the Mac, and the result was the bootstrapping of IBM's market position into the Wintel monopoly. And it was Scully who set the price of Macintosh a thousand dollars higher than it needed to be, creating a price umbrella under which Wintel could flourish.
"You are right, first I have seen the icon field was Windows 3.0, 20 years ago."
So you didn't notice the Mac, 29 years ago?
The publishers don't have a problem with Amazon selling e-books at a loss, they have a problem with e-books being cheaper than physical books. If that continues, the publishers' empires will shrivel to a fraction of their former size (as with music).
There can't be "bargain bins" of ebooks because there is no physical inventory. And anyway bargain bin books are not really sold at a loss in any meaningful sense. If bargain bins lost money, there wouldn't be any bargain bins; retailers aren't that stupid.
Apple did not fix any prices; they entered into a contract that ensured Apple could price match any competitor without selling below cost. The two questions in this case that are interesting are 1. should the agency model for sales (which has been a spectacular success for small App developers) be legal, and 2. should "most favoured nation" clauses be legal. They have been up to now.
Interestingly, iBooks only exist inside Apple's "walled garden". They can't be read on anyone else's e-reader or on any PC, so it would seem they barely ever competed with Amazon e-books. And strictly speaking, the publishers cannot collude to fix prices because each book is only available from one publisher, and the others cannot set a price for it.
Why does anyone care what Apple does inside its walled garden? If it's worthwhile then others are free to create their own walled gardens, and if not, it's totally irrelevant. The Apple haters mock the walled garden as inferior and exploitative, but what they actually resent is its success in attracting paying customers.
Apple couldn't take Amazon to court for dumping - since Apple weren't in the ebook market at the time, there was no loss for which they could seek compensation. And anyway, I doubt if "dumping" was illegal.
"And by the first half of this year almost one in two tablets sold will be Android."
In my world the first half of this year is already gone.
0 is almost 1. So I suppose it's true. But meaningless.
There's a lot to be said for a world where you look at the song or the book or the sandwich itself and decide if you want it or not, rather than attempt to seek out a better deal, or decide if you should get a completely different book because it's cheaper. For me, the iTunes Store, Lidl and TKMax are temples of serenity in an abusive world where both the product and the buying experience are polluted by "offers", "deals", bloat ware, bundling.
Many people share this need to focus on the object. Why else would they willingly enter Apple's "expensive " "walled garden", causing it to grow so immense?
Apple needed to launch iPad. At least this deal lasted long enough for that.
You'll be interested in the Apple death knell counter, then:
On the registered name, in major markets, Apple proceeds covertly via intermediaries when registering names, so the chequebook has likely already done its work.
Apple goes to extremes to ensure success for new products. On the viability of the product, I would expect Apple to make it uniquely compelling for at least some of the market. Secure activation by fingerprint, also bypassing iPhone 4 digit passcode?
Alternatives not mentioned that I can see are the very small Ethernet, FireWire 800, VGA and DVI adapters for thunderbolt that I keep in my bag. They don't require a thunderbolt cable. And Seagate have the Goflex adapter system for drives which includes thunderbolt options. I think the Belkin dock is even more of a niche product than it appears from this review.
Amazon was selling at or below Amazon's cost from the publisher, (not at or below the publisher's marginal cost of supply), in order to create and extend an e-book monopoly. Each book is different, and the agency model means the publisher sells to the end user at a price the publisher determines. The reseller receives a sales commission. The agency model means resellers compete on service, not price. The publisher determines the price. Books are not fungible, so there can't really be a price cartel.
The MFN clause is vital to enable Apple (or anyone else) to know that if they invest in a business model that succeeds, the suppliers can't simply cut them off. Without the MFN clause, the iTunes store would have been shut down by the music publishers who thought the world belonged to them.
Apple's strategy definitely delivered a better customer experience (like the net book agreement), and it definitely gave the publishers pricing power. But since each book title only has one publisher, it's hard to say there was price fixing on any individual title.
What happened with the ending of the net book agreement is that many bookshops disappeared, and the reality is that books effectively became fungible as the publishers ceased to be sellers of books and actually became buyers of shop shelf space. The bookshops that remain concentrate on best sellers.
Obviously if you are restoring from the cloud, your original device has failed, and you can't use its presence for authentication. We have a compromise between ease of use and security. Still better than nothing. For proper 2 factor authentication we'll use the impending secure fingerprint scanner in every IOS device. Then the crooks will need to chop off your finger instead of stealing your iPhone. They'll have got the password by threatening to chop off your finger.
Adobe goes out of business - so do you. Your business just became an Adobe subsidiary. How much did you get for it?
This could be an opportunity for Apple to rejuvenate their fading pro apps.
For anyone remotely interested in being serious: 1: there is always a big drop quarter over quarter in Apple's iPad and iPhone sales, but component makers can't adjust their capacity, so it's sort of a non-story. 2: The Japanese Yen dollar exchange rate has fallen 25% in 3 months and Sharp is desperate for orders. Lots of orders are going to Japan; South Korea is seeing serious price competition. 3: Apple will reveal actual iPhone and iPad sales for the quarter this evening. 4. Apple operates its business in a completely different way to its competitors, and this is obviously not widely understood, which suits Apple fine.
The sad truth is that to earn enough with pitiful ad revenue, it's necessary to write click bait drama queen headlines, linking to gossip. The secrecy which is an essential part of Apple's business model makes Apple a prime target for fabricated stories.
Since your privacy is Google's primary commercial currency, an even higher level of cynicism is warranted than with Apple. It's naive to imagine a switch completely erases all information, just as it's naive to imagine that the "power" switch of any electronic gadget can actually turn it completely off.
Having servants to do stuff for you has always had the down side that you have to tell them what you want.