[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Maybe, maybe not still makes no sense. It is logical to assume - given a 2 year cycle - that 50% upgrade in alternate years.

So i still have no idea what your point was.

I suppose you could assume that everyone with a phone upgrades every two years, but I'm sure plenty of people don't. Especially people on PAYG.

The point is that it makes little sense to hold back features with a view to people upgrading more regularly than they otherwise might.

As an example, we didn't buy an iPad until it had a retina display. We didn't buy an iPad one year, and another one a year later. Which isn't to say that some people wouldn't have. I'm just not convinced that there is a net benefit to Apple in delaying features.

Besides which, what happened to the thing about Apple users being idiots who buy anything Apple release? If that really was the case, they wouldn't need to hold back features to get people to upgrade in the future. They'd be upgrading anyway, because they're idiots who buy anything Apple release.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Participate? I found you have never replied to any answer apart from a 'No' alluding to some slight grain of truth that is never divulged.

I often find that you never reply to people's posts full stop.

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

I often find that you never reply to people's posts full stop.

You should know full well why I had stopped replying to kidspud. kid is even repeating questions answered by me and others to him before, not that that matters to him one bit.

I found little reason to engage you calico, though likely you deserved one on that point before I realised you have a positive pedantic trademark rather than just my once claimed 'circular' one.

On I think that subject of your requested question, did you read that piece by that guy who wrote the actual DRM, "Many Facades of DRM" ?
Its OK to believe anything Jobs said.let out to the public as fact, but he did things for a reason, so I have to go along with that document. It really has to be much closer to the actual truth.

Google it.

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Participate? I found you have never replied to any answer apart from a 'No' alluding to some slight grain of truth that is never divulged.
And what's in the game of repeatedly asking questions you have had answered in the past, both by me and others ?

I could have sent you an IM but obviously you cant receive an Android IM in iMessage. (joke)

I'm happy to answer any question, not quite sure what you think you have asked me that you think I haven't answered. As for any questions you claimed to have answered, it will be easy for you to point me in the direction of your answer if you have already given it.

Never heard of an android IM I do have both android and apple devices, so I'm covered.

Oh, and you know the saying, if you have to tell them it's s joke, it isn't

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

I'm happy to answer any question..

Go one then, try this!
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...php?p=74243922

So in there, you admit to being knowledge on NFC tags can you now explain

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

Nfc tag really don't know what you are taking about.

I'll accept a 'grain of truth'. After all, in my instance it is all you are good for.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

You should know full well why I had stopped replying to kidspud. kid is even repeating questions answered by me and others to him before, not that that matters to him one bit.

I found little reason to engage you calico, though likely you deserved one on that point before I realised you have a positive pedantic trademark rather than just my once claimed 'circular' one.

Um, OK.

Quote:

On I think that subject of your requested question, did you read that piece by that guy who wrote the actual DRM, "Many Facades of DRM" ?
Its OK to believe anything Jobs said.let out to the public as fact, but he did things for a reason, so I have to go along with that document. It really has to be much closer to the actual truth.

Google it.

Without getting drawn into that again, but.... you do seem to be ignoring the whole Apple did_not_want_to_use_DRM elephant in the room.

But either way - maybe don't criticise others for their replies to you, when you often ignore questions yourself.

[alanwarwic]

No I'm not ignoring it, you simply never read it (start at 'Business model')
His DRM expert says that Jobs successfully painted a picture that he hated DRM (just before he annouced a DRM free deal).
He even says the music industry likely went DRM free to break the Apple monopoly and then mentions the massive massive success of the iPod DRM lock.

Jobs really loved DRM, its what won iPod that war. Only a child could see no love.

Now I'm bored, is there really any more to actually properly discuss on that bit ?

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Go one then, try this!
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...php?p=74243922

So in there, you admit to being knowledge on NFC tags can you now explain


I'll accept a 'grain of truth'. After all, in my instance it is all you are good for.

I know what nfc tags are. The reason I don't understand is your claim they 'came to android first'. Nfc and nfc tags have nothing to do with android, so I really don't know what you are talking about.

I still do not have a clue what 'grain of truth' is meant to mean either. It's like talking to the riddler.

Good thread to link to though, put you in a really good light

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

...But either way - maybe don't criticise others for their replies to you, when you often ignore questions yourself.

I can well assure you, I was dealing kindly to someone I see as an out and out liar in his dealings with me.

[Gigabit]

This Daily Fail headline translates to: there will be an iPhone released sometime in the next 100 years.

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

I can well assure you, I was dealing kindly to someone I see as an out and out liar in his dealings with me.

If you are referring to me, I hope you can back up your claims.

[alanwarwic]

Yep, someone had to start the ball rolling.

Anyone going to give odds on there being that 7 or 8" plastic phablet specially there to complement an iWatch ?

[swordman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

I suppose you could assume that everyone with a phone upgrades every two years, but I'm sure plenty of people don't. Especially people on PAYG.

The point is that it makes little sense to hold back features with a view to people upgrading more regularly than they otherwise might.

As an example, we didn't buy an iPad until it had a retina display. We didn't buy an iPad one year, and another one a year later. Which isn't to say that some people wouldn't have. I'm just not convinced that there is a net benefit to Apple in delaying features.

Besides which, what happened to the thing about Apple users being idiots who buy anything Apple release? If that really was the case, they wouldn't need to hold back features to get people to upgrade in the future. They'd be upgrading anyway, because they're idiots who buy anything Apple release.

You say that in bold but your point doesn't make that case at all in any way whatsoever. You claim, I think that there is some some special criteria that applys with apple upgraders - that you have failed entirely to demonstrate or explain.

In fact, if anything is the reality, I suspect iphone buyers are more keen than anyone to be seen with the latest and greatest.

This is just another example of you scattergun approach of defend everything relating to apple, every possible scenario with blind reasoning and hope no one picks up on it.

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Yep, someone had to start the ball rolling.

Anyone going to give odds on there being that 7 or 8" plastic phablet specially there to complement an iWatch ?

I look forward to you backing it up then, or will it be another of your empty posts?

This year? Yep, I'll offer you 100/1.

[calico_pie]

That you are not following the reasoning does not make it blind.

Suppose there are, for the sake of the argument, two groups of iPhone users.

1. Those who rush out and upgrade every year or two regardless, because they want the latest and greatest.

2. Those who just want a decent enough phone, but aren't worries about having the latest and greatest as often as every 12 months.

In neither case is there much of an advantage in Apple holding features back.

The first group will probably upgrade anyway.

And the second group will likely not be that fussed.

Going back to the example that started this - the larger screen.

Here's a question - what advantage did Apple gain from not making a larger iPhone earlier?

Alan says it helped them maximise the sales of smaller phones. But how did not making a larger phone achieve that? Anyone who wanted a smaller phone could still have bought one.

Plus, they could have sold larger phones to people who wanted them.

[d123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

And it make you look even more slanderous.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander
"is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person,"

If you seem to think a slight grain of truth in a reply means it is not slander you are sadly mistaken.

You really are an ignorant fool, can I suggest you go find an English dictionary and look up the difference between slander and libel.

It is actually quite sad, you want to post with such authority and have such a poor grasp of basic English...

[swordman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

That you are not following the reasoning does not make it blind......
Plus, they could have sold larger phones to people who wanted them.

Lets be clear here I have never mentioned apple holding anything back at all (although it obvious they do) You attempted to explain them holding stuff back by claiming people only upgrade every .. well i don't know what exactly you were saying .. just not every year.

I merely pointed out your explanation for that, as usual, was flawed and without any coherence - as demonstrated above.

[alanwarwic]

The only bit I ever misunderstood d123 was the bit where a 'grain of truth' is not a defence. Obviously when a grain of truth is repeated time and time again in similar situations it is even less a defence.

Do you not even, in UK English, just a little bit, grasp that slander is a 'conversational' word and that we are in part conversation, part permanent existence here ?

And BTW Law is mainly just bean counting. You yourself also fit into that US 'False Light' category thingy.
Libel and slander have bigger crossover online so don't try the crap about English.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Lets be clear here I have never mentioned apple holding anything back at all (although it obvious they do) You attempted to explain them holding stuff back by claiming people only upgrade every .. well i don't know what exactly you were saying .. just not every year.

I merely pointed out your explanation for that, as usual, was flawed and without any coherence - as demonstrated above.

It seemed pretty clear - most people don't upgrade every year.

Which part of that didn't you follow?

[swordman]

Every part, how often do people upgrade then?

[kidspud]

Shame the other thread was closed.

Apple have won the iPod anti trust case.

[alanwarwic]

LOL, I bet we already knew that was coming as it had a jury, not a good thing on such technical matters. I knew too little about the case to have my own opinion of what would be a 'just outcome'.

'Delivering a unanimous verdict today, the group said Apple's iTunes 7.0, released in the fall of 2006, was a "genuine product improvement," meaning that new features (though importantly increased security) were good for consumers. Plaintiffs in the case unsuccessfully argued that those features not only thwarted competition, but also made Apple's products less useful since customers could not as easily use purchased music or jukebox software from other companies with the iPod.'

http://www.macrumors.com/2014/12/16/...trust-lawsuit/

That rather interesting PDF document I mentioned you can read, well they actually banned that as evidence.

[d123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

The only bit I ever misunderstood d123 was the bit where a 'grain of truth' is not a defence. Obviously when a grain of truth is repeated time and time again in similar situations it is even less a defence.

Do you not even, in UK English, just a little bit, grasp that slander is a 'conversational' word and that we are in part conversation, part permanent existence here ?

And BTW Law is mainly just bean counting. You yourself also fit into that US 'False Light' category thingy.
Libel and slander have bigger crossover online so don't try the crap about English.

Why do you dig deeper? Go and do some basic comprehension, it isn't possible to slander someone in print of any sort.

Libel and slander have no crossover, they are 2 very different things. Try and educate yourself a little before posting any more crap, there's a good boy.

[alanwarwic]

Give over, if suing, yes it becomes a libel action.

In real time actual conversation, I am seeing this as 'a spoken word'.
Go on, explain the no where land of SMS.

[kidspud]

Only on digital spy forums could you find a thread where one moment someone tries to belittle the decision of a jury, and in the next tries to redefine a well known and established legal principle. you've got to love it here.