On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:09:37 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

i'm not the one making claims about supply issues or performance issues.

You are the one denying them as though you really know what is going
on.

i'm not denying anything.

what i'm doing is pointing out the vagueness and stupidity of their so
called claims.

'could have' is meaningless.

the next iphone could be a lot of things.

it's yet another stupid analyst spewing again, with the intention to
knock the stock down a bit to create a wonderful buy op for said
analyst and his buddies.

Yet another news item, this time with Apple spin:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11873786
or http://tinyurl.com/ybmlr6w8

"Until Intel is able to offer its chips with matching features,
Apple won't enable some of capabilities of the phones running with
Qualcomm modems, ...".

Cutting off its nose to spite its face?

not at all, and how is that an apple spin? looks anti-apple to me.

You didn't read the article.

it's yet another content-free article designed to get clicks.

Content free? You read it with your eyes closed.

although 1 gigabit cellular networks are expected to appear, they're
going to be *very* rare. i know of only a couple of cities in the usa
where they'll be deployed by years end.

even in those areas, almost nobody will get anywhere close to that
speed, and if they do, it's nothing they'll ever notice since most
content is bandwidth limited in other ways.

Correct.

matching performance and/or features of components from different
vendors across a product line is standard practice. that article is
trying to make it appear that only apple intentionally gimps
components. they aren't.

They are pruning Qualcom modems to the level of the lowest.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens