| reply to bbarrera
Re: Apple to charge to unlock 802.11n Advertising unavailable features is ALSO a violation. |
|
|
|
 MacWin
join:2003-06-26
Imperial, MO
1 edit | "Advertising unavailable features is ALSO a violation."
Shhh the people on the front page thread might hear you and then what would they be able to bash Apple about. |
|
 Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | What's that???
 |
|
 MaggsPremium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY | Easy enough
tell Application Airport
{give me my draft N}
end tell
Someone will find a way.
--
It's a SYN, not to ACK your packets. |
|
| reply to russotto
then how did directv get away with sellng its hr-20 hddvr that had the connections for ota,network,ect... but did not work because they needed to be enabled via software updates once they got the outher bugs fixed. |
|
 nolancj
join:2002-06-30
Long Beach, CA | said by RIRWIN1983:then how did directv get away with sellng its hr-20 hddvr that had the connections for ota,network,ect... but did not work because they needed to be enabled via software updates once they got the outher bugs fixed. This isn't really a debate of one company vs. another. It's how Apple has decided to manage the situation given their accounting policies. Maybe DTV has different policies. SOX does leave a lot up to interpretation by a given entity.
Also, DTV could also maintain that the monthly fee you pay for services is a subscription type service and hence entitles you to maintaining current product sets relative to hardware. |
|
