Of course you can always win an argument by reframing it once you find you lost it, but what you are talking about is speculation, not uncertainty. There is zero evidence Apple is involved in tax evasion - zero. And their tax strategies have been examined by the US government, and governments in Europe and (if I recall) Australia.
And currently under review in Italy. Uncertainties can lead to speculation.
Nor was I talking about 'logical analysis' because that has absolutely nothing to do with the presence or absence of an evidential basis for accusations.
It's not an accusation. Read the post again.
The point is that really we do pretty much know what Apple is doing internally. We have to because it is a public company required by law (in just about every jurisdiction where it is traded) to submit a whole raft of reports on internal matters, including income, expenditures and taxes.
Wrong, Apple is NOT a public company, they are a private corporation and not required to reveal all matters openly. There are limits to transparency policies/laws.
Samsung, on the other hand, do not provide that kind of transparency because they are not traded on the US stock market. It is therefore hardly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Trading in the the US stock market and transparency are two separate matters. One doesn't dictate the need for the other.
Personally, I'm not remotely interested in whether people here think Apple can do no wrong, or not. That's about as relevant to anything as whether anyone thinks Jurassic Park was a good movie or not. What actually matters is not what people here think, but what Apple actually does. There is evidence here that plenty of people are rather biased, but there is no evidence that Apple has at any time perpetrated, or attempted to perpetrate, a scheme of tax evasion.
So what's your point?
Oh, and on reflection, let us not forget that in the issue being discussed in this thread, it is Samsung, not Apple, or even both companies, who have already been found guilty of unlawful activity - and who admitted to it. This trial is only on the issue of how much damage Samsung's unlawful activity has damaged Apple. On its face, this would hardly put the two companies on the same moral ground. Well founded and proven evidence against Samsung, unfounded and speculative accusations against Apple. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could think there is parity of wrongdoing in this.
You're basing your grounds on information provided by the media, MR's falls into this category as much as your local news outlet. Media will report only want they want to publish, not necessarily the whole story. The issue is whether that's by choice or lack of information of the complete details. This is a pro-Apple site, there's an expectation that they're going to be biased in that manner.
spjonez said:
That's exactly the point: "anyone who puts a lot of weight on the scores isn't seeing the full picture". The average consumer isn't as knowledgeable as you or I and a lot of us see rigging the results as an attempt to deceive consumers.
I've already explained this. You don't have to be knowledgeable to understand the intent of benchmarking, and it's not a new testing method as when computer systems are often benchmarked, the system dedicates all the resources available to perform the best it can, so as I said earlier, benchmarking tests for maximum performance. There's no "rigging" when a 2.3Ghz CPU is performing at 2.3Ghz speeds during such tests. I would retract my statement if and only if the CPU was running higher than it's rated for, i.e over clocked to 2.5Ghz when rated as a 2.3Ghz CPU. The author in ArsT clearly doesn't seem to know how benchmarking works, and it wouldn't be the first for someone to use a flawed testing strategy and come to an incorrect conclusion.
spjonez said:
How does that statement fit with what Samsung was doing? They were intentionally rigging the results in their favour in one piece of software. The same software that's used to measure it's performance against it's competitors. The results they gave are not consistent with typical daily use and are not repeatable by the average user.
I've already explained this.
spjonez said:
This is BS on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin.
First, neither you or I have any knowledge of how Nitro works and what level of memory and hardware access is required for it's optimizations. There's obviously a good reason it's split like this; security being the primary one.
I know how the Nitro Engine works in iOS 6, the code is available online for anyone who knows how to read it. If you look at how the Nitrous Cydia add-on is written, it's nearly identical except it's not exclusive to mobile Safari.
If you look at BaldiMac's link, it clearly states
Perhaps the biggest reason for Nitros performance improvements over WebKits previous JavaScript engine is the use of a JIT Just-In-Time compilation. Heres Wikipedias page on JIT. A JIT requires the ability to mark memory pages in RAM as executable, but, iOS, as a security measure, does not allow pages in memory to be marked as executable. This is a significant and serious security policy. Most modern operating systems do allow pages in memory to be marked as executable including Mac OS X, Windows, and (I believe) Android1. iOS 4.3 makes an exception to this policy, but the exception is specifically limited to Mobile Safari.
So that article makes it clear that they sacrificed security for performance for mobile Safari. If maintaining maximum security was a priority, Nitro wouldn't be implemented in the first place. So again why is it ok for Apple to do this for Safari and not for example Chrome? If security was really the issue, why is there no way to disable Nitro from Mobile Safari?
spjonez said:
Second, Apple is not marketing their phones with graphs showing "20% faster Facebook". Apple markets the platform, not app vs. app between eco systems.
Samsung isn't advertising their 2.3Ghz Snapdragon products to be performing above and beyond of what other 2.3Ghz products should be capable of doing. If the LG device wasn't performing on par with 2.3Ghz performance during a benchmark test, I'd argue that it's an issue with LG not doing what it's supposed to do during such a test.