redshift1
Apr 6, 02:08 PM
No need to take shots at the Xoom - it's actually nice little device.
Doesn't have the best polish software-wise... but to act like it is THAT far off from the iPad2 is lunacy.
Indeed it is!!!!!
Doesn't have the best polish software-wise... but to act like it is THAT far off from the iPad2 is lunacy.
Indeed it is!!!!!
aohus
Apr 19, 04:47 PM
Obsession can be positive or negative. Loving or hating a company is irrational.
exactly. you proved my point. obsession over one company is more of a negative. i can't really see a positive as all you're doing is deepening the pockets of their richest shareholders without rationalizing if your favorite companies' product is actually mediocre.
exactly. you proved my point. obsession over one company is more of a negative. i can't really see a positive as all you're doing is deepening the pockets of their richest shareholders without rationalizing if your favorite companies' product is actually mediocre.
layte
Mar 31, 03:58 PM
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
Xeperu
Mar 22, 01:06 PM
My take on this.
The good:
1. Great specs
2. Great price
3. Great form factor
The Bad:
1. Looks plastic fantastic
2. Android (as in: bad ecosystem)
My verdict:
No thanks, I prefer the guarantee for fresh apps and business support that iOS provides me.
The good:
1. Great specs
2. Great price
3. Great form factor
The Bad:
1. Looks plastic fantastic
2. Android (as in: bad ecosystem)
My verdict:
No thanks, I prefer the guarantee for fresh apps and business support that iOS provides me.
nep61
Apr 5, 04:49 PM
And I was sooooo close to buying AVID MC 5.5... thank goodness for an extended wait for my Tax refund... Now I'll sit tight to see if this RUMOR is actually true..... :apple:
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
Luis Ortega
Apr 6, 02:59 PM
Really? Are sales numbers what dictates one product is better than the other?
I'm not saying the Xoom is better (I haven't used one) but a reading of the posts on this thread would suggest that sales number indicate that one product is better than the other.
In that case, Windows is obviously the best OS on the planet, by a magnitude of 10.
I'm not saying the Xoom is better (I haven't used one) but a reading of the posts on this thread would suggest that sales number indicate that one product is better than the other.
In that case, Windows is obviously the best OS on the planet, by a magnitude of 10.
KipCoon
Nov 29, 10:34 AM
They aren't. The entire music business revenues are down 40% since 2001. Sales are down hugely. I can tell you from representing these artists that all the money is down too.
Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?
Actually, moreso, as I've been picking up more small time bands and getting legal copies of my older stuff pre-iPod ownership.
But honestly, like many have said, most of the new stuff out sucks.
Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?
Actually, moreso, as I've been picking up more small time bands and getting legal copies of my older stuff pre-iPod ownership.
But honestly, like many have said, most of the new stuff out sucks.
zacman
Apr 6, 04:11 PM
That didn't actually happen.
Yeah, like the "bogus numbers" that indicated that back in Q2(?)/2010 Android outsold iOS in the US. Steve is it you? :D
Yeah, like the "bogus numbers" that indicated that back in Q2(?)/2010 Android outsold iOS in the US. Steve is it you? :D
Rm.237
Apr 8, 08:28 AM
me too! I wanna learn!
How does withholding stock from the public aid a company? I can imagine holding them till everything is registered in their system and accounted for. But turning people away when they actually do have stock doesn't sound like a good business practice to me
Sorry if this has been beaten to death over the next nine pages but I just don't have the time to read it all this morning.
It's very simple really. Each day a retail outlet like Best Buy has a budget they want to hit. Even though it depends on local let's call it $75,000. Now let's say in this very high pressure competitive environment I have already made budget but know that tomorrow my budget is going to be $100,000. I'm a little nervous about hitting that but know that I got like 15 iPads sitting in the back. Very simple solution. Do not sell anymore iPads for the day and wait to sell them tomorrow! The iPads alone will net me 10,000 of that budget. No way am I going to sell them after I've made todays goal.
This is just one of many different scenarios but they all are very similar. Should I hold iPads in the back until it looks like we may not hit budget? Should I hold them off for tomorrows monster budget? Should I sell them to go over budget and be tops for the day in the district? Etc, etc, etc.
How does withholding stock from the public aid a company? I can imagine holding them till everything is registered in their system and accounted for. But turning people away when they actually do have stock doesn't sound like a good business practice to me
Sorry if this has been beaten to death over the next nine pages but I just don't have the time to read it all this morning.
It's very simple really. Each day a retail outlet like Best Buy has a budget they want to hit. Even though it depends on local let's call it $75,000. Now let's say in this very high pressure competitive environment I have already made budget but know that tomorrow my budget is going to be $100,000. I'm a little nervous about hitting that but know that I got like 15 iPads sitting in the back. Very simple solution. Do not sell anymore iPads for the day and wait to sell them tomorrow! The iPads alone will net me 10,000 of that budget. No way am I going to sell them after I've made todays goal.
This is just one of many different scenarios but they all are very similar. Should I hold iPads in the back until it looks like we may not hit budget? Should I hold them off for tomorrows monster budget? Should I sell them to go over budget and be tops for the day in the district? Etc, etc, etc.
gorgeousninja
Mar 22, 10:10 PM
I do get a kick out of their 10.1" model being both thinner and lighter than the 9.7" Ipad2 though. That will undoubtedly have the apple apologists out en masse.
if you think 'getting a kick' from these points says anything remotely positive about your character...you'd be wrong.
if you think 'getting a kick' from these points says anything remotely positive about your character...you'd be wrong.
vgermax
Jul 14, 03:02 PM
It would be unlikely that Apple wouldn't utilize the highest clocked Xeons available. Also, quad configurations should be present in more than just the top-end unit as that is one of the main advantages of going with the Woodcrest versus Conroe, that and a higher default FSB.
The video card configurations are also previous generation. I don't know for certain, but it seems the PCIe configuration isn't consistent with the information available on the i5000X. The standard Intel design is 1 x16, 2 x4 (with x8 slots) for a total of 24 lanes, not 16 or 32 as might be interpreted from the "spec" sheet.
It might also be reasonable to expect an optional RAID configuration as a RAID controller is built-in to the southbridge.
The video card configurations are also previous generation. I don't know for certain, but it seems the PCIe configuration isn't consistent with the information available on the i5000X. The standard Intel design is 1 x16, 2 x4 (with x8 slots) for a total of 24 lanes, not 16 or 32 as might be interpreted from the "spec" sheet.
It might also be reasonable to expect an optional RAID configuration as a RAID controller is built-in to the southbridge.
shamino
Jul 20, 05:41 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
Historically, Apple has always sold a dual-processor model of the Pro systems. When dual-core PPCs became available, they shipped a G5 system with two of these.
In the absence of any other information, it seems pretty darn obvious that the high-end Mac Pro will have two processors, regardless of how many cores are in it. Which means it will have to be something from the Xeon line.
Apple doesn't need to cripple the Mac Pro in order to promote the Xserve. The two products are designed for completely different applications and are not interchangeable for any serious applications. Nobody will ever want to use an Xserve on their desktop, and nobody setting up a compute cluster will want to build it from desktop boxes.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
Historically, Apple has always sold a dual-processor model of the Pro systems. When dual-core PPCs became available, they shipped a G5 system with two of these.
In the absence of any other information, it seems pretty darn obvious that the high-end Mac Pro will have two processors, regardless of how many cores are in it. Which means it will have to be something from the Xeon line.
Apple doesn't need to cripple the Mac Pro in order to promote the Xserve. The two products are designed for completely different applications and are not interchangeable for any serious applications. Nobody will ever want to use an Xserve on their desktop, and nobody setting up a compute cluster will want to build it from desktop boxes.
gadgetgirlnyc
Jun 17, 09:52 AM
rumor has it, yes. We are going to get iphone 4's from wireless D2U, but there will not be many.
However, with the constraints on the inventory right now, I doubt that is possible. It's going to look like if you did not get a pin this time, you will not get an iphone.
My DM told me I might not even get the iphones I ordered myself for various reasons. Radioshack had no idea what they were going to do for the launch the night before.
Best bet is to either go to wally world (wal mart) or get it on apple.com
I have not heard anything about Walmart getting the iPhone4 :confused:. I do know I went to my local RS & was asked for my information. The manager said he will call me @ 1:00am Thursday morning to give me a pin#. Gave me an appointment for 8:00am. I told him if no shipment, do not call me!! ;)
However, with the constraints on the inventory right now, I doubt that is possible. It's going to look like if you did not get a pin this time, you will not get an iphone.
My DM told me I might not even get the iphones I ordered myself for various reasons. Radioshack had no idea what they were going to do for the launch the night before.
Best bet is to either go to wally world (wal mart) or get it on apple.com
I have not heard anything about Walmart getting the iPhone4 :confused:. I do know I went to my local RS & was asked for my information. The manager said he will call me @ 1:00am Thursday morning to give me a pin#. Gave me an appointment for 8:00am. I told him if no shipment, do not call me!! ;)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
Texas04
Nov 28, 06:29 PM
That would add already to the money that they get from the purchased music.. Apple will not allow this... at least they shouldnt, and wouldnt Universal be happy as is?
Microsoft started this and it is a good hit into Apple... but Apple has a agreement and will not break that agreement... especially to get rid of the ease of 99 cent standard pricing
Microsoft started this and it is a good hit into Apple... but Apple has a agreement and will not break that agreement... especially to get rid of the ease of 99 cent standard pricing
gugy
Aug 11, 03:51 PM
i just want a cell phone that works.
all these phones today(by all these phones i mean the motorolas i have had, so mayby motorola's jsut suck) have this ridiculous amount of latency when you are navigating the menus. cause they have to have all this fancy crap flyin around. its like phones are using the same technology from 5 years ago but they are just piling these features into them so they dog down. overall phones today seem to suck just a bit. my nokia 8260 was the best phone i ever had and it was monochrome with no camera or video or stupid crap like that...
plus it seems that my phones ability to get reception when inside a building has gotten worse over time too. i used to get good reception inside my work, but now i don't. and its the same building.
so all in all, just give me a phone that works and functions well and i'll be happy.
I agree simplicity is everything!
Knowing Apple, I hope the Iphone will be simple and slick. That's all we really need.
all these phones today(by all these phones i mean the motorolas i have had, so mayby motorola's jsut suck) have this ridiculous amount of latency when you are navigating the menus. cause they have to have all this fancy crap flyin around. its like phones are using the same technology from 5 years ago but they are just piling these features into them so they dog down. overall phones today seem to suck just a bit. my nokia 8260 was the best phone i ever had and it was monochrome with no camera or video or stupid crap like that...
plus it seems that my phones ability to get reception when inside a building has gotten worse over time too. i used to get good reception inside my work, but now i don't. and its the same building.
so all in all, just give me a phone that works and functions well and i'll be happy.
I agree simplicity is everything!
Knowing Apple, I hope the Iphone will be simple and slick. That's all we really need.
Full of Win
Apr 25, 02:14 PM
Look out Apple...the chattel are beginning to rise. I hope these power-hungry thugs (Apple) get taken to the cleaners. Sad that Apple now views our location as a resource to be exploited.
WiiDSmoker
Apr 6, 01:22 PM
I hope that number keeps rising; we need competition to not let Apple rest on it's laurels.
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 07:51 PM
I'm not trying to be a wise a@@, but when did Apple make a Pismo. I do remember them, but not being made by Apple. I am sorry, I don't recall the manufactuer for them at this time.:confused:
Apple always made the Pismo. I don't know the exact years but it was a black G3 PowerBook.
Apple always made the Pismo. I don't know the exact years but it was a black G3 PowerBook.
fastlane1588
Jul 27, 11:52 PM
so everyone keeps saying wwdc for all of the hardware releases....well seeing as how apple enjoys releasing stuff on tuesdays there happens to be a tuesday before wwdc. what if they just either quitely released everything or anounced everything that tuesday. that way they arent slow about releasing, and everyone will be set for when they talk about leopard and all the cool apps that they can run on their new machines,
this way they can also keep the focus of wwdc on the software instead of trying to squeeze new releases and software demos and all into one event......just a thought
this way they can also keep the focus of wwdc on the software instead of trying to squeeze new releases and software demos and all into one event......just a thought
shaun319
Apr 11, 06:18 PM
sept release will fall into my upgrade period. great
bigandy
Aug 25, 03:10 PM
the vocal minority are always the ones who have problems :rolleyes:
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:39 AM
Things don't just happen without money. People are increasingly adverse to paying for items like apps or news, or are only willing to pay so much, such that marketing needs to subsidise the product (e.g. pay TV, sport etc.).
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Everything you see that is free is paid for by ads. Everything is made cheaper by them. Just ignore them.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Everything you see that is free is paid for by ads. Everything is made cheaper by them. Just ignore them.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar