devilstrider
Mar 18, 10:10 PM
That happened to me just last week..
I was answering a call beside a guy at a bus stop who had an evo.. Out of no where he was like "Hey, you better hurry up before that call drops.."
So I just stared at him for a few seconds and said "Well atleast it wont be because my batteries dead"
I knew I got him, because he couldnt come up with anything better and just stared at me with depression as if to say "awwww hes right -_-".. :apple:
I have both of those phones but I like my EVO better. The big screen and flash puts it over the top for me. I still like my iPhone 4 but I get more done on my EVO.
I was answering a call beside a guy at a bus stop who had an evo.. Out of no where he was like "Hey, you better hurry up before that call drops.."
So I just stared at him for a few seconds and said "Well atleast it wont be because my batteries dead"
I knew I got him, because he couldnt come up with anything better and just stared at me with depression as if to say "awwww hes right -_-".. :apple:
I have both of those phones but I like my EVO better. The big screen and flash puts it over the top for me. I still like my iPhone 4 but I get more done on my EVO.
Popeye206
Apr 16, 05:59 PM
Apple has by far the most restrictive ecosystem. You can't even load applications that are not approved by Apple.
Ahhhh.... dude... the only Apps that don't really get approved are ones that do things that can cause security risks or just plain trying to steal your information.
Yeah, I know... there are also Apps that break the rules and get axed, but for the most part, my first point is true. Any legitimate application can get approved.
If you keep up with Android apps, security is one of the their problems. Open? Yes... risky? Yes.
Ahhhh.... dude... the only Apps that don't really get approved are ones that do things that can cause security risks or just plain trying to steal your information.
Yeah, I know... there are also Apps that break the rules and get axed, but for the most part, my first point is true. Any legitimate application can get approved.
If you keep up with Android apps, security is one of the their problems. Open? Yes... risky? Yes.
iJaz
Oct 11, 06:07 AM
It may kill the first iteration of the Zune, but MS has stated it�s a multiple years effort � they acknowledge it�s going to be hard to beat the iPod bastion, and if at all possible it will take time. But, I suspect Apple have plenty of different prototypes in their labs, ready to be launched to complement new market demands.
I sure hope that Apple will keep Zune and MS will one step behind, they really should be able to.
I sure hope that Apple will keep Zune and MS will one step behind, they really should be able to.
displaced
Sep 25, 11:20 AM
I suppose there could be a bit of news here for non-photographers.
As I understand it, Aperture uses OS X's built-in RAW image processing. If I remember rightly, the last Aperture update accompanied an OS X update. So it's possible 10.4.8 could be just around the corner (i.e. sometime this week?)
As I understand it, Aperture uses OS X's built-in RAW image processing. If I remember rightly, the last Aperture update accompanied an OS X update. So it's possible 10.4.8 could be just around the corner (i.e. sometime this week?)
JPark
May 3, 01:53 PM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
It's not what the competition does, it's what the wireless companies are doing to the competition (and which they've already done to iPhones).
Does it really matter what the competition does.
It's not what the competition does, it's what the wireless companies are doing to the competition (and which they've already done to iPhones).
mouthster
Sep 25, 11:21 AM
Just FYI, I'm running Aperture with 17k+ images on an iMac 24" 2.1ghz G5 - sometimes slow, but heck i'm doing it and drooling over the 1.5 update
Ok..:confused:
Ok..:confused:
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 29, 10:34 PM
There's a huge difference between merging in concepts of the UI, user-friendly software distribution, media access and what you describe.
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
Is there? They're already controlling what can and cannot be sold on the iOS platform (and it is an entire platform now with full-fledged computers in the form of the iPad). They've proven themselves beyond contempt by insisting that in-app subscriptions be the same or lower on the App store than direct, despite the fact that they demand 1/3 of all the selling price. They've added an 'App' store for OSX proper and have the same 30% "grab" for everything on there. They're advertising and bragging about bringing iOS features back to OSX. I'm just doing simple math here. You can make 1+1 = 1 if you say it's a bigger one, but in my world, 2 is still the more likely answer.
And you are the ones using the words "foolish". I think it's quite possibly a business-savvy solution to ensuring profits stay high into the future. What you or I may want in OSX is irrelevant to both Apple and Steve Jobs. Steve has essentially said that consumers don't know what's best for them and that it takes a visionary to move forward. We know Steve's 'vision' is smaller/thinner/more mobile at almost any cost. So I'm not saying it will happen like that, but that it's looking more likely every day. Only time will tell for sure. But I know if it does happen, I'll no longer have an interest in OSX. I don't want Apple deciding for me what I can or cannot buy or watching developers get 1/3 their gross taken from them (same % as a typical injury lawyer BTW. You don't get paid until they get paid FIRST and your bills 2nd and you last; in this case it would be taxes instead of bills). You can think it's good/fair/right. I don't agree and I don't want Apple telling me I have to use Safari because they don't want Firefox or Chrome competing with them.
No, it'll happen whether we like it or not. Because the industry is going to the iPad like dumbed down devices for every day use, and in 10-15 years those devices will be fast enough for all of us to do almost everything on them.
I don't know about that. There will always be a market for faster/more powerful (i.e. most people may drive a Ford Focus or Chevy Impala or Toyota Corrola and hybrids may capture larger and larger market penetration in the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for the WRX, Mustang, Corvette, etc. even if it shrinks over time) and so even if Apple AND Microsoft bail out of traditional computing, that just means someone else will likely take over. They can't make Linux go away, for example. And if people didn't BUY it, the lines would stop. Newton didn't exactly go over so well the first time around....
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
Is there? They're already controlling what can and cannot be sold on the iOS platform (and it is an entire platform now with full-fledged computers in the form of the iPad). They've proven themselves beyond contempt by insisting that in-app subscriptions be the same or lower on the App store than direct, despite the fact that they demand 1/3 of all the selling price. They've added an 'App' store for OSX proper and have the same 30% "grab" for everything on there. They're advertising and bragging about bringing iOS features back to OSX. I'm just doing simple math here. You can make 1+1 = 1 if you say it's a bigger one, but in my world, 2 is still the more likely answer.
And you are the ones using the words "foolish". I think it's quite possibly a business-savvy solution to ensuring profits stay high into the future. What you or I may want in OSX is irrelevant to both Apple and Steve Jobs. Steve has essentially said that consumers don't know what's best for them and that it takes a visionary to move forward. We know Steve's 'vision' is smaller/thinner/more mobile at almost any cost. So I'm not saying it will happen like that, but that it's looking more likely every day. Only time will tell for sure. But I know if it does happen, I'll no longer have an interest in OSX. I don't want Apple deciding for me what I can or cannot buy or watching developers get 1/3 their gross taken from them (same % as a typical injury lawyer BTW. You don't get paid until they get paid FIRST and your bills 2nd and you last; in this case it would be taxes instead of bills). You can think it's good/fair/right. I don't agree and I don't want Apple telling me I have to use Safari because they don't want Firefox or Chrome competing with them.
No, it'll happen whether we like it or not. Because the industry is going to the iPad like dumbed down devices for every day use, and in 10-15 years those devices will be fast enough for all of us to do almost everything on them.
I don't know about that. There will always be a market for faster/more powerful (i.e. most people may drive a Ford Focus or Chevy Impala or Toyota Corrola and hybrids may capture larger and larger market penetration in the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for the WRX, Mustang, Corvette, etc. even if it shrinks over time) and so even if Apple AND Microsoft bail out of traditional computing, that just means someone else will likely take over. They can't make Linux go away, for example. And if people didn't BUY it, the lines would stop. Newton didn't exactly go over so well the first time around....
toddybody
Apr 5, 03:45 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha! What a joke:D
Aniej
Jan 5, 04:11 PM
I didn't see any replies to my idea about posting a counter to tick of the DD:HH:MM:SS until climax, I mean Keynote.;) Usually I take that as a bad sign, but you know how you all get when you have blue b..., you can't think straight. So is this idea worth pursuing, kinda like the widgets available, but might be nice to have directly tied to the link with no spoilers.
samcraig
May 2, 02:34 PM
Common sense to a programmer is not all ways the same same a common sense to a user. :confused:
The code is working as intented, but the design is flawed. A switch that prevents applications from calling a service is functionally the same as disabling the service; except in this case. In this case they intentional left the service running, without considering the consequences of the cache continuing to update.
The common sense I referred to is that an on/off switch doesn't need to be explained to a user. Off = Off. On = On.
The code is NOT working as intended. Apple even said so. Turning it off wasn't supposed to continue the recording of locations.
That's like the old joke that a broken clock is still right twice a day.
Look - they're fixing it. They know it was an issue (now for certain). That's really what matters here.
The code is working as intented, but the design is flawed. A switch that prevents applications from calling a service is functionally the same as disabling the service; except in this case. In this case they intentional left the service running, without considering the consequences of the cache continuing to update.
The common sense I referred to is that an on/off switch doesn't need to be explained to a user. Off = Off. On = On.
The code is NOT working as intended. Apple even said so. Turning it off wasn't supposed to continue the recording of locations.
That's like the old joke that a broken clock is still right twice a day.
Look - they're fixing it. They know it was an issue (now for certain). That's really what matters here.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 16, 04:35 PM
20gigs of free storage if you purchase a single album?
Purchase an MP3 album from the Amazon MP3 Store by 11:59 PM PST on December 31, 2011.
If you qualify for this offer and either have not signed up for Amazon Cloud Drive or have the 5GB Amazon Cloud Drive plan, you will be automatically eligible for the 20 GB plan for one year from the date of your MP3 album purchase. Unless you set your account to auto-renew to a paid plan, the 20 GB plan will revert to a free plan one year from the date of your MP3 album purchase.
If your Amazon Cloud Drive account is already at 20 GB or higher when you qualify for this offer, the offer will be saved to your account as a $20 credit toward any future Amazon Cloud Drive plan fees you may incur at the time your plan renews or at the time you upgrade your plan. If you elect to downgrade your plan to a free plan at the time of renewal, your upgrade offer will be applied towards the 20 GB plan at that time.
Note: Once we process your order, which could take up to 3 hours, your promotion will be applied and you will receive email notification that your Cloud Drive storage plan has been updated..
Note: This promotional offer limited to one promotional credit per customer.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000667531
My question was WHY.
Purchase an MP3 album from the Amazon MP3 Store by 11:59 PM PST on December 31, 2011.
If you qualify for this offer and either have not signed up for Amazon Cloud Drive or have the 5GB Amazon Cloud Drive plan, you will be automatically eligible for the 20 GB plan for one year from the date of your MP3 album purchase. Unless you set your account to auto-renew to a paid plan, the 20 GB plan will revert to a free plan one year from the date of your MP3 album purchase.
If your Amazon Cloud Drive account is already at 20 GB or higher when you qualify for this offer, the offer will be saved to your account as a $20 credit toward any future Amazon Cloud Drive plan fees you may incur at the time your plan renews or at the time you upgrade your plan. If you elect to downgrade your plan to a free plan at the time of renewal, your upgrade offer will be applied towards the 20 GB plan at that time.
Note: Once we process your order, which could take up to 3 hours, your promotion will be applied and you will receive email notification that your Cloud Drive storage plan has been updated..
Note: This promotional offer limited to one promotional credit per customer.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000667531
My question was WHY.
MacCurry
Sep 28, 01:41 PM
Is the update available now?
mkrishnan
Sep 7, 10:15 PM
P.S. my ost about Kanye West is bais, and is because i don't like hiphop/rap. Not because of artisits but because of the lyrics and that whole "gangster" attitude.
I think that if you don't like Kanye West because he's got a "gangster" attitude, then you haven't really listened to anything he says in his songs.
I think that if you don't like Kanye West because he's got a "gangster" attitude, then you haven't really listened to anything he says in his songs.
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
selena-and-taylor-sharing-
selena gomez and taylor
Gomez, Taylor Lautner.
Taylor amp; Selena also posed
Selena hanging out with Taylor
Reacent Post
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
gnasher729
May 4, 08:14 AM
Those that use the analogy of their home internet connection not restricting use...well...that's just it... your T&C there does not restrict devices and use. Not the same thing. As for you gas analogy, again not the same thing. You have no contract with Exxon on how you use your gas. If Exxon made a contract with you to use the gas only in the car that purchased it..it would be the same. You could then decide to buy it or find another source (carrier).
Since you mention fuel, you can use the same fuel to heat your home or to drive a car with Diesel engine. In Europe, there will be a _huge_ difference in tax. In some European countries, farmers can get tax free or low tax diesel fuel for use in their tractors and other farming machines. You can safe a lot of money by using this low tax fuel to run your car. You will also get into an awful lot of trouble if you get caught doing it.
In my opinion, and that of Websters dictionary, I have an unlimited data plan, therefor I already do pay for it.
Oh if only I had the dough, I would sue AT&T into the ground. A decent lawyer and fair judge would find against AT&T for the use of the word unlimited and their unfair anti-consumer practices that have followed.
AT&T can do whatever it wants, but it NEVER should have used the word unlimited, because theyve opened themselves up for failure in a future lawsuit. Someone will do it.
Whatever plan you have, AT&T will calculate the average cost of users on that plan, add some profit, and that is what they will charge. People on "unlimited without tethering" use less data and cost less money on average than people on "unlimited with tethering", and therefore are charged less. You basically want to get rid of the two different plans, only one plan "unlimited with tethering" would exist. The average data usage would be higher than for those on the plan without tethering, the average cost is higher, so the charge will go higher. In other words, cost goes up for people who don't tether.
I don't give a damn. If I pay for a chunk of data, it isn't up to the provider to dictate how I use my data. If I want to syphon fuel out of my vehicle for use in another, that is my decision not Exxon's.
If you go to an "all you can eat" buffet, you can't take food for your wife and six hungry children.
Since you mention fuel, you can use the same fuel to heat your home or to drive a car with Diesel engine. In Europe, there will be a _huge_ difference in tax. In some European countries, farmers can get tax free or low tax diesel fuel for use in their tractors and other farming machines. You can safe a lot of money by using this low tax fuel to run your car. You will also get into an awful lot of trouble if you get caught doing it.
In my opinion, and that of Websters dictionary, I have an unlimited data plan, therefor I already do pay for it.
Oh if only I had the dough, I would sue AT&T into the ground. A decent lawyer and fair judge would find against AT&T for the use of the word unlimited and their unfair anti-consumer practices that have followed.
AT&T can do whatever it wants, but it NEVER should have used the word unlimited, because theyve opened themselves up for failure in a future lawsuit. Someone will do it.
Whatever plan you have, AT&T will calculate the average cost of users on that plan, add some profit, and that is what they will charge. People on "unlimited without tethering" use less data and cost less money on average than people on "unlimited with tethering", and therefore are charged less. You basically want to get rid of the two different plans, only one plan "unlimited with tethering" would exist. The average data usage would be higher than for those on the plan without tethering, the average cost is higher, so the charge will go higher. In other words, cost goes up for people who don't tether.
I don't give a damn. If I pay for a chunk of data, it isn't up to the provider to dictate how I use my data. If I want to syphon fuel out of my vehicle for use in another, that is my decision not Exxon's.
If you go to an "all you can eat" buffet, you can't take food for your wife and six hungry children.
tuartboy
Jan 9, 03:46 PM
I would have put an image of a keynote on the compressor window, BUT GOOGLE IMAGES RETURNED RESULTS FOR THE STINKING MWSF 07 VIDEO AND RUINED THE SURPRISE! :mad: :mad: :mad:
MacVault
Sep 12, 07:25 AM
I can't imagine why Apple would have an event like this if there was going to be only Disney content available.
dalvin200
Jan 9, 03:34 PM
I hope apple are giving a massive clue.
On here it says: http://www.apple.com/****/keynote/
9.41 on the ****.
21.41 GMT is in 9 minutes!
lol.. i think the 9:41 was for this morning at tge keynote!!! :p
On here it says: http://www.apple.com/****/keynote/
9.41 on the ****.
21.41 GMT is in 9 minutes!
lol.. i think the 9:41 was for this morning at tge keynote!!! :p
TeppefallGuy
Aug 2, 11:22 AM
I'm sorry but most people (I'd say 99.9%) can't hear the difference between a CD and a 128kbps AAC file.
Heck, we got people still using 128kbps MP3 for crying out loud. If they heard any difference (or if it really sounded like crap) we'd see them using 256kbps MP3 instead. Granted, the encoder makes a huge difference, but most files you see on P2P networks are 128kbps.
128 M4A (on my system) cuts the top and bottom out and leaves the middle range intact. Maybe it�s my Sennheiser setup or something but 128 actively alters electronic music, rap and nu metal/rapcore. If you only listen to iTunes you�re in for a shock if you go to a concert.
I think M4A was designed for pop pop pop music :)
Heck, we got people still using 128kbps MP3 for crying out loud. If they heard any difference (or if it really sounded like crap) we'd see them using 256kbps MP3 instead. Granted, the encoder makes a huge difference, but most files you see on P2P networks are 128kbps.
128 M4A (on my system) cuts the top and bottom out and leaves the middle range intact. Maybe it�s my Sennheiser setup or something but 128 actively alters electronic music, rap and nu metal/rapcore. If you only listen to iTunes you�re in for a shock if you go to a concert.
I think M4A was designed for pop pop pop music :)
Viking Quest
Aug 11, 09:55 AM
The 23" display is now $999
The 30" display is now $1999
Apple could fill that $1000 hole with a nice 26" cinema display. It would be perfect in our household.
Are there "25-27" LCDs out there that Apple could sell for say $1499? Has Dell or HP filled this hole yet?
I'm about to pull the trigger on the Dell 2407WFP. 24" monitor with Component, VGA, S-Video, and DVI inputs. It's a sweet monitor and blows the Apple 23" out of the water. And it's only $703!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The 30" display is now $1999
Apple could fill that $1000 hole with a nice 26" cinema display. It would be perfect in our household.
Are there "25-27" LCDs out there that Apple could sell for say $1499? Has Dell or HP filled this hole yet?
I'm about to pull the trigger on the Dell 2407WFP. 24" monitor with Component, VGA, S-Video, and DVI inputs. It's a sweet monitor and blows the Apple 23" out of the water. And it's only $703!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mrzeigler
Mar 28, 03:11 PM
So much for thinking outside of the box. Apparently it's gotten so bad that they give boxes to the winners.
Eidorian
Sep 25, 11:20 AM
The reasons people HATE this new version so much:
1. It adds a lot of features and answers requests.
2. It's a free update.
3. This is a photography event, and people were caught off guard when Apple showed their photography product, despite the Aperture image right on the invitation.
4. Apple never releases hardware on Tuesdays, so there is no hope for any MacBook Pro updates tomorrow.
5. There will never be another chance for new MacBook Pros. We now know that the current models will be sold forever and ever, even after Apple goes out of business, which will happen by the end of the year.
:pWhy it's obvious why people hate this update so much. In fact I'm almost tempted to get Aperture to manage my photos (Academic discount, 3,000 images, 500 photos <3)
Now I just wish my earlier comments were still here. Tomorrow is Tuesday.
1. It adds a lot of features and answers requests.
2. It's a free update.
3. This is a photography event, and people were caught off guard when Apple showed their photography product, despite the Aperture image right on the invitation.
4. Apple never releases hardware on Tuesdays, so there is no hope for any MacBook Pro updates tomorrow.
5. There will never be another chance for new MacBook Pros. We now know that the current models will be sold forever and ever, even after Apple goes out of business, which will happen by the end of the year.
:pWhy it's obvious why people hate this update so much. In fact I'm almost tempted to get Aperture to manage my photos (Academic discount, 3,000 images, 500 photos <3)
Now I just wish my earlier comments were still here. Tomorrow is Tuesday.
Chundles
Sep 12, 08:26 AM
LOL Chundles, looks like your the ring leader for the evening. :p
God I wish I could be.
Yes, Apple are probably going to release full length movies tomorrow morning but there's nothing out there that proves it yet.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, Children of aaaaalllll aaageeesssss.....
Come the incredible hyperactive inattentive Apple Special Event thread!!!
God I wish I could be.
Yes, Apple are probably going to release full length movies tomorrow morning but there's nothing out there that proves it yet.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, Children of aaaaalllll aaageeesssss.....
Come the incredible hyperactive inattentive Apple Special Event thread!!!
zombitronic
Oct 6, 04:47 PM
I think your arugument would be valid if phones were not subsudized and you have to buy them at full price. Because AT&T in this case is paying Apple $400 per phone you should choose a network first.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
My original iPhone was not subsidized and I had to buy it at full price. I chose the device with no qualms about what network I was required to use.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
My original iPhone was not subsidized and I had to buy it at full price. I chose the device with no qualms about what network I was required to use.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment