OdduWon
Oct 10, 05:22 PM
Yeah, Apple isn't going to sit back and let Zune steal its lunch!
Those who bought the 5.5g ipods lately probably are going to feel bummed.
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot rolling. JUSTIN BIEBER PHOTOSHOOT 2011; JUSTIN BIEBER PHOTOSHOOT 2011. Rtamp;Dzine. Apr 22, 10:40 PM
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
more...
JUSTIN BIEBER 2011 PHOTOSHOOT
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
more...
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot rolling. justin bieber 2011 photoshoot; justin bieber 2011 photoshoot. KingYaba. Aug 29, 05:30 PM
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
more...
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
justin bieber 2011 march
more...
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
more...
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
more...
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
more...
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
Those who bought the 5.5g ipods lately probably are going to feel bummed.
Knowimagination
Mar 17, 12:57 AM
Nah... they'll probably flat out fire the kid.
But it's cool, because the important thing is that the OP got a great deal on his iPad! :rolleyes:
Beware OP, because Karma's a b!tch.
This!
You dont get second chances when your register is missing 300
But it's cool, because the important thing is that the OP got a great deal on his iPad! :rolleyes:
Beware OP, because Karma's a b!tch.
This!
You dont get second chances when your register is missing 300
naquada
Sep 12, 07:27 AM
UK is down
i just get a broken link from itunes and the apple site.. no black showtime screen.. but hey.. somethings happening!! :D
i just get a broken link from itunes and the apple site.. no black showtime screen.. but hey.. somethings happening!! :D
acslater017
Apr 15, 06:01 PM
Dear Google:
Apple *already* revolutionized the music industry.
Try copying something of theirs that's a little less established.
(and then just leave it in beta like you do with everything else.)
Cheers.
In fairness to Google, no one said that they were out to destroy iTunes or anything like that. They've got a growing mobile business, and it makes sense that they want to make some cohesive media store.
Likewise, Apple is trying to grow its online/cloud services (Google's strength)! Funny, they are kind of moving towards each other in that sense...
Apple *already* revolutionized the music industry.
Try copying something of theirs that's a little less established.
(and then just leave it in beta like you do with everything else.)
Cheers.
In fairness to Google, no one said that they were out to destroy iTunes or anything like that. They've got a growing mobile business, and it makes sense that they want to make some cohesive media store.
Likewise, Apple is trying to grow its online/cloud services (Google's strength)! Funny, they are kind of moving towards each other in that sense...
more...
steadysignal
May 4, 10:08 AM
I don't really get this... You already pay fees for the data - why do they care for how you use it?
+1 - correct. it should not matter but since the fear is there will be no bandwidth left after the geeks have their way, they support moves like this.
+1 - correct. it should not matter but since the fear is there will be no bandwidth left after the geeks have their way, they support moves like this.
drsmithy
Nov 17, 12:53 AM
2. AMD is far superior. Right now Intel is in the lead, but it's not a true lead. For the longest time, AMD had the better architecture.
"For the longest time" ? x86 CPUs did exist before the year 2000, you know.
Intel had to do something, so they went back to the P3, tweaked it a little, and added some huge caches, and gave us a CPU modeled after a 6 year old (guessing here) CPU that ran at around the same GHZ speeds, but was faster.
The P3 (which begat the Pentium M, which begat Core, which begat Core 2) was basically just a souped-up P2. A P2 was basically just a Pentium Pro with MMX and an off-die L2 cache (what Apple would later call a "backside cache").
The Pentium Pro (Intel's first totally new x86 chip design since the 386) came out in 1995. So all your fancy new x86 Macs have a direct lineage to an Intel CPU over a decade old.
Personally I think it's a credit to Intel that the PPro has scaled from a massive, hot, "slow" 150Mhz server CPU all the way through low-power dual-core laptop chips up to a top-end quad-core CPU. AMD has been through three new CPU designs in the same timeframe and only been unquestionably faster for maybe 50% of it.
"For the longest time" ? x86 CPUs did exist before the year 2000, you know.
Intel had to do something, so they went back to the P3, tweaked it a little, and added some huge caches, and gave us a CPU modeled after a 6 year old (guessing here) CPU that ran at around the same GHZ speeds, but was faster.
The P3 (which begat the Pentium M, which begat Core, which begat Core 2) was basically just a souped-up P2. A P2 was basically just a Pentium Pro with MMX and an off-die L2 cache (what Apple would later call a "backside cache").
The Pentium Pro (Intel's first totally new x86 chip design since the 386) came out in 1995. So all your fancy new x86 Macs have a direct lineage to an Intel CPU over a decade old.
Personally I think it's a credit to Intel that the PPro has scaled from a massive, hot, "slow" 150Mhz server CPU all the way through low-power dual-core laptop chips up to a top-end quad-core CPU. AMD has been through three new CPU designs in the same timeframe and only been unquestionably faster for maybe 50% of it.
more...
RaMaz09
Mar 24, 02:19 PM
Its Funny. But Sad At The Same Time......
kdarling
Dec 13, 04:58 PM
On the other hand, this could be a false rumor slipped by the competition to hurt Christmas time sales of the iPhone 4.
Could be lots of things.
Could be a false rumor to hurt Christmas sales of Android and WP7 phones.
Or a bit of false info used internally by Apple to ferret out leaks.
Most likely though, it's just a rumor to gain attention :)
Could be lots of things.
Could be a false rumor to hurt Christmas sales of Android and WP7 phones.
Or a bit of false info used internally by Apple to ferret out leaks.
Most likely though, it's just a rumor to gain attention :)
more...
WhiteShadow
Nov 16, 01:08 PM
who wants to run amd anyway?
wordoflife
Mar 17, 05:54 PM
It's probably the lines fed to them by retail employees at point of purchase. This is actually cheaper yet better than the iPhone because *insert random pro here*
It has a kickstand lol
It has a kickstand lol
more...
sushi
Oct 10, 08:43 PM
Well if they do launch it so soon, it probably won't replace the current iPods, but be a new highend model.
This would make sense.
To get a decent sized HD, wireless, good battery life, it may need to be bigger. Also, I would think folks would prefer a larger screen than the current iPod size.
This would make sense.
To get a decent sized HD, wireless, good battery life, it may need to be bigger. Also, I would think folks would prefer a larger screen than the current iPod size.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 6, 05:47 PM
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.
I think the biggest problem is when Apple had the chance to change the game by not doing subizided cost they instead give in and just make it worse by forcing a much larger than average subsudize on there phone ($400 vs $250).
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete. But as long as it is lock in together it should be choose network first
i get what your sayin, but nah, they can still complain all they want... i dont think it says in the contract be expected to have 30% dropped calls.
people complain not only to relieve themselves, but to eventually get whats right. (complaining on macrumors isnt exactly the best way of going about it, ill give you that)
Well the people who choose the iPhone knowing service are spotty put the label on them as not smart.
Smart people look things over and choose what works best for them. For me I know service is the first thing I look at and that is how I got to ATT (Cingular at the time )for my phone and dump Verizon. Verizon service was crap where I was 6 months out of the year. Sprint and Cingular/ATT were king in that area. I used Sprint for a while and it was great. Switch to ATT because most of my friends and family were on it so M2M.
Either way I choose the service first then pick out the phones from there.
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.
I think the biggest problem is when Apple had the chance to change the game by not doing subizided cost they instead give in and just make it worse by forcing a much larger than average subsudize on there phone ($400 vs $250).
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete. But as long as it is lock in together it should be choose network first
i get what your sayin, but nah, they can still complain all they want... i dont think it says in the contract be expected to have 30% dropped calls.
people complain not only to relieve themselves, but to eventually get whats right. (complaining on macrumors isnt exactly the best way of going about it, ill give you that)
Well the people who choose the iPhone knowing service are spotty put the label on them as not smart.
Smart people look things over and choose what works best for them. For me I know service is the first thing I look at and that is how I got to ATT (Cingular at the time )for my phone and dump Verizon. Verizon service was crap where I was 6 months out of the year. Sprint and Cingular/ATT were king in that area. I used Sprint for a while and it was great. Switch to ATT because most of my friends and family were on it so M2M.
Either way I choose the service first then pick out the phones from there.
more...
roadbloc
Mar 10, 12:07 PM
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight.
I think you're the only one who's noticed that. I haven't yet. I've yet to even see an iPad outside the Apple Store.
I think you're the only one who's noticed that. I haven't yet. I've yet to even see an iPad outside the Apple Store.
hscottm
Nov 24, 08:24 AM
Just wanted to make a point/post about the Black Friday e-mail that was sent.
All of the "accessories" have the old and new prices listed (with a line striking out the old price). The ipod and mac prices are actually the original, non-sale prices. The "save $xx" are reflected in the prices listed. Its not until you put one in the cart that you see an $898 price.
My point is the "Save $101" in red for the imacs/macbooks is followed by a "starting at $999" price that is in fact the "pre-discount" price. You would think they would be advertising the sale price!
I am not a mac model price expert (like some of you on here), but when I saw "starting at $999" for the MBs and imacs, it just didnt register as a good deal.
They could have printed the prices in a much more clear way.
All of the "accessories" have the old and new prices listed (with a line striking out the old price). The ipod and mac prices are actually the original, non-sale prices. The "save $xx" are reflected in the prices listed. Its not until you put one in the cart that you see an $898 price.
My point is the "Save $101" in red for the imacs/macbooks is followed by a "starting at $999" price that is in fact the "pre-discount" price. You would think they would be advertising the sale price!
I am not a mac model price expert (like some of you on here), but when I saw "starting at $999" for the MBs and imacs, it just didnt register as a good deal.
They could have printed the prices in a much more clear way.
more...
leetlamer
Apr 29, 04:36 PM
For the love of god get rid of the faux leather.
Swift
Apr 15, 07:20 PM
Notice? They're "open." They have "principles." They're renegades, and they don't have anybody to negotiate, hard-nose, one-to-one, with the old-line companies. They really look down on them anyway. Google Books? They just went ahead and copied millions of them, and then looked around like little angels when the Authors and Publishers said, "No way!" Google TV? Nice idea, but very poor execution -- and no deals with networks or movie companies. So you have to search, a la Google, for previews of movies only. No Hulu. It seems like there's no licensing at all, except maybe Netflix, but then, Netflix goes everywhere.
This is the fundamental problem with Google. Nobody makes any money anywhere they go, except, well, Google.
Google (http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-buy-music-industry.html), Apple and Amazon could just freaking buy the music industry.
I heard EMI is up for sale (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessweek.com%2Fnews%2F2011-02-02%2Femi-sale-may-fetch-2-billion-narrowly-covering-citigroup-debt.html&rct=j&q=EMI%20sale&ei=Et-oTZOKJNSUtwfDuozeBw&usg=AFQjCNGuek0PlovF-tZP-Fsuim250os43Q&sig2=l0Ljn2Yy9Q083At-Vr-eKw&cad=rja).
You're probably looking into the future.
Absolutely correct!
What I meant is that a competitor, that might stick around, would be a good thing for iTunes store users in terms of both pricing & usability. I don't have any particular beef with iTunes store - it is fine, but who knows what sort of improvements some decent competition might bring.
What about Amazon? Jobs made the big fuss about ending DRM, but he kept negotiating with the labels unsuccessfully, because he didn't want variable pricing either. So all the labels gave DRM-free tracks to Amazon. No DRM, but variable pricing. Jobs had to cave eventually.
This is the fundamental problem with Google. Nobody makes any money anywhere they go, except, well, Google.
Google (http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-buy-music-industry.html), Apple and Amazon could just freaking buy the music industry.
I heard EMI is up for sale (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessweek.com%2Fnews%2F2011-02-02%2Femi-sale-may-fetch-2-billion-narrowly-covering-citigroup-debt.html&rct=j&q=EMI%20sale&ei=Et-oTZOKJNSUtwfDuozeBw&usg=AFQjCNGuek0PlovF-tZP-Fsuim250os43Q&sig2=l0Ljn2Yy9Q083At-Vr-eKw&cad=rja).
You're probably looking into the future.
Absolutely correct!
What I meant is that a competitor, that might stick around, would be a good thing for iTunes store users in terms of both pricing & usability. I don't have any particular beef with iTunes store - it is fine, but who knows what sort of improvements some decent competition might bring.
What about Amazon? Jobs made the big fuss about ending DRM, but he kept negotiating with the labels unsuccessfully, because he didn't want variable pricing either. So all the labels gave DRM-free tracks to Amazon. No DRM, but variable pricing. Jobs had to cave eventually.
more...
MUCKYFINGERS
Aug 10, 03:45 PM
You're free to dream, but they don't plan to meet or exceed the Dell in number of units sold, so I wouldn't expect them to meet or exceed them on price either.
B
Even then I doubt Apple would really lower their prices. They're famous for overcharging customers.
B
Even then I doubt Apple would really lower their prices. They're famous for overcharging customers.
TheChillPill
Jan 6, 04:03 AM
I would love to do this, but I'm put off by the whole 'unusable stream' thing that is inevitable for the first day or so.
It's a shame Apple don't use the same tech used for their movie trailers - at least that way I can wait until it's half loaded before I start watching. That way it can be watched without any stutters or pauses.
Even better, a full download via bittorrent would be ideal - and no doubt save them a packet on bandwidth.
That said, am I correct in thinking that you can save the completed file with QT Pro? Perhaps someone could do that and make a torrent from it?
It's a shame Apple don't use the same tech used for their movie trailers - at least that way I can wait until it's half loaded before I start watching. That way it can be watched without any stutters or pauses.
Even better, a full download via bittorrent would be ideal - and no doubt save them a packet on bandwidth.
That said, am I correct in thinking that you can save the completed file with QT Pro? Perhaps someone could do that and make a torrent from it?
Sdevante
Mar 17, 10:56 AM
I used to work at BB (now an attorney).
Were this true, you would realize that there are fifty states each with their own crimes and with unique elements of those crimes. It would be difficult to make a blanket statement that OP committed "retail theft."
But what do I know - I'm only the President of the United States. :rolleyes:
Were this true, you would realize that there are fifty states each with their own crimes and with unique elements of those crimes. It would be difficult to make a blanket statement that OP committed "retail theft."
But what do I know - I'm only the President of the United States. :rolleyes:
wordoflife
Mar 17, 05:44 PM
There's no better phone over the other, IMO. They all suck.
samcraig
May 2, 12:21 PM
And yeah Google does record but they at least give you the option to turn it off
This is the point. It doesn't matter which side of the coin you're on regarding privacy. Off means off. On means on.
And if this were RIM, MS, Google or anyone else that had an important feature crippled due to QA, no doubt the ones claiming Apple's innocence here (and decrying everyone else has conspiracy theories) would be the ones laughing at, making theories, getting outraged, etc.
It's not a question of giving Apple a free pass. EVERY company should be liable. And consumers have every right to raise questions.
My goodness - there are threads on this board from people who cry about a one pixel shift in a graphic. Or that their app icon is blurry.
Here's a real issue. An important issue. And some people want to just wipe it under the carpet as a "non issue"
This is the point. It doesn't matter which side of the coin you're on regarding privacy. Off means off. On means on.
And if this were RIM, MS, Google or anyone else that had an important feature crippled due to QA, no doubt the ones claiming Apple's innocence here (and decrying everyone else has conspiracy theories) would be the ones laughing at, making theories, getting outraged, etc.
It's not a question of giving Apple a free pass. EVERY company should be liable. And consumers have every right to raise questions.
My goodness - there are threads on this board from people who cry about a one pixel shift in a graphic. Or that their app icon is blurry.
Here's a real issue. An important issue. And some people want to just wipe it under the carpet as a "non issue"
Popeye206
Mar 28, 07:41 PM
Yet, inexplicably, we made due without a walled garden for decades.
Its not a bad concept - if its voluntary. However, to make it a rule to compete in the Design Award is lame. As others have said, it should be renamed the MacStore App Award to reflect the narrowing of the field they are doing by only allowing App Store devs to compete.
What I don't get is why wouldn't any developer want to distribute through the MacApp store? Unless they make a vertical market product (like my company and we would never use any mass-market distribution channel) I can't see why a developer wouldn't?
And please.... don't cry about the 30% margin... it's so freak'n fair by all software distribution practices that is not a reason for any developer not to want to use the AppStore as a channel.
Obviously, Apple is trying to encourage more Apps to get on iTunes or in the App store. Nothing wrong with that.
Its not a bad concept - if its voluntary. However, to make it a rule to compete in the Design Award is lame. As others have said, it should be renamed the MacStore App Award to reflect the narrowing of the field they are doing by only allowing App Store devs to compete.
What I don't get is why wouldn't any developer want to distribute through the MacApp store? Unless they make a vertical market product (like my company and we would never use any mass-market distribution channel) I can't see why a developer wouldn't?
And please.... don't cry about the 30% margin... it's so freak'n fair by all software distribution practices that is not a reason for any developer not to want to use the AppStore as a channel.
Obviously, Apple is trying to encourage more Apps to get on iTunes or in the App store. Nothing wrong with that.
neiltc13
Apr 10, 06:10 AM
You do know that Windows had an App Store before OS X, but it got axed due to it being badly implemented which resulted in lack of custom? All they are doing there is returning and improving one of their own features, not copying Apple.
If we consider only games, Microsoft's own game store has been running since December 2009. Games for Windows LIVE Marketplace.
If we consider only games, Microsoft's own game store has been running since December 2009. Games for Windows LIVE Marketplace.
eric_n_dfw
Oct 28, 06:00 PM
APPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!
Apple, are you listening?
I'd love to be able to legally install OS X on a Dell or build-it-myself PC, even it it wasn't $0, but Apple would tank in no time as they make the lion's share of their money selling hardware. Especially when Dell's can sell this cheap: Is one MacBook Pro C2D worth two Dells? (http://blog.dealnews.com/?p=75)
And, from the look AAPL stock prices lately, I'd say they are doing just fine making their current "same mistake" right now.
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!
Apple, are you listening?
I'd love to be able to legally install OS X on a Dell or build-it-myself PC, even it it wasn't $0, but Apple would tank in no time as they make the lion's share of their money selling hardware. Especially when Dell's can sell this cheap: Is one MacBook Pro C2D worth two Dells? (http://blog.dealnews.com/?p=75)
And, from the look AAPL stock prices lately, I'd say they are doing just fine making their current "same mistake" right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment