thequicksilver
Aug 24, 07:33 AM
It's the sensible thing to do.
IMO though the bigger news is Creative being part of the Made for iPod campaign.
IMO though the bigger news is Creative being part of the Made for iPod campaign.
jonhaxor
Mar 30, 12:35 PM
No they weren't. This has been discussed time and time again here. The word "App" has been used for decades to describe a software Application.
For example "Killer App", or more recently, "Web App" ( Java )
I still have a netscape T-shirt from the mid-to-late 90s with a Mozilla and "Internet's Killer App" on the back .. and Web App .. everyone uses that term (not just java) to describe some sort of pluggable thing into <insert web service> framework .. you could say that Jobs pioneered some of this back at NeXT with Objective C Web Objects .. but that might be a stretch if you ask Booch or the OMG
For example "Killer App", or more recently, "Web App" ( Java )
I still have a netscape T-shirt from the mid-to-late 90s with a Mozilla and "Internet's Killer App" on the back .. and Web App .. everyone uses that term (not just java) to describe some sort of pluggable thing into <insert web service> framework .. you could say that Jobs pioneered some of this back at NeXT with Objective C Web Objects .. but that might be a stretch if you ask Booch or the OMG
nem3015
Sep 1, 12:30 PM
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
oppps my bad.
OK then early in the morning so will be evening in Paris. Frenchs anyway like it better in the evening. :p
oppps my bad.
OK then early in the morning so will be evening in Paris. Frenchs anyway like it better in the evening. :p
Pravius
Apr 22, 09:40 AM
Man, stop it with the cloud service already. :rolleyes: You can't rely on the internet availability for listening to music. It's unreliable. Plus, the streaming will probably be low resolution, drain battery life, eat into data caps, not display lyrics, and generally be a crappy experience. If I wanted to stream, I can do it from my home computer where my music already resides with one of the 100 apps already available and not have to fight through all the bandwidth issues that are probably gonna result from Apple's side. What's the point? I can do this now.
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
I don't think anyone here is arguing the fact that they are going to use the cloud service as a replacement for streaming from home, however having an option is nice.
For me personally and I think that most people here are on the same page.
1. It's a great way to backup your music library knowing it will never get erased, expire, etc.
2. When we are on the move and do not have the option to turn on our computers to listen to music we have the option of going to the cloud.
3. Saves hard drive space and also does not require me to fill my iPhone full of music and nothing else. At this point my iTunes library is nearly 30 gigs. That is twice the size of my iPhone storage.
For me it will not be a replacement (yet). I have been using the Amazon clous service and it has been very reliable. Sure it takes awhile to upload but once you have everything uploaded then you are good to go. I have been streaming since it went live and have not yet had one issue, and yes I am using the computer and my iPhone (iCab and change the browser type to something other than Safari (iPhone).
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
I don't think anyone here is arguing the fact that they are going to use the cloud service as a replacement for streaming from home, however having an option is nice.
For me personally and I think that most people here are on the same page.
1. It's a great way to backup your music library knowing it will never get erased, expire, etc.
2. When we are on the move and do not have the option to turn on our computers to listen to music we have the option of going to the cloud.
3. Saves hard drive space and also does not require me to fill my iPhone full of music and nothing else. At this point my iTunes library is nearly 30 gigs. That is twice the size of my iPhone storage.
For me it will not be a replacement (yet). I have been using the Amazon clous service and it has been very reliable. Sure it takes awhile to upload but once you have everything uploaded then you are good to go. I have been streaming since it went live and have not yet had one issue, and yes I am using the computer and my iPhone (iCab and change the browser type to something other than Safari (iPhone).
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 23, 03:50 PM
The theory that OS X is completely secure is equally nonsense.
Don't attempt to use logic or scientific evidence around here zer0sum. Fanboys have never heard of it. They're too busy sticking their heads in the sand and saying it could never happen to them. After all, Apple doesn't have security updates because they feel there is a "need" for them (after all, OSX is completely secure and it couldn't happen here!), but just to make people from the Windows world 'feel better' by saying they've done something once in a blue moon. ;) :D
Don't attempt to use logic or scientific evidence around here zer0sum. Fanboys have never heard of it. They're too busy sticking their heads in the sand and saying it could never happen to them. After all, Apple doesn't have security updates because they feel there is a "need" for them (after all, OSX is completely secure and it couldn't happen here!), but just to make people from the Windows world 'feel better' by saying they've done something once in a blue moon. ;) :D
GorgonPhone
Mar 22, 03:14 PM
with mac minis and imacs there is no reason to buy mac pros any more at all...lol
GFLPraxis
Jul 14, 10:27 AM
Awesome!
Why 2 negatives over 1 positive? Wow.
Is there a way you can upgrade this new chip on previous intel mac? Just wondering. This is new to me.
No, but when Merom comes out (the laptop version of Conroe/Core 2 Duo), you can upgrade the iMac to that.
Conroe and Merom are 64-bit, right?
I know what you mean, and I agree, but Apple has had to work to a pretty tight schedule. I doubt they've had time to redesign the iMac from scratch. Merom will be pretty good performance wise.... especially near the top end. The heat contraints of the iMac might infact force Apple to go the "mobile" route. The Conroes might be good, but they still produce a fair amount of heat.
I'm hoping they'll plonk a bog standard Intel mobo into a nice pretty box and stick the Apple logo on the side for a Conroe based "MacPC". :confused:
I'm really hoping for a Conroe iMac. It's not a huge redesign, they'll just need a motherboard of the same form factor with a different socket.
Why 2 negatives over 1 positive? Wow.
Is there a way you can upgrade this new chip on previous intel mac? Just wondering. This is new to me.
No, but when Merom comes out (the laptop version of Conroe/Core 2 Duo), you can upgrade the iMac to that.
Conroe and Merom are 64-bit, right?
I know what you mean, and I agree, but Apple has had to work to a pretty tight schedule. I doubt they've had time to redesign the iMac from scratch. Merom will be pretty good performance wise.... especially near the top end. The heat contraints of the iMac might infact force Apple to go the "mobile" route. The Conroes might be good, but they still produce a fair amount of heat.
I'm hoping they'll plonk a bog standard Intel mobo into a nice pretty box and stick the Apple logo on the side for a Conroe based "MacPC". :confused:
I'm really hoping for a Conroe iMac. It's not a huge redesign, they'll just need a motherboard of the same form factor with a different socket.
Cougarcat
Apr 30, 03:58 PM
Apple really needs to get on the SATA-3 bandwagon. There are already plenty of SSD choices that can utilize the higher throughput, and more drives are on the way.
Not to mention the fact that most motherboards out there today all have SATA-3 and have for a while now.
2011 MBPs are Sata III. The 2011 iMac will definitely have it.
Not to mention the fact that most motherboards out there today all have SATA-3 and have for a while now.
2011 MBPs are Sata III. The 2011 iMac will definitely have it.
iScott428
Mar 29, 11:56 AM
I will pay any attention to this when someone can show me that in 2007 that they predicted that Android would be the market share leader in smartphones in 2011.
One year projections are tricky. Four year projections in an emerging tech category are a joke. What about WebOS or Motorola's new OS for smartphones? They may not go anywhere or they might and these yahoos don't even account for them at all.
The very fact that they honestly seem to think that the only smartphone OSes that will have any sort of market share in four years are the ones that exist today tells you just how much anyone should pay attention to this.
By far the best post in this thread. Well Said.
One year projections are tricky. Four year projections in an emerging tech category are a joke. What about WebOS or Motorola's new OS for smartphones? They may not go anywhere or they might and these yahoos don't even account for them at all.
The very fact that they honestly seem to think that the only smartphone OSes that will have any sort of market share in four years are the ones that exist today tells you just how much anyone should pay attention to this.
By far the best post in this thread. Well Said.
afields
Sep 14, 01:15 AM
gahhhhh.....these iphone rumors are driving me crazy....with anticipation. When is the gonna finally happen? Hopefully before the end of the year.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 24, 01:23 AM
100 mil might be a lot, but I think apple got its moneys worth, the got Creative of their back, they got a new accessory vendor, and they get to hold the pattent against other companies. I personally hope that more creative stuff becomes available for the mac, everyone seems to hate them but they make very good speakers, and their sound cards are very popular in the PC world amongst the gamers and even a few pro audio people. With so many products apple shouldnt leave a opportunity overlooked. :D
Good points, I really thought Apple got off this pretty cheaply and if they wanted to settle so quickly it must be because Apple has a range of new iPod products being released very shortly.
Good points, I really thought Apple got off this pretty cheaply and if they wanted to settle so quickly it must be because Apple has a range of new iPod products being released very shortly.
pingin
Sep 12, 05:56 PM
I'm definitely going to buy one of these. Despite what it says in my profile (which I need to update really don't I?), I've been sans iPod for sometime now and was waiting for these updates. It was pretty much what I expected and I'm pretty pleased. I'm disappointed that the lower end model didn't get a little increase in capacity but it got a price drop instead so, it's not that bleak. I think the updates are quite nice though probably not worth it if you already have a 5G...
I'm just hesitating between the 2 devices now. Then there'll be the black or white dilemna...life is good :)
I'm just hesitating between the 2 devices now. Then there'll be the black or white dilemna...life is good :)
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:49 PM
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
You say you're not missing the point, but your response immediately jumped back to "they have a right."
yes, we know. We aren't arguing what they have a right to do.
We are arguing about how stupid and arbitrary it is to enforce that right.
And your argument about the icons in the last paragraph makes no sense - why would someone want to use an image of a mac to represent a non-OS X box?
And, you still haven't addressed the fact that there is no solution for the developer other than making their software significantly worse - they can't use their own icons that depict the machine being connected to, they can't necessarily use the NAME of the machine being connected to - what is it they are supposed to do? List the machines by ip address?
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
You say you're not missing the point, but your response immediately jumped back to "they have a right."
yes, we know. We aren't arguing what they have a right to do.
We are arguing about how stupid and arbitrary it is to enforce that right.
And your argument about the icons in the last paragraph makes no sense - why would someone want to use an image of a mac to represent a non-OS X box?
And, you still haven't addressed the fact that there is no solution for the developer other than making their software significantly worse - they can't use their own icons that depict the machine being connected to, they can't necessarily use the NAME of the machine being connected to - what is it they are supposed to do? List the machines by ip address?
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
Mr.damien
Apr 19, 06:54 AM
Of course, Samsung's Android phone has many additional items such as their pulldown notification shade with built-in radio and orientation lock controls... which many people would love for Apple to copy.
No ... YOU want.
No ... YOU want.
prady16
Sep 26, 12:01 PM
You got customer service from Verizon? Is this before or after they tacked on the taxes that aren't being collected anymore? Or crippled the Bluetooth on their phones? Or put a terrible GUI on their phones? Or any other number of things that they've done that are anti-consumer?
QFT
QFT
azakmi2
Mar 7, 03:14 AM
The only way your iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch is vulnerable to these things is if YOU jailbreak it. Even then, the number of jail broken IOS devices is and will remain too small a target to go after. This is why Apple has a walled garden, and why the Android model is destined to follow the PC down the virus/botnet hell hole. It's also why AV vendors would prefer that you bought Android or Windows mobile.
__________________________________________________
Duplicate File Finder (http://www.duplicate-finder-pro.com) Is The Only Program That Finds And Removes Duplicate Files From Your PC......
__________________________________________________
Duplicate File Finder (http://www.duplicate-finder-pro.com) Is The Only Program That Finds And Removes Duplicate Files From Your PC......
FoxMcCloud
Mar 30, 01:46 PM
Stupid, just stupid. You can't possibly trademark App Store.
Putting two generic words together to form a generic term generically shouldn't be legally trademarked.
How often have you seen a music store named Music Store, or a food store named Food Store.
The part you should be able to trademark would be with your company name in front I.e Pheonix Music Store. Therefore no one else can call their music store Pheonix Music Store.
A store that sells apps cannot be trademarked as such, unless it featured a brand prefix like Apple App Store, Microsoft App Store, Amazon AppStore etc.
Example, if Amazon trademarked Amazon AppStore then this would prevent RIM from opening an AppStore in the Amazon forest called Amazon AppStore.
See?
Likewise, Tasty Food Store, there could be only one. But Food Store itself, no.
Putting two generic words together to form a generic term generically shouldn't be legally trademarked.
How often have you seen a music store named Music Store, or a food store named Food Store.
The part you should be able to trademark would be with your company name in front I.e Pheonix Music Store. Therefore no one else can call their music store Pheonix Music Store.
A store that sells apps cannot be trademarked as such, unless it featured a brand prefix like Apple App Store, Microsoft App Store, Amazon AppStore etc.
Example, if Amazon trademarked Amazon AppStore then this would prevent RIM from opening an AppStore in the Amazon forest called Amazon AppStore.
See?
Likewise, Tasty Food Store, there could be only one. But Food Store itself, no.
Tux Kapono
May 3, 10:20 AM
It's still cheaper to buy the Trackpad separately by buying the iMac anywhere else besides the Apple Store, since the Apple Store doesn't discount while charging state taxes.
Machead III
Sep 19, 02:54 PM
It took my Black MB about 70 mins to download "Deuce Bigalow"
Why would you do that? :O
Why would you do that? :O
4God
Aug 28, 01:10 PM
I wonder if some people read the guide I made at all. :confused:
I did after you posted on this thread. As I said, Thanks.
I did after you posted on this thread. As I said, Thanks.
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 08:22 PM
ok.. see, i never said TECHNICALLY it was crap. OK, so CDMA can have higher speed than 3G GSM. ITS A MOBILE PHONE. what the hell do you need 14mbps for?
a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.
for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)
There are GSM carriers here that do that, too, you know. It's not all CDMA here.
a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.
for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)
There are GSM carriers here that do that, too, you know. It's not all CDMA here.
Pravius
Apr 22, 09:50 AM
LMAO...are you serious? You find another carrier in the US that has unlimited data and has the iPhone?. Don't say Verizon because Verizon has already stated the unlimited plans were TEMP and only to draw in new customers at the launch of their iPhone. They made clear, those plans will be going away.
That statement is pure speculation and I have not seen that anywhere *official*. Until it actually happens, it hasn't happened.
That statement is pure speculation and I have not seen that anywhere *official*. Until it actually happens, it hasn't happened.
arn
Jul 14, 09:56 AM
wait, now conroe is "widely expected" in the powermacs? I thought woodcrest was... I still think it will be:
mac pro - woodcrest
xserve - woodcrest
imac - conroe
macbook pro - merom
macbook - merom (but months later)
mini - merom (but months later)
We shall know soon! :)
sorry about that. story updated.
arn
mac pro - woodcrest
xserve - woodcrest
imac - conroe
macbook pro - merom
macbook - merom (but months later)
mini - merom (but months later)
We shall know soon! :)
sorry about that. story updated.
arn
0 comments:
Post a Comment