Anuba
Jan 12, 05:16 PM
I hope they sell it sim-free. I like the iphone, but not the phone part.
The whole '30 years is just the beggining' thing got me excited.
...and then the iphone. Thats a bit dissapointing.
Well, I'm sure the iPhone was meant as a mere appetizer for the 30th anniversary... not "Well, it took us 30 years but dagnammit, we finally managed to make a thingamabob that rings!"
^Anuba, that description of the macdroid is funny as hell!
Funny... yet disturbing. You know, I just want people to feel free to choose any computer platform they want, and lord knows we could use a few more Mac people - to, if nothing else, put more pressure on Microsoft and rock their boat, they're way too complacent. But I know a lot of people who feel alienated by Mac for two main reasons - one, the macdroids. Nobody wants to join that club. Two, Apple's infantile and insulting marketing. Slagging the competition is as low as anyone can sink. I've seen pimps with more dignified advertising methods than that. "Hello I'm a Mac / ...and I'm a PC, blah blah". Don't they realize how bad of an idea it is to brandish 97% of the world's computer users as complete idiots? They might as well say "Hello. You're an absolute moron with no brain and no taste, and I despise you utterly. Now please buy our stuff." :confused:
The whole '30 years is just the beggining' thing got me excited.
...and then the iphone. Thats a bit dissapointing.
Well, I'm sure the iPhone was meant as a mere appetizer for the 30th anniversary... not "Well, it took us 30 years but dagnammit, we finally managed to make a thingamabob that rings!"
^Anuba, that description of the macdroid is funny as hell!
Funny... yet disturbing. You know, I just want people to feel free to choose any computer platform they want, and lord knows we could use a few more Mac people - to, if nothing else, put more pressure on Microsoft and rock their boat, they're way too complacent. But I know a lot of people who feel alienated by Mac for two main reasons - one, the macdroids. Nobody wants to join that club. Two, Apple's infantile and insulting marketing. Slagging the competition is as low as anyone can sink. I've seen pimps with more dignified advertising methods than that. "Hello I'm a Mac / ...and I'm a PC, blah blah". Don't they realize how bad of an idea it is to brandish 97% of the world's computer users as complete idiots? They might as well say "Hello. You're an absolute moron with no brain and no taste, and I despise you utterly. Now please buy our stuff." :confused:
samiwas
Mar 4, 03:57 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
![onepiece wallpaper. One Piece [Tagalog Dubbed]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfhlf6OmKca5ohPY1uFd8Snvnyib5MRzFuLFvHUZdGxr773QMP855XyEDLRENfzV08dLK6QjHXbnAyzgSv5xi28h_sf97WUR-5NE2WUUt9MWwL2yiY-KMUTstFepOlJN_X-IPAeuCGtUZI/s1600/one_piece_wallpaper_01.jpg "One Piece [Tagalog Dubbed]")
lostontheisland
Apr 5, 04:41 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Maybe I'm being harsh, maybe what the world really needs is a 3 hour Zoomba infomercial app. Or an app extolling the benefits of the snuggie. And the excuse 'hey dude, I work in advertising' is not a good reason to criticise people who see this app for what it is, a pile of s***. If you work in advertising, the best thing you could do is make a note of the fact that everyone who DOESN'T work in advertising thinks this is a pile of s*** and modify your advertising strategy accordingly.
It's like people at burger king reacting to the fact that everyone hates burger king by saying 'these burgers are useful to me, because I work at burger king'
But clearly, anyone who claims they may find the iAd Gallery App useful is instantly labeled a 'Moron', tarred, feathered and burned at the stake. Apparently you seem to have extensive knowledge of what everyone else thinks. Have you taken a survey of EVERYONE who DOESN'T work in advertising to confirm your assessment that the iAd App is a 'Pile of Sh**'? Add to that, your Burger King analogy is invalid because you can't possibly claim that EVERYONE hates Burger King. The only claim you could possibly make from any of this is that the majority of MacRumors forum members commenting on this post are grossly mis-informed and incredibly immature.
better than being angry over someone elses opinion.
Maybe I'm being harsh, maybe what the world really needs is a 3 hour Zoomba infomercial app. Or an app extolling the benefits of the snuggie. And the excuse 'hey dude, I work in advertising' is not a good reason to criticise people who see this app for what it is, a pile of s***. If you work in advertising, the best thing you could do is make a note of the fact that everyone who DOESN'T work in advertising thinks this is a pile of s*** and modify your advertising strategy accordingly.
It's like people at burger king reacting to the fact that everyone hates burger king by saying 'these burgers are useful to me, because I work at burger king'
But clearly, anyone who claims they may find the iAd Gallery App useful is instantly labeled a 'Moron', tarred, feathered and burned at the stake. Apparently you seem to have extensive knowledge of what everyone else thinks. Have you taken a survey of EVERYONE who DOESN'T work in advertising to confirm your assessment that the iAd App is a 'Pile of Sh**'? Add to that, your Burger King analogy is invalid because you can't possibly claim that EVERYONE hates Burger King. The only claim you could possibly make from any of this is that the majority of MacRumors forum members commenting on this post are grossly mis-informed and incredibly immature.
better than being angry over someone elses opinion.
aiqw9182
Mar 28, 02:29 PM
Seriously Apple, how soon until the app store is the only way to install apps on your mac?
I can see it now: How to jailbreak your Mac
Seriously though, Apple's going to have to remove a ton of their current restrictions before that happens so I honestly don't see it happening anytime soon.
I can see it now: How to jailbreak your Mac
Seriously though, Apple's going to have to remove a ton of their current restrictions before that happens so I honestly don't see it happening anytime soon.
geoffism
Jan 9, 10:59 AM
My needs are basic and selfish:
iPhone - 3G and 16g
MacBook Pro - bump (highly unlikely) and only cause I'm in the market.
Mac Pro - nothing. It sounds perfect and has only complicated my purchase consideration. Mac Pro vs MacBook Pro. Hmmmm....
iPhone - 3G and 16g
MacBook Pro - bump (highly unlikely) and only cause I'm in the market.
Mac Pro - nothing. It sounds perfect and has only complicated my purchase consideration. Mac Pro vs MacBook Pro. Hmmmm....
northsideboi
Nov 27, 12:29 PM
If you purchased an item that was listed as a Black Friday Apple sale items at one of the Apple Retail Stores, I urge you to check you receipt to see if you got the sale price. I was at the Apple Chicago Michigan Ave. Store on Friday and purchased two sale items (the Nike+ ipod adapter and the Ingroove Neoprene sleeve for the Macbook). While both items were listed as sale items on the in store flyer and on the Apple web site, when I checked out with an Apple associate using a handheld terminal I was charged the FULL PRICE of these items.:eek: Since I discovered this when I got home, I called the Apple Store to request a refund. after a bit of an arguement, i was told i would get a refund in a few days. Today I got a refund on the Nike+ item, but not on the Ingroove sleeve. Looks like I will be calling the apple store again. :mad:
I can only imagine the thousands of people who thought that they were getting an item at the sale price and were actually charged full price.:mad:
I can only imagine the thousands of people who thought that they were getting an item at the sale price and were actually charged full price.:mad:
Manderby
Apr 30, 03:48 AM
I mean, sure. Cool that Apple listens, and nice to see they are looking into the look and feel. But hey, can't imagine a more minor change :D
It's true, it is a minor change in programming but a major change in identifying itself with an interface. Besides, we hardly hear any news about Mac OS X and there is not much to find from the official side. Any news is welcome and for example this news made me more comfortable with Lion. I still have no idea what is going on behind the GUI, speaking: Things that make a huge difference to the existing system.
Some more news like this would make me wondering if maybe I should take a look. Because right now, I really am not interested in Lion at all and I believe, I am not the only one. And I'm not speaking about my personal little Laptop at home, I'm speaking about the main operating system of dozends of office-computers which I decide what to put on. Snow Leopard gave much more useful information away in advance. Lion does not.
It's true, it is a minor change in programming but a major change in identifying itself with an interface. Besides, we hardly hear any news about Mac OS X and there is not much to find from the official side. Any news is welcome and for example this news made me more comfortable with Lion. I still have no idea what is going on behind the GUI, speaking: Things that make a huge difference to the existing system.
Some more news like this would make me wondering if maybe I should take a look. Because right now, I really am not interested in Lion at all and I believe, I am not the only one. And I'm not speaking about my personal little Laptop at home, I'm speaking about the main operating system of dozends of office-computers which I decide what to put on. Snow Leopard gave much more useful information away in advance. Lion does not.
bluebomberman
Oct 2, 05:24 PM
Oh and I also want a T-shirt that says "DVD John cracked my butt." :)
Ouch. Ew. Gross.
:eek:
Ouch. Ew. Gross.
:eek:
AppleScruff1
Apr 22, 11:34 AM
How do you feel about being tracked and information stored without your knowledge? Oh wait, it's ok, Uncle Stevie knows what's best.
ozziegn
Jan 15, 01:46 PM
I'm sitting here laughing at the tons of people who were saying how they were going to buy the new MBP when it came out on MWSF on Jan. 15th. - kept telling all these people "how are you going to buy a new MBP when you don't even know if there is going to be a new MBP????"
-and here I sit and say, "I told you so.........." :D
-and here I sit and say, "I told you so.........." :D
Ugg
Apr 17, 12:08 PM
More to the point, where do you draw the line? Should every school curiculum include the struggles of Jews, Blacks, Native Americans, Chinese, Muslims, Hispanics, Christians, Women, etc... gonna be kinda tough to fit all that in. Or does your plan draw the line somewhere? I mean are gay people more important than Native Americans? In terms of history, whom do you believe got screwed over more and whose struggles should be taught in school?
If you were to walk onto the street and ask 100 people which group of people were persecuted the most out of blacks, Native Americans, Jews, women or gays, I'm pretty sure the majority of people would place gays last, out of those groups. Now a liberal state like New York, Hawaii or California may add gay history to their school programs, but don't expect to see it in the majority of the US States. It's simply not important to single out a persons sexuality to highlight their importance in history. Was Oppenheimer's religion put before his contributions to the bomb? I mean is there a little star next to his name with an annotation listing his religion?
Maybe its just me. But I simply don't care if someone was black, blue, brown, Jewish, the Egyptian god Ra, whatever... its the persons contributions, not their ethnicity, sexual pref or religious affiliation that define(d) them. Treat people equally, not with preference.
I don't think you understand the thrust of this law. It's not about creating a separate class on gay rights, it's about incorporating gay people into existing history lessons. You mention Oppenheimer. Unless, I'm mistaken, the fact that he was a jew is mentioned in most history books. The same with Einstein. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a pretty big deal, as were the US internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Act and the camps are pretty self-explanatory. They were directed at a specific ethnic group of people. Gay accomplishments and persecution has mostly been swept under the rug.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he was gay, he was shot because he defeated a very disturbed man in an election. But, the fact that he was gay is pretty important.
The story of America is a story of minorities.
Awesome, to make enough time for this lets just forget everything after the Great Depression because it's not like that junk matters as much as gays being persecuted. Seriously, the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanjing are totally trivial events compared to the Stonewall riots. We should totally drop coverage of the bombing of Pearl Harbor to make room for a lecture on how NAMBLA doesn't represent gays. To top it off we should ditch the civil rights movement in favor of the White Night riots!
:rolleyes: there is no time available to teach this, if we teach this something else gets whacked. As is we get to the 1930s by the tests which go to the 1980s...
So the Pink Triangles of the Holocaust are irrelevant?
His life and what he did was not irrelevant. I'm sure a movie or book could be done on his life's story. Teaching kids to look more at a person because of their sexual orientation, rather than their contributions, is irrelevant.
Wow, I don't know what to say. People of distinction aren't simply born that way, one's upbringing and the time in which they came of age play an enormous role. Any number of American industrialists were driven by adverse events during their formative years. Those events are almost always touched on. Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
If you were to walk onto the street and ask 100 people which group of people were persecuted the most out of blacks, Native Americans, Jews, women or gays, I'm pretty sure the majority of people would place gays last, out of those groups. Now a liberal state like New York, Hawaii or California may add gay history to their school programs, but don't expect to see it in the majority of the US States. It's simply not important to single out a persons sexuality to highlight their importance in history. Was Oppenheimer's religion put before his contributions to the bomb? I mean is there a little star next to his name with an annotation listing his religion?
Maybe its just me. But I simply don't care if someone was black, blue, brown, Jewish, the Egyptian god Ra, whatever... its the persons contributions, not their ethnicity, sexual pref or religious affiliation that define(d) them. Treat people equally, not with preference.
I don't think you understand the thrust of this law. It's not about creating a separate class on gay rights, it's about incorporating gay people into existing history lessons. You mention Oppenheimer. Unless, I'm mistaken, the fact that he was a jew is mentioned in most history books. The same with Einstein. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a pretty big deal, as were the US internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Act and the camps are pretty self-explanatory. They were directed at a specific ethnic group of people. Gay accomplishments and persecution has mostly been swept under the rug.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he was gay, he was shot because he defeated a very disturbed man in an election. But, the fact that he was gay is pretty important.
The story of America is a story of minorities.
Awesome, to make enough time for this lets just forget everything after the Great Depression because it's not like that junk matters as much as gays being persecuted. Seriously, the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanjing are totally trivial events compared to the Stonewall riots. We should totally drop coverage of the bombing of Pearl Harbor to make room for a lecture on how NAMBLA doesn't represent gays. To top it off we should ditch the civil rights movement in favor of the White Night riots!
:rolleyes: there is no time available to teach this, if we teach this something else gets whacked. As is we get to the 1930s by the tests which go to the 1980s...
So the Pink Triangles of the Holocaust are irrelevant?
His life and what he did was not irrelevant. I'm sure a movie or book could be done on his life's story. Teaching kids to look more at a person because of their sexual orientation, rather than their contributions, is irrelevant.
Wow, I don't know what to say. People of distinction aren't simply born that way, one's upbringing and the time in which they came of age play an enormous role. Any number of American industrialists were driven by adverse events during their formative years. Those events are almost always touched on. Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
Yannick
Oct 19, 10:04 AM
I would love to know what the worldwide figure is for Apple market percentage. I know it says here that its not in the top 5, hence no available data, but it would be interesting to see, particularly here in the UK, as the amount of people I know who have switched in the last year has been huge!!
+1
It would be very interesting to see international figures and national figures.
+1
It would be very interesting to see international figures and national figures.
Eduardo1971
Nov 24, 02:52 AM
I'll go for the 4GB Pink nano for my girlfriend ($21.00 discount).
I *might* buy Photoshop Elements (BUT it is not Universal Binary) for $68.00.
The Shure E4C 'phones are $61.95 less!
Umm...:o
I *might* buy Photoshop Elements (BUT it is not Universal Binary) for $68.00.
The Shure E4C 'phones are $61.95 less!
Umm...:o
WestonHarvey1
Jul 21, 12:51 PM
You seem to have missed the "... MORE than iPhone 3gs" part.
A better antenna should drop FEWER calls (unless there's a flaw)
You don't get the real picture about performance from that average. What are the call drop numbers when people don't "hold it wrong"? Let's say they were 50 fewer on the 4. That would indicate a massively improved overall antenna design. So you'd have an antenna that holds on to calls about exactly as well on average, with the *ability to greatly exceed previous performance depending on use*. That can't be ignored.
And not all dropped calls are signal related. Some are capacity related and we have no idea how AT&T runs those numbers.
A better antenna should drop FEWER calls (unless there's a flaw)
You don't get the real picture about performance from that average. What are the call drop numbers when people don't "hold it wrong"? Let's say they were 50 fewer on the 4. That would indicate a massively improved overall antenna design. So you'd have an antenna that holds on to calls about exactly as well on average, with the *ability to greatly exceed previous performance depending on use*. That can't be ignored.
And not all dropped calls are signal related. Some are capacity related and we have no idea how AT&T runs those numbers.
donbluto
Aug 2, 05:09 AM
The fewer the people in a nation, the easier it is to say they are the best or the worst in certain things.
So a ratio isn't necessarily a ratio, then? It depends on the population size?
So a ratio isn't necessarily a ratio, then? It depends on the population size?
liketom
Sep 12, 07:38 AM
5 hours before the event has to be a first
*LTD*
Mar 6, 11:59 AM
Why is Apple the only tech company that makes unique products? All the other big ones seem to just drop in behind Apple after they invent something... Examples:
�Phones that are designed to simply compete with the iPhone.
�
This is proven. Others react to Apple, change (or attempt to) in response to Apple, sometimes even to the point of having to admit it (i.e., Nokia and Samsung.) Some even design their entire strategy around competing against Apple. That's really saying something. And it is also puts paid the notion that Apple's leadership in this industry is without equal and that there's a good reason their value will surpass that of Exxon Mobil's faster than we think.
�Phones that are designed to simply compete with the iPhone.
�
This is proven. Others react to Apple, change (or attempt to) in response to Apple, sometimes even to the point of having to admit it (i.e., Nokia and Samsung.) Some even design their entire strategy around competing against Apple. That's really saying something. And it is also puts paid the notion that Apple's leadership in this industry is without equal and that there's a good reason their value will surpass that of Exxon Mobil's faster than we think.
JKK photography
Apr 8, 05:09 PM
You can say that about any consumer product.
Speaking in general terms, MS has added more to windows, improved performance and reduced the bloat with win7.
Apple has gone the opposite direction, adding bloat and no major feature since 10.5
So 10.6 is bloated?
I would say that Windows 7 has very few new features, compared to Windows Vista. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
I would say that Snow Leopard has very few new features, compared to Leopard. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
Now, one of last-gen OS' actually needed a big boost in the performance/stability department. One didn't.
I simply don't agree with you. Snow Leopard was a few GBs smaller than Leopard, and was faster... and yet you say it is bloated?
Speaking in general terms, MS has added more to windows, improved performance and reduced the bloat with win7.
Apple has gone the opposite direction, adding bloat and no major feature since 10.5
So 10.6 is bloated?
I would say that Windows 7 has very few new features, compared to Windows Vista. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
I would say that Snow Leopard has very few new features, compared to Leopard. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
Now, one of last-gen OS' actually needed a big boost in the performance/stability department. One didn't.
I simply don't agree with you. Snow Leopard was a few GBs smaller than Leopard, and was faster... and yet you say it is bloated?
bigandy
Jan 9, 07:48 AM
The expense is enormous (retail: 32GB SSD $250, 64GB SSD $1500 vs. $150 for a 2.5″ 250GB SATA hard drive)
for apple, however, costs are substantially less for flash memory.
with the amount of memory they purchase, they are about the only company that can introduce this at a respectable price, imo.
for apple, however, costs are substantially less for flash memory.
with the amount of memory they purchase, they are about the only company that can introduce this at a respectable price, imo.
MacRumors
Oct 10, 04:22 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Engadget claims that Apple is ready to announce their rumored video/wireless iPod (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/10/apple-about-to-announce-wireless-video-ipod/) in the "very near future," which the site takes to mean before the end of the year. According to the report, the much-hyped widescreen iPod would contain wireless connectivity, however which specific technology would be used was not detailed.
Meanwhile, ThinkSecret has gone back (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060916223336.shtml) and forth (http://notes.thinksecret.com/secretnotes/0609secretnote2.shtml) on the possibility of the device coming before the new year. While quoting "reliable" sources, Endgadet has repeatedly been off the mark with their Apple phone rumors, which may give insight into how good the site's sources are at Apple (claims of the iPhone in August (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060729213347.shtml), fake 'iChat Mobile' pics (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802215346.shtml)).
Engadget claims that Apple is ready to announce their rumored video/wireless iPod (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/10/apple-about-to-announce-wireless-video-ipod/) in the "very near future," which the site takes to mean before the end of the year. According to the report, the much-hyped widescreen iPod would contain wireless connectivity, however which specific technology would be used was not detailed.
Meanwhile, ThinkSecret has gone back (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060916223336.shtml) and forth (http://notes.thinksecret.com/secretnotes/0609secretnote2.shtml) on the possibility of the device coming before the new year. While quoting "reliable" sources, Endgadet has repeatedly been off the mark with their Apple phone rumors, which may give insight into how good the site's sources are at Apple (claims of the iPhone in August (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060729213347.shtml), fake 'iChat Mobile' pics (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802215346.shtml)).
Wayfarer
Apr 29, 04:55 PM
I don't like this. Apple, give us an option to choose the iOS slider buttons!
Or I will throw all my apple products out the window. :o:mad::apple:
Or I will throw all my apple products out the window. :o:mad::apple:
dethmaShine
Apr 18, 07:40 AM
Wow, so the finder is finally giving us, what other OS' had for years. I wonder what the fanboys will say now, after defending this lack of a feature for years.
I suspect along the lines that apple innovates again and creates a brand new feature :p
I don't know which iPhone users were you talking about.
Everyone wanted multi-tasking; there are hypocrites, but can't believe any body touting that multi-tasking is bad or could be bad.
I suspect along the lines that apple innovates again and creates a brand new feature :p
I don't know which iPhone users were you talking about.
Everyone wanted multi-tasking; there are hypocrites, but can't believe any body touting that multi-tasking is bad or could be bad.
marksman
May 3, 04:56 PM
Ok, I'm taking down the names of all the carrier defenders here.
The next time you people bitch about the cable companies or magazine publishers charging you twice for the "one" thing you paid for I'm gonna be all over you.
It is not a matter of being a carrier defender.
It is a matter of being a carrier customer who does not want to have to pay more for their service because people want to steal tethering service.
Nobody is charging you twice for one thing here.
You are paying to use data on your mobile device. If you want to use it to link up other devices, there is a separate service for that.
This is not exactly brain surgery here.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you.
Sure they can.. For one they can just raise the price. They never sold you the data to be used with tethering in the first place. They sold you data to be used strictly with your registered mobile device. That is clearly outlined in the contract you signed with them. It is crystal clear.
Reacent Post
The next time you people bitch about the cable companies or magazine publishers charging you twice for the "one" thing you paid for I'm gonna be all over you.
It is not a matter of being a carrier defender.
It is a matter of being a carrier customer who does not want to have to pay more for their service because people want to steal tethering service.
Nobody is charging you twice for one thing here.
You are paying to use data on your mobile device. If you want to use it to link up other devices, there is a separate service for that.
This is not exactly brain surgery here.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you.
Sure they can.. For one they can just raise the price. They never sold you the data to be used with tethering in the first place. They sold you data to be used strictly with your registered mobile device. That is clearly outlined in the contract you signed with them. It is crystal clear.
sergedg
May 4, 05:27 AM
Does anyone know the name of the apps for the ceo and for the doctor ?
0 comments:
Post a Comment