Popeye206
Apr 8, 08:16 AM
Hummm... I would think by them throttling the sales, they get people back into the store over and over again trying to get one. So, take their "hot product" and dish a few out everyday to keep the eager hunters coming back in day after day and hope they buy something else in the mean time.
Also, I can see from the sales incentive standpoint that if you've hit your quota for the day selling 20 ipads in an hour, but have another 40 in stock, hold them for the next day to ensure you have consecutive days of hitting your sales quota making you look better and probably getting other bonuses? I would think they compensate managers based on daily sales and consecutive days of sales above quota.
So... basically, I see BB messing with stock to manipulate their sales and Apple being mad because they are so far behind on keeping up with demand and one of their big partners is holding out and using the iPad as sales bait.
Also, I can see from the sales incentive standpoint that if you've hit your quota for the day selling 20 ipads in an hour, but have another 40 in stock, hold them for the next day to ensure you have consecutive days of hitting your sales quota making you look better and probably getting other bonuses? I would think they compensate managers based on daily sales and consecutive days of sales above quota.
So... basically, I see BB messing with stock to manipulate their sales and Apple being mad because they are so far behind on keeping up with demand and one of their big partners is holding out and using the iPad as sales bait.
ctachme
Jul 27, 10:50 AM
MBPs the end of august? I START school in the end of august.
ughghghghghghg
Me too. I'm just going to hang onto my aging iBook G4 until they come out. I really would kick myself if I bought a MacBook Pro now so close to them being updated. I'm just hoping I can order soon, and then they will arrive at the end of August... just in time for school. *crosses fingers*
ughghghghghghg
Me too. I'm just going to hang onto my aging iBook G4 until they come out. I really would kick myself if I bought a MacBook Pro now so close to them being updated. I'm just hoping I can order soon, and then they will arrive at the end of August... just in time for school. *crosses fingers*
Old Smuggler
Nov 29, 05:26 AM
i think this would be even more incentive for apple to roll out the video ipod so it would be marketed as a video player and not a music player
thus evading the fees
on a side note whos not to say that every one has record labels on their ipod some may use it as an external harddrive or musicians may have their own homemade songs on it
thus evading the fees
on a side note whos not to say that every one has record labels on their ipod some may use it as an external harddrive or musicians may have their own homemade songs on it
patp
Mar 22, 02:56 PM
Isn't this just a big game of catch up amongst the others (Samsung, RIM etc)?
Apple is so far ahead in the game it's kind of sad to see the other companies scramble like this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Apple is so far ahead in the game it's kind of sad to see the other companies scramble like this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dpMacsmith
Jul 14, 03:54 PM
Amen to that. Especially when you look at the dell site and see that their tower with that same CPU costs about $2400.
This makes a nice discussion piece. But, I don't think that Apple will undercut the Dell price. My personal opinion is that the configurations are about right. But, the prices are too low. The table is bogus.
This makes a nice discussion piece. But, I don't think that Apple will undercut the Dell price. My personal opinion is that the configurations are about right. But, the prices are too low. The table is bogus.
JAT
Apr 27, 11:27 AM
It clearly is an issue if they have a federal lawsuit on it. The fact that Apple are rolling out an update that changes the way it works alone shows that there is clearly a problem. Apple vary rarely roll out updates that change things, even if consumers are screaming for it (mouse acceleration in OS X for example).
You refuse to accept there is a problem. You refuse to see the breech of privacy. Why? The government and Apple have clearly accepted it.
You should probably learn what "lawsuit", "federal", and "government" actually mean before saying such things.
You refuse to accept there is a problem. You refuse to see the breech of privacy. Why? The government and Apple have clearly accepted it.
You should probably learn what "lawsuit", "federal", and "government" actually mean before saying such things.
Sydde
Mar 21, 01:28 PM
Not that they're absolutely mutually exclusive, but I'm curious--how do you reconcile the first statement with the latter two?
It is in fact somewhat problematic. At present, the government is basically run by moneyed interests that supply the funding needed for the candidates to get into office (so that they can shower favours upon their benefactors and sponsors). This is the sixth check/balance, which was not literally codified but has become standard via legal precedent. Those of us who feel that real change is called for still support the (p)resident because he is the one least likely to enact tragic "progress". The system is, nonetheless, dreadfully broken. The idiots that I hold in serious contention are either marginalized into submission or holding seats of power, a situation that serves only to amplify our division, to our detriment.
It is in fact somewhat problematic. At present, the government is basically run by moneyed interests that supply the funding needed for the candidates to get into office (so that they can shower favours upon their benefactors and sponsors). This is the sixth check/balance, which was not literally codified but has become standard via legal precedent. Those of us who feel that real change is called for still support the (p)resident because he is the one least likely to enact tragic "progress". The system is, nonetheless, dreadfully broken. The idiots that I hold in serious contention are either marginalized into submission or holding seats of power, a situation that serves only to amplify our division, to our detriment.
kdarling
Apr 6, 03:01 PM
But he then said after how well it would work on the phone, they put the tablet project on the shelf and focused on the phone as it was more important. Which means it was a tablet and no just a touch screen device in the beginning.
Sure, it could've been a full tablet. It just didn't have iOS, is my point.
People misremember a lot. You know how it goes: a story always gets better as time goes by :)
For example, in the later tablet version we are told that seeing kinetic scrolling on the demo made him want for Apple to build a touch phone:
“I had this idea about having a glass display, a multitouch display you could type on with your fingers. I asked our folks: could we come up with a multitouch display that we could type on? And six months later, they came back with this prototype display. And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys and he called me back a few weeks later and had intertial scrolling working and I thought, ‘my God, we can build a phone with this!’ So we put the tablet on the shelf… and we went to work on the iPhone.”
Yet, years before in one of the first iPhone articles in we were told that kinetic scrolling came later on:
"At one point, Mr. Jobs got a call from one of the iPhone engineers with an idea: Why not allow iPhone users to navigate through both song collections and contacts stored on the device by simply flicking their fingers up and down across the surface of the touch-screen? The engineer gave Mr. Jobs a demonstration of the technology, and the Apple chief executive signed off on it immediately, according to a person familiar with the process."
I'd love one day for a definitive history to come out, so we can know the full timing, and also credit those unsung engineers who actually invented it all.
Sure, it could've been a full tablet. It just didn't have iOS, is my point.
People misremember a lot. You know how it goes: a story always gets better as time goes by :)
For example, in the later tablet version we are told that seeing kinetic scrolling on the demo made him want for Apple to build a touch phone:
“I had this idea about having a glass display, a multitouch display you could type on with your fingers. I asked our folks: could we come up with a multitouch display that we could type on? And six months later, they came back with this prototype display. And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys and he called me back a few weeks later and had intertial scrolling working and I thought, ‘my God, we can build a phone with this!’ So we put the tablet on the shelf… and we went to work on the iPhone.”
Yet, years before in one of the first iPhone articles in we were told that kinetic scrolling came later on:
"At one point, Mr. Jobs got a call from one of the iPhone engineers with an idea: Why not allow iPhone users to navigate through both song collections and contacts stored on the device by simply flicking their fingers up and down across the surface of the touch-screen? The engineer gave Mr. Jobs a demonstration of the technology, and the Apple chief executive signed off on it immediately, according to a person familiar with the process."
I'd love one day for a definitive history to come out, so we can know the full timing, and also credit those unsung engineers who actually invented it all.
vincenz
Apr 28, 01:30 PM
Trump is the ultimate troll. Worst of all, he's just getting tons of free publicity every time the subject is brought up.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 10:19 PM
The U.N. Security Council perhaps, but not the entire assembly. It would have been interesting to open that issue up to debate and seen how all the members would have voted.
The security council, not the general assembly, is the organ tasked with authorizing UN military action. The point of the security council is to enable the UN to make rapid strategic decisions without a general debate. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I don't think requiring a full debate in the general assembly would be an efficient way to respond to this sort of situation.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
We could have responded simply with economic sanctions.
Based on Gaddafi's treatment of the initial protests (not to mention his tendencies over 40 years of autocratic rule), I strongly question whether economic sanctions are going to apply sufficient pressure to Gaddafi to relinquish power. Like Mubarak, he is a political strongman who is not easily cowed by threats.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
I agree that war should be considered a last resort. I also think that the US government is generally too quick to undertake armed intervention. But in this case we took sides in a war that was already in progress. The UN's choices were either non-intervention, non-military intervention, or direct military intervention in some form.
I suppose the point at which "all other options have failed" is a debatable one, since everyone has different opinions on what constitutes a valid option. There are many questions without simple answers. How do we judge failure? Is the purpose of the intervention (military or otherwise) to aid the rebels? Or is it merely to prevent Gaddafi killing civilians? If the latter is the case, does allowing him to remain in power serve that cause? If not, what should we do about it?
At the bottom of all this though, the goal of current foreign intervention (military or otherwise) is clear to me - to remove Gaddafi from power and recognize the rebel transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya.
The security council, not the general assembly, is the organ tasked with authorizing UN military action. The point of the security council is to enable the UN to make rapid strategic decisions without a general debate. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I don't think requiring a full debate in the general assembly would be an efficient way to respond to this sort of situation.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
We could have responded simply with economic sanctions.
Based on Gaddafi's treatment of the initial protests (not to mention his tendencies over 40 years of autocratic rule), I strongly question whether economic sanctions are going to apply sufficient pressure to Gaddafi to relinquish power. Like Mubarak, he is a political strongman who is not easily cowed by threats.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
I agree that war should be considered a last resort. I also think that the US government is generally too quick to undertake armed intervention. But in this case we took sides in a war that was already in progress. The UN's choices were either non-intervention, non-military intervention, or direct military intervention in some form.
I suppose the point at which "all other options have failed" is a debatable one, since everyone has different opinions on what constitutes a valid option. There are many questions without simple answers. How do we judge failure? Is the purpose of the intervention (military or otherwise) to aid the rebels? Or is it merely to prevent Gaddafi killing civilians? If the latter is the case, does allowing him to remain in power serve that cause? If not, what should we do about it?
At the bottom of all this though, the goal of current foreign intervention (military or otherwise) is clear to me - to remove Gaddafi from power and recognize the rebel transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya.
mcoyne
Apr 27, 08:40 AM
Poo. I'd rather have the option to keep backing up that cache file to iTunes. I like the ability to see a map of where I've been using the iPhoneTracker app. :(
Agreed! Stupid whiners. I hope they will add an option to let your iphone continue keeping a cache of all your locations.
Agreed! Stupid whiners. I hope they will add an option to let your iphone continue keeping a cache of all your locations.
themoonisdown09
Apr 12, 07:07 AM
I just choked on my own vomit. I really want a new iPhone this summer.
0815
Apr 6, 04:19 PM
Isn't it amazing that so many of these XOOM owners also, coincidentally, "own" an iPad/iPad 2, or their spouse/mom/dog/significant other does?
Either there's a lot of exaggerating (astroturfing) going on, or someone's spouse/mom/dog/significant other has a lot more sense. ;)
Why, I own an iPad and a XOOM and a Galaxy Tab and that HP Windows 7 Slate thingy and a Nook and a prototype PlayBook and I can tell you from personal experience that the iPad is like 100x better than all of those! :rolleyes:
A friend of mine has actually three of each you mentioned in every available configuration (for himself, his wife and his son) - and all of them think the iPads are the best ones ... and he is the only one you should listen to since he truly was able to compare them with different 'user types'.
Either there's a lot of exaggerating (astroturfing) going on, or someone's spouse/mom/dog/significant other has a lot more sense. ;)
Why, I own an iPad and a XOOM and a Galaxy Tab and that HP Windows 7 Slate thingy and a Nook and a prototype PlayBook and I can tell you from personal experience that the iPad is like 100x better than all of those! :rolleyes:
A friend of mine has actually three of each you mentioned in every available configuration (for himself, his wife and his son) - and all of them think the iPads are the best ones ... and he is the only one you should listen to since he truly was able to compare them with different 'user types'.
Man9z0r
Apr 5, 05:01 PM
I hope this to be true. I have been wanting to get this software!
New to video and have heard a lot of good things. :eek:
New to video and have heard a lot of good things. :eek:
8CoreWhore
Apr 25, 04:09 PM
GOOD!!
If Apple is not doing it, then they'll have to explain what is going on.
How rude and arrogant for them to not come clean and just address the questions head-on.
They owe us an explanation. We have a right to know what the device do and do not do.
If Apple is not doing it, then they'll have to explain what is going on.
How rude and arrogant for them to not come clean and just address the questions head-on.
They owe us an explanation. We have a right to know what the device do and do not do.
Jimmieboy
Aug 8, 01:45 AM
Yahoo! Leopard looks awesome! Time machine looks like a lifesaver for me and spaces makes life so much easier. THANKS STEVE!
theBB
Aug 11, 07:28 PM
Confused.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Sep 18, 11:33 PM
I still think it's funny that everyone thinks these Macbook Pros are "long overdue" - when, exactly, did the FIRST Dell laptop with C2D ship? I thought it was supposed to be around tomorrow...but surely it couldn't have been before last Monday or so at the earliest.
So that's, what? A week behind in the worst case scenario? Oh God...
However - if they waited till November, then yeah, I'd agree that they were overdue...:)
So that's, what? A week behind in the worst case scenario? Oh God...
However - if they waited till November, then yeah, I'd agree that they were overdue...:)
slackpacker
Apr 25, 02:42 PM
Not guilty until proven guilty ... your turn to proof that they have the data. There is zero evidence for that, no matter how often you repeat the claim.
Its not that Apple is using this data its how its being used by others. Its Apples job to protect us not allow our private info to be used against us.
SEE >>>> www.cellebrite.com (http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products/ufed-physical-pro.html) - forensic-products
Its not that Apple is using this data its how its being used by others. Its Apples job to protect us not allow our private info to be used against us.
SEE >>>> www.cellebrite.com (http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products/ufed-physical-pro.html) - forensic-products
DJMastaWes
Aug 26, 08:28 PM
On the day that the MBP's with merom go on sale, I wonder WHAT TIME Apples website will change and display the new products? :confused:
Probebly 10:00AM - 11:00AM Pacific time.
Probebly 10:00AM - 11:00AM Pacific time.
afrowq
Apr 6, 09:53 AM
Impossible.
Apple's no longer supposed to care about their Pro software.
This will never happen.
A lot of pros have already left Mac, but I have been holding out. However, this is the last straw. If the new FCP disappoints I will be jumping ship, buying a high-end PC and switching to Avid or Premiere. I just can't stand the frustrations anymore of watching every consumer itoy get upgraded, and then the Pro stuff getting shafted.
The time is now. The new FCP had better have something equivalent to Mercury Playback, optimization for RED footage, different HD codecs, real-time playback, 64 bit, multi-core usage, etc. If it's a dumbed-down consumer product I will be absolutely livid.
Apple's no longer supposed to care about their Pro software.
This will never happen.
A lot of pros have already left Mac, but I have been holding out. However, this is the last straw. If the new FCP disappoints I will be jumping ship, buying a high-end PC and switching to Avid or Premiere. I just can't stand the frustrations anymore of watching every consumer itoy get upgraded, and then the Pro stuff getting shafted.
The time is now. The new FCP had better have something equivalent to Mercury Playback, optimization for RED footage, different HD codecs, real-time playback, 64 bit, multi-core usage, etc. If it's a dumbed-down consumer product I will be absolutely livid.
Al Coholic
Mar 26, 06:03 PM
Maybe not the worst, but definitely the most useless.
Spotlight does a so much better job.
Agreed. I keep my dock pretty sparse so if the app ain't there it's only a few keystrokes away.
The new Launcher is just one of those eye-candy apps. It'll be the first thing I delete.
Spotlight does a so much better job.
Agreed. I keep my dock pretty sparse so if the app ain't there it's only a few keystrokes away.
The new Launcher is just one of those eye-candy apps. It'll be the first thing I delete.
Shadow
Jul 14, 07:02 PM
Why be limited to 2? Why not 3, 4, 5 or 6? I also want quad-10GHz Woodcrests with 20GB of DDR6-8000 RAM, with 2exobytes of HDD space. AND room to upgrade. Oh, and quad 7900GTXs. For �1000.
Ok, that never gonna happen, but it illustrates the point that people want more and more for less and less.
Ok, that never gonna happen, but it illustrates the point that people want more and more for less and less.
GoodWatch
Apr 27, 09:51 AM
Good job Apple. Now let's move on to someone else, like freakin' Sony and their Playstation network.
Why?
Why?
0 comments:
Post a Comment