Multimedia
Oct 23, 09:54 PM
And now for the update... Dell re-shipped via UPS next-day. Still took until yesterday apparently to actually ship from Dell. But it's here. I just plugged it in and everything looks just fine. No dead/stuck pixels I can see. But then again, that's the way my first one was I bought nearly a year ago. After about 3 months, *POP!* one blue stuck pixel. Hehe, these two screens look maaaavolous together. :D Would it be gloating too much if I posted a pic? Heheheh... Maybe I'll bust out the camera after I clean off my desk. ;)Holy Molly now 30" Dells are only $1279.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs). They just lowered the list to $1599.
Any chance we can get a price adjustment?
We paid $1349 last week. That's another $75.60 less including tax. Man I could of had an iPod Shuffle for that. :(
10.24.06 - New C2D MacBookPro's announced.
AV-I phoned Dell this morning and got a $70 credit toward my 30". Wouldn't give me the $5.60 sales tax but got $70 instead of the usual $50 they said. Me so happy. That means I got the Dell 30" including sales tax for $1398.32. :D :p :)
Any chance we can get a price adjustment?
We paid $1349 last week. That's another $75.60 less including tax. Man I could of had an iPod Shuffle for that. :(
10.24.06 - New C2D MacBookPro's announced.
AV-I phoned Dell this morning and got a $70 credit toward my 30". Wouldn't give me the $5.60 sales tax but got $70 instead of the usual $50 they said. Me so happy. That means I got the Dell 30" including sales tax for $1398.32. :D :p :)
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:34 PM
I think you'll have to try again here: I have no idea what you are saying.
Basically, follow the local law until the point where is will cause you to sin AND be in direct violation of the Sharia Law framework.
Basically, follow the local law until the point where is will cause you to sin AND be in direct violation of the Sharia Law framework.
Marx55
Oct 26, 03:09 AM
ONE THING IS CLEAR:
Multitasking, multiprocessor, multithreading Mac OS X and applications are needed right now and will be much needed in the future.
Because microprocessors will evolve not with more Mhz, but basically with more cores and more microprocessors per Mac.
And the same on Linux and Windows. So, hopefully, default true multithreading is around the corner. Or else all this power will be wasted for most applications.
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
Multitasking, multiprocessor, multithreading Mac OS X and applications are needed right now and will be much needed in the future.
Because microprocessors will evolve not with more Mhz, but basically with more cores and more microprocessors per Mac.
And the same on Linux and Windows. So, hopefully, default true multithreading is around the corner. Or else all this power will be wasted for most applications.
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
Deimo
Jul 11, 11:19 PM
One thing i was just thinking... with some laptop vendors considering Conroe due to it being pretty damn efficient, how about this one:
MacBook - Merom - optimized for LONG battery life
MacBook Pro - Conroe - optimized to be a true mobile professional workstation
MacBook - Merom - optimized for LONG battery life
MacBook Pro - Conroe - optimized to be a true mobile professional workstation
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:13 AM
The iPod was not a fad by any sense of the word. Once you reach a decade of popularity, it's not a fad. It's like calling land line phones a fad because there was a time when they didn't exist, then they did exist and were popular, and now they are fading due to cell phones. Ridiculous.
A fad is something that comes and goes quickly with a spike in popularity at its peak, and then people look back and wonder why they did it. That isn't the case with the iPod which still sells in the millions.
Amazing to see how people will resort to anything to make Apple look less popular than they are.
A fad is something that comes and goes quickly with a spike in popularity at its peak, and then people look back and wonder why they did it. That isn't the case with the iPod which still sells in the millions.
Amazing to see how people will resort to anything to make Apple look less popular than they are.
iMattcotv
Apr 9, 09:29 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
Simm0nS777
Mar 18, 12:46 PM
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
CTYankee
Oct 26, 03:02 AM
That is ridiculous. More proof, if any more was needed, that Apple made a big mistake in changing over to Intel.
No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....
No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....
tba03
Apr 13, 11:47 AM
Hoping we see some sort of massive overhaul of Logic soon. Would be awesome.
please apple, don't make that
you already messed logic enough as of L9, don't dumb it down further and make it a garage band pro
and could you please bring real waveforms display in your apps? logic has the crappiest stereo waveform ever, FCP had a nice one(tho slow) but the new one loks uber crappy, not at all pro IMOHO
please apple, don't make that
you already messed logic enough as of L9, don't dumb it down further and make it a garage band pro
and could you please bring real waveforms display in your apps? logic has the crappiest stereo waveform ever, FCP had a nice one(tho slow) but the new one loks uber crappy, not at all pro IMOHO
Chaos123x
Apr 13, 12:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Day one purchase. Been dying to get all of my 8 cores working in FCP for years.
Of course I'm gonna keep my current FCP installed till the bugs are fixed and I learn the new version.
Day one purchase. Been dying to get all of my 8 cores working in FCP for years.
Of course I'm gonna keep my current FCP installed till the bugs are fixed and I learn the new version.
bigwig
Oct 27, 06:01 PM
At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times.
Probably true, and quite sad really. SGI was a heck of a company in its day. I'm not sure they could have adapted. Once everybody else abandoned MIPS SGI couldn't afford new processor revisions by themselves, and the false promise that was (and is) Itanium irrevocably doomed them. Itanium basically killed off all the competition when the Unix vendors all hopped on the Itanium bandwagon, and Intel's complete failure to deliver on Itanium's promises looks in hindsight to have been Intel's plan all along. Just think of the performance a MIPS cpu would have were it given the development dollars x86 gets.
No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.
Probably true, and quite sad really. SGI was a heck of a company in its day. I'm not sure they could have adapted. Once everybody else abandoned MIPS SGI couldn't afford new processor revisions by themselves, and the false promise that was (and is) Itanium irrevocably doomed them. Itanium basically killed off all the competition when the Unix vendors all hopped on the Itanium bandwagon, and Intel's complete failure to deliver on Itanium's promises looks in hindsight to have been Intel's plan all along. Just think of the performance a MIPS cpu would have were it given the development dollars x86 gets.
No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.
Huntn
Apr 27, 09:16 PM
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&version=KJV). But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.
I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.
I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
skunk
Mar 24, 07:19 PM
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."Don't be so disingenuous. The Catholic church has stigmatised gays relentlessly.
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."Don't be so disingenuous. The Catholic church has stigmatised gays relentlessly.
carmenodie
Apr 9, 09:28 AM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
alust2013
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
You may not like the lack of start menu at first, however, it does end up working with a better flow overall. It's just different at first, and after using windows for many years (little bit of 3.1, a lot of 95 and 98, then ME, XP and 7), it took a little bit to get used to, but honestly not that long. You get the basic idea of where stuff is pretty quick, and it's certainly not difficult, especially if you are reasonably proficient in computers.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
![selena gomez and justin bieber new years. [New] Justin Bieber amp; Selena](http://www-hollywoodlife-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/010311_selena_XXXX_spl234804_002.jpg "[New] Justin Bieber amp; Selena")
KidStallyn
Mar 18, 11:47 AM
ATT already requires me to have data with an iPhone. There is NO option to say no. If they find that you have an iPhone without a data plan, they will make you add it. Regardless of how you obtained your phone.
Now, I "chose" the option to use "unlimited" data out of the 3 options. Data, therefore is defined as 1s and 0s at their basic level. Does it really matter if my phone is getting those 1s and 0s or if my phone is just a pass thru for those 1s and 0s. Does ATT incur any extra fees for those PCs 1s and 0s that they would not otherwise incur on the iPhones 1s and 0s. No. They do not. This is a great big scam to get an extra $20/month from those people who chose to get the plan. Is the tethering feature somethign that ATT designed on the phone?? I'm saying hardware and software. Did ATT design any software or Hardware on the phone that would allow or prohibit tethering. NO. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING required from ATT to enable tethering. Mi-Wi proves this.
I would understand if ATT developed an App like Mi-Wi that enabled tethering on your iPhone. Charge whatever they want. But the fact is, they did not do that. My phone is allowed to use unlimited number of 1s and 0s.
Now, I "chose" the option to use "unlimited" data out of the 3 options. Data, therefore is defined as 1s and 0s at their basic level. Does it really matter if my phone is getting those 1s and 0s or if my phone is just a pass thru for those 1s and 0s. Does ATT incur any extra fees for those PCs 1s and 0s that they would not otherwise incur on the iPhones 1s and 0s. No. They do not. This is a great big scam to get an extra $20/month from those people who chose to get the plan. Is the tethering feature somethign that ATT designed on the phone?? I'm saying hardware and software. Did ATT design any software or Hardware on the phone that would allow or prohibit tethering. NO. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING required from ATT to enable tethering. Mi-Wi proves this.
I would understand if ATT developed an App like Mi-Wi that enabled tethering on your iPhone. Charge whatever they want. But the fact is, they did not do that. My phone is allowed to use unlimited number of 1s and 0s.
charliehustle
Oct 8, 12:18 PM
Actually, to a degree it is...
huh? how so?
so because a Ferrari has better quality, it will sell larger numbers than a Honda Civic that more people can afford..
I don't believe you
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
Traditionally, Microsoft aimed Windows Mobile at corporations that wanted Windows as a standard across PCs and handhelds
you're using the failure of one company as an excuse for another one..
different people, different enterprise..
Using that logic, apple should not even be making computers, due to their fall down prior to being saved by the ipod..
Microsoft is not Google..
How many microsoft apps do you use on your iphone? Do you use them more than Google products?
I bet you use Google maps, Google search.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
the point I was trying to make was more of a business plan compared to open or closed. I guess people are assuming all these phones are going to be priced the same (apple vs others), I highly doubt that..
in the business world, there are different markets and demographics, and yes, the iphone does well across the board, but you have to look at everything including price, cost of plans, and so on..
you might not see kids in grade 8 getting iphones, because their parents dont' want spend that that much money,
you can have a number of different situations.. but apple only has one product, and they're trying to market it toward everyone..
google will be positioned better to target different demographics compared to apple..
what if a user wants actual buttons to type on (yes people like that still do exist) how can apple make any money off them?
essentially, apple just lost a customer, and you can't make assumptions that all people want full touch screens..
some people might not like the look of the iphone,
google is giving people a choice of which handset they want, and this will result in them selling a higher number of phones..
Insulting people does not help your case.
It just bothers me when people have a very biased and closed minded opinions when it comes to apple..
I wasn't talking about anyone specifically, so sorry if I offended anyone..
huh? how so?
so because a Ferrari has better quality, it will sell larger numbers than a Honda Civic that more people can afford..
I don't believe you
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
Traditionally, Microsoft aimed Windows Mobile at corporations that wanted Windows as a standard across PCs and handhelds
you're using the failure of one company as an excuse for another one..
different people, different enterprise..
Using that logic, apple should not even be making computers, due to their fall down prior to being saved by the ipod..
Microsoft is not Google..
How many microsoft apps do you use on your iphone? Do you use them more than Google products?
I bet you use Google maps, Google search.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
the point I was trying to make was more of a business plan compared to open or closed. I guess people are assuming all these phones are going to be priced the same (apple vs others), I highly doubt that..
in the business world, there are different markets and demographics, and yes, the iphone does well across the board, but you have to look at everything including price, cost of plans, and so on..
you might not see kids in grade 8 getting iphones, because their parents dont' want spend that that much money,
you can have a number of different situations.. but apple only has one product, and they're trying to market it toward everyone..
google will be positioned better to target different demographics compared to apple..
what if a user wants actual buttons to type on (yes people like that still do exist) how can apple make any money off them?
essentially, apple just lost a customer, and you can't make assumptions that all people want full touch screens..
some people might not like the look of the iphone,
google is giving people a choice of which handset they want, and this will result in them selling a higher number of phones..
Insulting people does not help your case.
It just bothers me when people have a very biased and closed minded opinions when it comes to apple..
I wasn't talking about anyone specifically, so sorry if I offended anyone..
Daphtdazz
Oct 7, 11:03 AM
I mean, how else can they be coming up with a 2 year prediction to an accuracy of 0.67%?
You just wonder about the people making these claims. What have they done, exactly? Sat down in front of Excel, typed in a few numbers and then just written out the answer without even thinking about it? I suppose we should be thankful that it wasn't:
iPhone: 13.728285919847%
Android: 14.491509184751%
etc.
It seems like a big leap anyway to predict a 7 fold market share increase, let alone think it will beat the iPhone whose momentum seems very strong.
You just wonder about the people making these claims. What have they done, exactly? Sat down in front of Excel, typed in a few numbers and then just written out the answer without even thinking about it? I suppose we should be thankful that it wasn't:
iPhone: 13.728285919847%
Android: 14.491509184751%
etc.
It seems like a big leap anyway to predict a 7 fold market share increase, let alone think it will beat the iPhone whose momentum seems very strong.
arn
Oct 7, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by samdweck
sorry arn, but it pisses me off! i mean really, i am very pro-mac and i should chill, but what does a pc person have business doing here... sorry though!
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
sorry arn, but it pisses me off! i mean really, i am very pro-mac and i should chill, but what does a pc person have business doing here... sorry though!
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:52 AM
Oh yeah, it's definitely trending downward now instead of still climbing, but it took almost a decade before that happened, not 3 or 4 years as claimed earlier. And they still sell millions every year, which you cannot say about pet rocks. That's the difference between a fad and a popular product. In a fad, the sales dry up quickly.
I understand what you are getting at. I still personally feel it is a fad, and it is drawing to a close. But I alone can't label it as such. :(
Speaking of fads, when will the current craze if wearing HUGE face covering sunglassess end? :cool: :p
I understand what you are getting at. I still personally feel it is a fad, and it is drawing to a close. But I alone can't label it as such. :(
Speaking of fads, when will the current craze if wearing HUGE face covering sunglassess end? :cool: :p
balamw
Sep 20, 07:51 PM
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
Moyank24
Mar 11, 02:31 AM
As of 0730 GMT, Philippines is now under alert level 2. Its now 0830 GMT. Bracing for tsunami in the next hour.
http://ndcc.gov.ph/attachments/article/165/NDRRMC%20Advisory%20Tsunami%20Bulletin%20No.%202,%2011March2011,%203PM.pdf
Oh wow. Hopefully that will give people anywhere near the shores time to reach higher ground.
http://ndcc.gov.ph/attachments/article/165/NDRRMC%20Advisory%20Tsunami%20Bulletin%20No.%202,%2011March2011,%203PM.pdf
Oh wow. Hopefully that will give people anywhere near the shores time to reach higher ground.
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:27 AM
Everybody deserves love and respect--it seems to me that this project is supportive of this notion. Very cool indeed.
At least someone gets the message. :)
At least someone gets the message. :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment