Korivak
Oct 3, 09:56 PM
I think a lot of people are setting themselves up to be disappointed.
People have been talking about the iPhone for literally years now. And you never know - it might happen. But I think it's more likely that iPods will keep on being iPods. This is the product that hasn't ever added something as simple as an FM tuner, and the reason that they haven't is that it's more parts, more menu items, higher cost and something that only a very few feature addicts care about. Everyone and there uncle already has a cell phone, and a significant percentage of people already have an iPod - and most of them aren't about to throw away hundreds of dollars worth of techie toys that work perfectly to spend hundreds more on something that does the exact same things. Think back to the iPod Photos. Neat idea, a whole new major feature...and the only one that sold well was the one with the larger hard drive. Pretty much everyone thought it was cool, and then ignored it and bought the less expensive monochrome iPod (unless they happened to have 60 GBs of music). Maybe if the iPod was able to add cell support cheaply enough that it was a standard feature across the entire line (like the eventual iPod with Colour Screen), then it would sell - but that's a big engineering and manufacturing challenge for a feature not everyone's going to use (unlike colour album art, which you can't really help but enjoy). Hell, the amount of negotiation it would take to get iPhones working on different networks all around the world (a bit more of a localization issue than just translation and a standard USB interface) would be a nightmare, and probably be better spent getting more music, tv shows and movies.
And a "real" video iPod? I'm content with the current "fake" iPod with Video. Widescreen, larger screen, touch screen, wireless...it's all going to cost money and battery life. If you really want a "real" video iPod, get a Zune when it comes out. Microsoft, sweethearts that they are, will sell it to you at a loss because they don't have to worry about silly and mundane things like profit. But you can't plug it in to your Mac or import your iTMS music to it. Eventually, Apple will figure out a way to improve the iPod and still make a profit, and at that point, they'll release the - say it with me - the iPod. Until then, you can have your choice of the iPod, or not-an-iPod.
Also, if Steve Jobs were to retire, all he'd do all day would be hang out at Apple and give passionate speeches about Apple products. Basically, exactly what he does now.
People have been talking about the iPhone for literally years now. And you never know - it might happen. But I think it's more likely that iPods will keep on being iPods. This is the product that hasn't ever added something as simple as an FM tuner, and the reason that they haven't is that it's more parts, more menu items, higher cost and something that only a very few feature addicts care about. Everyone and there uncle already has a cell phone, and a significant percentage of people already have an iPod - and most of them aren't about to throw away hundreds of dollars worth of techie toys that work perfectly to spend hundreds more on something that does the exact same things. Think back to the iPod Photos. Neat idea, a whole new major feature...and the only one that sold well was the one with the larger hard drive. Pretty much everyone thought it was cool, and then ignored it and bought the less expensive monochrome iPod (unless they happened to have 60 GBs of music). Maybe if the iPod was able to add cell support cheaply enough that it was a standard feature across the entire line (like the eventual iPod with Colour Screen), then it would sell - but that's a big engineering and manufacturing challenge for a feature not everyone's going to use (unlike colour album art, which you can't really help but enjoy). Hell, the amount of negotiation it would take to get iPhones working on different networks all around the world (a bit more of a localization issue than just translation and a standard USB interface) would be a nightmare, and probably be better spent getting more music, tv shows and movies.
And a "real" video iPod? I'm content with the current "fake" iPod with Video. Widescreen, larger screen, touch screen, wireless...it's all going to cost money and battery life. If you really want a "real" video iPod, get a Zune when it comes out. Microsoft, sweethearts that they are, will sell it to you at a loss because they don't have to worry about silly and mundane things like profit. But you can't plug it in to your Mac or import your iTMS music to it. Eventually, Apple will figure out a way to improve the iPod and still make a profit, and at that point, they'll release the - say it with me - the iPod. Until then, you can have your choice of the iPod, or not-an-iPod.
Also, if Steve Jobs were to retire, all he'd do all day would be hang out at Apple and give passionate speeches about Apple products. Basically, exactly what he does now.
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
love quotes tagalog funny.
love quotes tagalog. love
more...
love quotes tagalog part 2.
love quotes tagalog version.
more...
Love Quotes in Tagalog
QUOTES/LOVE/LOVE-Sana-ulan
more...
love quotes tagalog. in love
love quotes tagalog funny.
more...
emo love quotes tagalog
love quotes tagalog wallpaper.
more...
love quotes tagalog funny.
Love Quotes Tagalog Text.
more...
love quotes tagalog part 1.
love quotes tagalog funny.
more...
love quotes tagalog wallpaper.
love quotes tagalog. love
love quotes tagalog sad. love
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
stoid
Aug 7, 06:58 PM
The cinema display's didn't change, all that changed was the price. So there isn't any "previous generation model" from what I understand.
Did you miss the part about brighter and greater contrast ratio? :confused:
Did you miss the part about brighter and greater contrast ratio? :confused:
AidenShaw
Oct 5, 12:36 AM
Meanwhile Vista will be behind Leopard in 64-bit support :) An optional install no less! :confused:
This claim, of course, is based on two Powerpoints from a Stevenote at WWDC.
The current 10.5 builds are behind XP 64-bit in support.
And those Apple 64-bit Intel systems - not a lick of 64-bit support in the OSX that runs on them....
This claim, of course, is based on two Powerpoints from a Stevenote at WWDC.
The current 10.5 builds are behind XP 64-bit in support.
And those Apple 64-bit Intel systems - not a lick of 64-bit support in the OSX that runs on them....
more...
mmcc
Mar 29, 08:46 AM
Yes, the App Store can give you exposure, but you still have to market and sell your solution for people to find you or want you. Plus, the AppStore is one outlet and your other outlets should never be abandoned.
Yes, but you can't have it both ways. A successful Mac App Store from your perspective means more Apple customers use it to find apps. In my experience to date, this means those other "outlets" become less and less profitable. Marketing is a numbers game and a major disruption like the Mac App Store can quickly shift those numbers to the negative. In my case it is no longer profitable to maintain some of those "other outlets".
Here's a specific example: Google AdWords. Before the Mac App Store opened, many customers gravitated first to Google search to find an app. I would pay for AdWords placement and if I got a click-through I could be assured that my website exclusively captured the attention. Yes, my app still had to be good enough to capture a sale but at least there were no other competitors there -- and no freebie alternatives (except for demos/trials).
The same strategy no longer works with the Mac App Store. First, the traffic in Google search is reduced as more Apple customers gravitate to the Mac App Store first. My conversions costs showed a clear trend upward as soon as the Mac App Store opened (other competitors in my app space have also dropped away from AdWords indicating similar escalating conversion costs). Furthermore, if I try to drive customers to the Mac App Store to buy, to increase my exposure therein, I incur the AdWord conversion costs, plus the 30% to Apple and a reduced price in the Mac App Store to compete in the race to the bottom. Clearly AdWords is a losing strategy in this case.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced.
That's fine if the volume was worthwhile. What I am saying is that impulse buy volume is NOT there at any price to even approach what I was making in my market space before. I've been in the #1 spot for my category and it was not a windfall.
I say again, the Mac App Store has depressed the sales volume and gross in my category for everyone. This is not a success in the sense of encouraging a vibrant and growing Mac software market. I felt that before the Mac App Store opened that the Mac software market was reaching a critical mass and that developers found it increasingly attractive. The Mac App Store has crushed that IMO and I am not sure it will return unless Apple makes huge percentage gains in the traditional PC market (and recent trends show it is leveling off).
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
How exactly would you suggest to market in the Mac App Store? I can't buy ad placement. Lowering my price to 99 cents hasn't given me exposure. I need some (ethical) ideas. :p
Yes, but you can't have it both ways. A successful Mac App Store from your perspective means more Apple customers use it to find apps. In my experience to date, this means those other "outlets" become less and less profitable. Marketing is a numbers game and a major disruption like the Mac App Store can quickly shift those numbers to the negative. In my case it is no longer profitable to maintain some of those "other outlets".
Here's a specific example: Google AdWords. Before the Mac App Store opened, many customers gravitated first to Google search to find an app. I would pay for AdWords placement and if I got a click-through I could be assured that my website exclusively captured the attention. Yes, my app still had to be good enough to capture a sale but at least there were no other competitors there -- and no freebie alternatives (except for demos/trials).
The same strategy no longer works with the Mac App Store. First, the traffic in Google search is reduced as more Apple customers gravitate to the Mac App Store first. My conversions costs showed a clear trend upward as soon as the Mac App Store opened (other competitors in my app space have also dropped away from AdWords indicating similar escalating conversion costs). Furthermore, if I try to drive customers to the Mac App Store to buy, to increase my exposure therein, I incur the AdWord conversion costs, plus the 30% to Apple and a reduced price in the Mac App Store to compete in the race to the bottom. Clearly AdWords is a losing strategy in this case.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced.
That's fine if the volume was worthwhile. What I am saying is that impulse buy volume is NOT there at any price to even approach what I was making in my market space before. I've been in the #1 spot for my category and it was not a windfall.
I say again, the Mac App Store has depressed the sales volume and gross in my category for everyone. This is not a success in the sense of encouraging a vibrant and growing Mac software market. I felt that before the Mac App Store opened that the Mac software market was reaching a critical mass and that developers found it increasingly attractive. The Mac App Store has crushed that IMO and I am not sure it will return unless Apple makes huge percentage gains in the traditional PC market (and recent trends show it is leveling off).
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
How exactly would you suggest to market in the Mac App Store? I can't buy ad placement. Lowering my price to 99 cents hasn't given me exposure. I need some (ethical) ideas. :p
JRM PowerPod
Sep 12, 08:01 AM
i have two tutes tomorrow and lecture plus i have a 10hr shift, im going to sleep, wake me up when something happens 555-2121. Enjoy
I predict
Movie Store (US only)
New iPod (fullscreen)
New iPod nano
One more thing will be two more things
iPhone
iSharemoviestomyTV
I predict
Movie Store (US only)
New iPod (fullscreen)
New iPod nano
One more thing will be two more things
iPhone
iSharemoviestomyTV
more...
ct2k7
Apr 23, 06:29 PM
In which case nearly *all* your personal data is vulnerable. Cell tower tracking is not a special case, and relatively not especially more dangerous or compromising than anything else you've got stored on your computer.
Again, there's no egregious violation taking place here, and it's not especially worse than any other way to keep tabs on someone.
I'd rather have a stalker than a paedophile on me.
Let's reserve the lynching for when we actually find out what this tracking data is for specifically and how widespread the issue is with other companies (i.e., Google, MS, etc.)
Ok
If there is no actual cause for concern to the average person (which there really isn't), I fail to see that need to take a flip over it.
You really didn't say that... did you?
Anyway, that's all Il'll post about this for now. I really don't have a lot more to say. This topic is already way off-course, mostly my fault.
ok
Again, there's no egregious violation taking place here, and it's not especially worse than any other way to keep tabs on someone.
I'd rather have a stalker than a paedophile on me.
Let's reserve the lynching for when we actually find out what this tracking data is for specifically and how widespread the issue is with other companies (i.e., Google, MS, etc.)
Ok
If there is no actual cause for concern to the average person (which there really isn't), I fail to see that need to take a flip over it.
You really didn't say that... did you?
Anyway, that's all Il'll post about this for now. I really don't have a lot more to say. This topic is already way off-course, mostly my fault.
ok
ngenerator
May 3, 01:51 PM
I don't really get this... You already pay fees for the data - why do they care for how you use it?
Fees for the data for that one device. But please don't start a "tethering is awesome v. tethering is against the rules" war here, there's plenty of other threads for that.
Fees for the data for that one device. But please don't start a "tethering is awesome v. tethering is against the rules" war here, there's plenty of other threads for that.
more...
eric55lv
Jan 10, 12:17 AM
New MacBook and MacBook Pro
New MacBook Nano
Apple TV discontuinon
New MacBook Nano
Apple TV discontuinon
Ommid
Apr 25, 11:55 AM
Looks good, I've been holding out since my first-gen iPhone.
...hopefully we'll see a Summer or Fall release? :)
Wow! You're patient!
...hopefully we'll see a Summer or Fall release? :)
Wow! You're patient!
more...
beeh
Oct 9, 11:45 AM
Except Verizon does that too!!!!
We just switched from Verizon to AT&T, I've had more dropped calls in the last two weeks than in six years with Verizon ( probably 1% of my AT&T calls get dropped, so not that bad )...Never had a smartphone with Verizon though, and now on AT&T I use a Nokia E71x ( great phone ), but maybe that's why calls are dropping?
We just switched from Verizon to AT&T, I've had more dropped calls in the last two weeks than in six years with Verizon ( probably 1% of my AT&T calls get dropped, so not that bad )...Never had a smartphone with Verizon though, and now on AT&T I use a Nokia E71x ( great phone ), but maybe that's why calls are dropping?
fivepoint
Mar 3, 09:45 PM
I heard somewhere that federal employees are not able to collectively bargain for their benefits package. If this is true, why are recent states' attempts to restrict unionized bargaining seen as being so draconian, and why isn't there an outcry to give federal employees the same "rights"?
That's true regarding federal employees. It's being labeled as draconian because that's how union thugs get their message across. They need to scare people in order to get their way. Scare or intimidate... and thankfully they aren't powerful enough to intimidate all of us at this point. Not that they aren't trying:
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/188078_139173095668_4256766_n.jpg
"... Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable." -Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States, and Progressive/Liberal Hero
That's true regarding federal employees. It's being labeled as draconian because that's how union thugs get their message across. They need to scare people in order to get their way. Scare or intimidate... and thankfully they aren't powerful enough to intimidate all of us at this point. Not that they aren't trying:
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/188078_139173095668_4256766_n.jpg
"... Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable." -Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States, and Progressive/Liberal Hero
more...
iris_failsafe
Nov 16, 12:37 PM
Besides I don't think there is anything AMD can offer Apple right now. The Core archiecture has proven to be faster than the Athlon Opteron one...
Suture
Mar 21, 07:01 AM
Hmm. Try contacting Microsoft, notify them that your 360 was stolen, and ask if they can do anything about tracking the IP received when your gamertag is signed on.
That is strange -- albeit fortunate -- that they only took your 360.
On the subject of strange, check this out. My friend was parked at a Taco Bell. He left his driver's door unlocked, went in to get something to go. He came out to find that his passenger side window was smashed. Someone had broken in, taken his stereo, but left the faceplate for the stereo IN THE PASSENGER SEAT.
That is strange -- albeit fortunate -- that they only took your 360.
On the subject of strange, check this out. My friend was parked at a Taco Bell. He left his driver's door unlocked, went in to get something to go. He came out to find that his passenger side window was smashed. Someone had broken in, taken his stereo, but left the faceplate for the stereo IN THE PASSENGER SEAT.
more...
demallien
Sep 12, 08:36 AM
can we confim the what countrys itunes stores are down ?
usa/uk ...
France has the update message. Cool! How excited am I?!?!
usa/uk ...
France has the update message. Cool! How excited am I?!?!
ct2k7
Mar 13, 08:08 AM
Wait a while.
Tablets replacing servers? No way, no thank you.
Tablets replacing servers? No way, no thank you.
more...
JML42691
Dec 13, 10:42 AM
Dont underestimate the power of marketing. They might have this LTE/CDMA combo where the LTE is not all that functional but is there only for the publicity. Think about the splash of the FIRST 4G iPhone!
That would seem very un-Apple like, like somebody said earlier in this thread, they wouldn't allow homescreen background images on two of their phones because of performance issues (which can't be more than a fraction of a second), so why would they allow not fully-functioning LTE capabilities. Apple isn't a company that'll do something just so they can say they did it first, look at multitasking, Steve's quote when they announced it was something like, "we were certainly not the first to do it but we were the first to do it right." In Apple's eyes, if it isn't perfect they won't do it.
That would seem very un-Apple like, like somebody said earlier in this thread, they wouldn't allow homescreen background images on two of their phones because of performance issues (which can't be more than a fraction of a second), so why would they allow not fully-functioning LTE capabilities. Apple isn't a company that'll do something just so they can say they did it first, look at multitasking, Steve's quote when they announced it was something like, "we were certainly not the first to do it but we were the first to do it right." In Apple's eyes, if it isn't perfect they won't do it.
Surely
Apr 12, 01:13 PM
Wait......do you guys have a little obsession with cupcakes, or an obsession with little cupcakes?
I just want to be clear, that's all. ;)
I just want to be clear, that's all. ;)
iphone3gs16gb
Mar 19, 07:05 PM
How could you have it for ages? I think this guy is over exaggerating a little too much.
You are the one exaggerating.
Of course he didn't mean it literally. You have to get out more if you haven't heard this...
You are the one exaggerating.
Of course he didn't mean it literally. You have to get out more if you haven't heard this...
Doctor Q
Apr 15, 06:10 PM
Is the difference that Apple is more willing to talk to and play ball with the content providers? Is it that Google has been "changing its demands"? Is it about technical concerns? Are the content provides trying to guess who the winning horse will be?
Or (my guess) is it all about the revenue sharing model?
Or (my guess) is it all about the revenue sharing model?
ehoui
Apr 18, 07:50 AM
I am not too sure Tim Cook or anyone of his pay grade is as tough as Steve is when it comes to these label execs.
That's why you hire someone who has those skills, has contacts in the industry, and get these deals done. You still have to find the "right person," but it doesn't seem impossible.
The future is WIN7, iOS, and RIMM.
Did Android steal your lunch money one day?
But maybe I'm just bitter since I own a 40" google tv that is virtually incapable of doing anything worth doing on a tv.
Yikes. I love Google (and MS and Apple for that matter), but they do have a dabbler quality about them which doesn't always work out. Now GMail is awesome, even if it will never be "finished" (which it shouldn't).
The more competition there is the better products get for the end user! :mad:
Everyone here got the memo. Thanks.
Google (http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-buy-music-industry.html), Apple and Amazon could just freaking buy the music industry.
Why, it's a messy business which people love to hate. It's better to be a smart channel in this case and let the music industry figure itself out.
And by that what do you mean. iPhones had little impact on phones like the BB Curve
It had a huge impact on the company who designs and sells the BB Curve. I think that counts.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
Who said anything about guarantee? I think this is about improving the overall quality of the apps. You may not agree with Apple's rules, but it seems to work for them. Fortunately, consumers have choice and can go with Android or other systems which allow them to install whatever they want without Apple having reviewed, tested and "approved" the App. Enjoy.
I just want to sync my music. **** itunes **** what ever. I love bit torrent. I refuse to pay for music or movies.
You are confusing open with thieving. I wouldn't be proud about being a thief... most people don't trust thieves and reject their opinions as a matter of course. Also, it is not considered smart for a thief to brag about being a thief especially in public.
Your music? Ha!
That's why you hire someone who has those skills, has contacts in the industry, and get these deals done. You still have to find the "right person," but it doesn't seem impossible.
The future is WIN7, iOS, and RIMM.
Did Android steal your lunch money one day?
But maybe I'm just bitter since I own a 40" google tv that is virtually incapable of doing anything worth doing on a tv.
Yikes. I love Google (and MS and Apple for that matter), but they do have a dabbler quality about them which doesn't always work out. Now GMail is awesome, even if it will never be "finished" (which it shouldn't).
The more competition there is the better products get for the end user! :mad:
Everyone here got the memo. Thanks.
Google (http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-buy-music-industry.html), Apple and Amazon could just freaking buy the music industry.
Why, it's a messy business which people love to hate. It's better to be a smart channel in this case and let the music industry figure itself out.
And by that what do you mean. iPhones had little impact on phones like the BB Curve
It had a huge impact on the company who designs and sells the BB Curve. I think that counts.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
Who said anything about guarantee? I think this is about improving the overall quality of the apps. You may not agree with Apple's rules, but it seems to work for them. Fortunately, consumers have choice and can go with Android or other systems which allow them to install whatever they want without Apple having reviewed, tested and "approved" the App. Enjoy.
I just want to sync my music. **** itunes **** what ever. I love bit torrent. I refuse to pay for music or movies.
You are confusing open with thieving. I wouldn't be proud about being a thief... most people don't trust thieves and reject their opinions as a matter of course. Also, it is not considered smart for a thief to brag about being a thief especially in public.
Your music? Ha!
Axemantitan
Apr 5, 03:12 PM
The McRib is back!
(Just kidding, I hate McDonalds.)
(Just kidding, I hate McDonalds.)
MorphingDragon
Apr 29, 07:26 PM
Just go Linux...
Heck, just keep SL, and triple boot W7, and Linux. Best of all worlds.
Linux has many, many worlds.
Heck, just keep SL, and triple boot W7, and Linux. Best of all worlds.
Linux has many, many worlds.
swagi
Apr 29, 03:12 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.
Thumbs up to you, man. I'll be passing the Lion for some flavour of Linux as well.
Thumbs up to you, man. I'll be passing the Lion for some flavour of Linux as well.