mandis
Aug 24, 06:42 PM
Bugger!! Just checked the serial on my Powerbook G4...
A1078 - 3K4415RQRV8A
Should i grab the fire hose? :eek:
A1078 - 3K4415RQRV8A
Should i grab the fire hose? :eek:
Bobjob186
Nov 6, 11:27 PM
Would you buy a CD MB the day the C2D comes out for $700
henk12321
Oct 12, 09:29 AM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3318/3236823454_ddca5900d9.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3318/3236823454_ddca5900d9_b.jpg)
fierywater
Mar 11, 05:05 PM
What does Safari 4.0.5 have to do with a MBP update?
I think he was joking.
I think he was joking.
Popeye206
Apr 14, 10:06 AM
I hope what this shows the PC makers is that it's not just a race to the bottom as far as price is concerned, but that people are willing to pay more for a device if it's built well and does a good job.
Stop worrying about shaving that extra dollar off the price and providing the rock-bottom rickety low-cost PC that will fall apart in a few months; instead, go ahead and invest in computers with longer battery life, better build quality, and other useful features -- consumers are willing to pay for it.
Agreed... I think many manufactures are in a self imposed trap to increase sales through discount pricing. But they also cram in the specs to impress, but the components are sub-grade and the longevity is not there.
Case in point... a friend of mine is complaining about her desktop machine. It's about 2 and half years old and she's ready to replace it. Parts keep dying and performance degrades really fast.
So, the reality in todays market is, you can buy a cheap PC and you're signing up for about 3 years of on and off problems, or you can buy a Mac and get 5+ years of almost flawless to flawless performance.
The MBP I have now is almost 5 years old and has had no problems in that time. That in it's self has been worth every extra dime.
But again... from a general consumer standpoint... people get some iDevice, they love it, get to know Apple, visit the stores and see the excitement and then they're hooked... they want more.
Stop worrying about shaving that extra dollar off the price and providing the rock-bottom rickety low-cost PC that will fall apart in a few months; instead, go ahead and invest in computers with longer battery life, better build quality, and other useful features -- consumers are willing to pay for it.
Agreed... I think many manufactures are in a self imposed trap to increase sales through discount pricing. But they also cram in the specs to impress, but the components are sub-grade and the longevity is not there.
Case in point... a friend of mine is complaining about her desktop machine. It's about 2 and half years old and she's ready to replace it. Parts keep dying and performance degrades really fast.
So, the reality in todays market is, you can buy a cheap PC and you're signing up for about 3 years of on and off problems, or you can buy a Mac and get 5+ years of almost flawless to flawless performance.
The MBP I have now is almost 5 years old and has had no problems in that time. That in it's self has been worth every extra dime.
But again... from a general consumer standpoint... people get some iDevice, they love it, get to know Apple, visit the stores and see the excitement and then they're hooked... they want more.
OS X Dude
Mar 14, 06:21 AM
Can the laptop i7 processors self-overclock when possible?
I think it's called Turbo Boost in the desktop processors.
I think it's called Turbo Boost in the desktop processors.
iScott428
Mar 29, 11:04 AM
So you are saying that the new iPhone will release without iOS 5?
Because its doubtful iOS 5 will be released with no dev preview prior to release.
No not at all, Apple will release their new iPhone with iOS 5 but they will call it a 4Gs. Again my opinion based on previous apple moves.
Because its doubtful iOS 5 will be released with no dev preview prior to release.
No not at all, Apple will release their new iPhone with iOS 5 but they will call it a 4Gs. Again my opinion based on previous apple moves.
citi
Nov 2, 06:49 PM
I'm pretty sure that Flash wouldn't even work on an iPhone. It uses 100% CPU on my MBP and video still lags!
This is probably the reason that Apple doesn't even want to let Adobe make Flash, because they know they would fsck it up somehow.
And, since iPhones overheat, CPU usage at 100% for any length of time could cause the battery to explode!
Don't just blame Adobe...blame apple too. It's a code/OS issue. It's works perfectly on PCs.
This is probably the reason that Apple doesn't even want to let Adobe make Flash, because they know they would fsck it up somehow.
And, since iPhones overheat, CPU usage at 100% for any length of time could cause the battery to explode!
Don't just blame Adobe...blame apple too. It's a code/OS issue. It's works perfectly on PCs.
dsut4392
Apr 11, 05:23 AM
Interesting point, although what you're not factoring in is that the resale value of CS5 is substantial whereas the resale value of the subscription model is ZERO :D
Nor the fact that the only part of that �8000 up-front cost you save is the �1700 cost of the Adobe software. 21% saving is better than nothing, but you would do better to get your business modelling and recruitment right...
Nor the fact that the only part of that �8000 up-front cost you save is the �1700 cost of the Adobe software. 21% saving is better than nothing, but you would do better to get your business modelling and recruitment right...
IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 10:46 AM
Sounds like a good system. A person can buy a dummy pc if they want, a linux box, or a Mac.
You missed my point. Microsoft makes many of its billions by selling directly to OEMs, who have no choice but to buy the latest Windows OS from Microsoft. This insures that every one of Microsoft's OS releases is an automatic "success." They sell billions worth, no matter how undesirable it may be in reality.
You missed my point. Microsoft makes many of its billions by selling directly to OEMs, who have no choice but to buy the latest Windows OS from Microsoft. This insures that every one of Microsoft's OS releases is an automatic "success." They sell billions worth, no matter how undesirable it may be in reality.
John.B
Dec 8, 02:43 PM
Honestly, most musicians don't study the Beatles as individuals - nor do they need to - because they were just solid musicians, nothing spectacular. When you had Clapton, Beck, and even Townshend, there is no need to study Lennon or Harrison. When you had Entwistle ... no need for McCartney.
Even though Clapton, Beck, Townshend, and Entwistle left some pretty big footsteps, every one of them would admit they themselves followed in some pretty big footsteps as well.
And, from a slightly different angle, Les Paul as well as the Beatles/EMI made huge strides in recording techniques that are still the foundations today for what is now commonly done in Pro Tools. Whether or not you like Les Paul or the Beatles, that's still true.
Pioneers are still the pioneers; the greats always stand on the shoulders of the greats that came before them, it's how it works. All are made up from parts of the work of those who came before. The "greatest rock and roll band in the world" never becomes that without Muddy Waters, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry; but you don't even have to be a fan of those guys to like what the Stones built from those influences. Or what will be made from musicians who have the Stones as one of their influences.
... and that putting aside the fact that in the mid 60's the level of musicianship exhibited by even average jazz players was far above anything rock players seen as 'innovators' were doing ...
It's an unfortunate fact that their level of musicianship and talent may have no bearing on their success or their the ability to influence modern music. The world is full of technically proficient musicians playing music nobody wants to listen to. Sad, yes, but there it is.
Even though Clapton, Beck, Townshend, and Entwistle left some pretty big footsteps, every one of them would admit they themselves followed in some pretty big footsteps as well.
And, from a slightly different angle, Les Paul as well as the Beatles/EMI made huge strides in recording techniques that are still the foundations today for what is now commonly done in Pro Tools. Whether or not you like Les Paul or the Beatles, that's still true.
Pioneers are still the pioneers; the greats always stand on the shoulders of the greats that came before them, it's how it works. All are made up from parts of the work of those who came before. The "greatest rock and roll band in the world" never becomes that without Muddy Waters, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry; but you don't even have to be a fan of those guys to like what the Stones built from those influences. Or what will be made from musicians who have the Stones as one of their influences.
... and that putting aside the fact that in the mid 60's the level of musicianship exhibited by even average jazz players was far above anything rock players seen as 'innovators' were doing ...
It's an unfortunate fact that their level of musicianship and talent may have no bearing on their success or their the ability to influence modern music. The world is full of technically proficient musicians playing music nobody wants to listen to. Sad, yes, but there it is.
inkswamp
Sep 22, 05:33 PM
This is just a business being a business. Get over it.
Do you really think that? Beyond all the questions and concerns about Wal-Mart's treatment of its employees and some of its deceptive practices and its tendency to sap small communities dry and wipe out smaller, local businesses (all of which I have witnessed with my own eyes so don't accuse me of quoting any lefty Web sites)... beyond all that, you think anti-competitive behavior is just "a business being a business." I don't think it is. In fact, it runs counter to everything I've been told about how the U.S. works. If you really believe what you're saying, I ask that you reconsider your point of view. You have very little support for the argument that one company making threats against another industry to stop a potential competitor is just "being a business." In fact, there have been lawsuits against some companies engaging in this very thing. Notable for an Apple discussion forum would be the example of Microsoft, but there have been others.
Do you really think that? Beyond all the questions and concerns about Wal-Mart's treatment of its employees and some of its deceptive practices and its tendency to sap small communities dry and wipe out smaller, local businesses (all of which I have witnessed with my own eyes so don't accuse me of quoting any lefty Web sites)... beyond all that, you think anti-competitive behavior is just "a business being a business." I don't think it is. In fact, it runs counter to everything I've been told about how the U.S. works. If you really believe what you're saying, I ask that you reconsider your point of view. You have very little support for the argument that one company making threats against another industry to stop a potential competitor is just "being a business." In fact, there have been lawsuits against some companies engaging in this very thing. Notable for an Apple discussion forum would be the example of Microsoft, but there have been others.
JPark
Mar 29, 09:58 AM
La-dee-frickin'-da. I still have an iPhone 3G, and I'm not eligible for an upgrade until the end of April. So, as I see it, here are my options:
1) Upgrade in April to tech that's already a year old.
2) Hold on to a phone that is slower than cold molasses for another 6-8 mos., with the POSSIBILITY of a new, faster, and better phone.
3) Move to Android (perhaps the Motorola Atrix) and send the iPhone, Apple, and their seemingly academic product refresh cycles packing.
I have been, in my past, an Apple apologist; I own both a Macbook and an iPad, and love them both. They have the right to release their products when they want. But for some reason, Apple's decision to mix-up their refreshment cycles NOW burns me. I have been looking forward--for once--to upgrading my device at around the time the newest iPhone hits the market, and when I finally get the chance to do it, Apple (potentially) shifts the cycle. Not cool with me.
So, even though I love iOs, I may jump to Android for a couple of years, just to check it out.
You're right. How insensitive of them to not base their business decisions on your upgrade cycle. No, wait. That's ridiculous. Never mind.
If the reports are to be believed, if they were to release iPhone 5 in June it wouldn't have LTE. You'd just be getting a slightly upgraded version of the 4. Wouldn't you rather wait another 4 months and get something much more future-proof?
1) Upgrade in April to tech that's already a year old.
2) Hold on to a phone that is slower than cold molasses for another 6-8 mos., with the POSSIBILITY of a new, faster, and better phone.
3) Move to Android (perhaps the Motorola Atrix) and send the iPhone, Apple, and their seemingly academic product refresh cycles packing.
I have been, in my past, an Apple apologist; I own both a Macbook and an iPad, and love them both. They have the right to release their products when they want. But for some reason, Apple's decision to mix-up their refreshment cycles NOW burns me. I have been looking forward--for once--to upgrading my device at around the time the newest iPhone hits the market, and when I finally get the chance to do it, Apple (potentially) shifts the cycle. Not cool with me.
So, even though I love iOs, I may jump to Android for a couple of years, just to check it out.
You're right. How insensitive of them to not base their business decisions on your upgrade cycle. No, wait. That's ridiculous. Never mind.
If the reports are to be believed, if they were to release iPhone 5 in June it wouldn't have LTE. You'd just be getting a slightly upgraded version of the 4. Wouldn't you rather wait another 4 months and get something much more future-proof?
tk421
Nov 27, 01:36 PM
I also think that whoever has the remaining rights to this material realise that its shelf-life is almost up. In 5-10 years time, the broad appeal of much of this material may have less relevance to the average consumer and its perceived market-value may be far less.
That's not a comment on the merits of The Beatles' music; just my view based on many of the comments I read by what I am assuming are younger music listeners.
I'm 43, many of these songs are ingrained into my memory from childhood, but the only Beatles albums I would possibly be interested in are maybe 2-4 remastered CDs; I'm not interested in downloads at all. But to be honest, I don't feel that by not currently owning them that my music collection is lacking at all.
I don't know about that. I'm young and I love the Beatles. They may decrease in popularity, but I don't expect them to go away ever. Also, it is still quite common for popular artists to cover Beatles songs. Just do a search for some songs on iTunes.
Beethoven and Mozart aren't the most popular artists on the charts today, but their music is still very well known and loved. I expect the Beatles to be known and loved in 100 years. Practically everybody would recognize the opening of Beethoven's fifth, even if they didn't know it was the fifth or that it was written by Beethoven. The Beatles may not reach that level, but their music will be around. They are the most popular artists of this century.
That's not a comment on the merits of The Beatles' music; just my view based on many of the comments I read by what I am assuming are younger music listeners.
I'm 43, many of these songs are ingrained into my memory from childhood, but the only Beatles albums I would possibly be interested in are maybe 2-4 remastered CDs; I'm not interested in downloads at all. But to be honest, I don't feel that by not currently owning them that my music collection is lacking at all.
I don't know about that. I'm young and I love the Beatles. They may decrease in popularity, but I don't expect them to go away ever. Also, it is still quite common for popular artists to cover Beatles songs. Just do a search for some songs on iTunes.
Beethoven and Mozart aren't the most popular artists on the charts today, but their music is still very well known and loved. I expect the Beatles to be known and loved in 100 years. Practically everybody would recognize the opening of Beethoven's fifth, even if they didn't know it was the fifth or that it was written by Beethoven. The Beatles may not reach that level, but their music will be around. They are the most popular artists of this century.
thiagorariz
Apr 12, 01:37 PM
Here in Brazil we have high taxes. Taxes are high and public services are of poor quality. The cost of labor is quite high, due to all the labor bureaucracy that punishes both employers and employees. The purpose of mounting the iPads here in Brazil is that they would not be able to pay some import taxes and enjoy some tax incentives that the Brazilian government grants to companies that assemble their products in national territory. Furthermore, we live in a fake democracy, in which the State is only concerned with lining their own pockets, leaving the needs of the Brazilian people in the last plan. That since 1500.
decimortis
Mar 25, 01:04 PM
Thats no true.
Apple just a few days ago released Mac OS X 10.6.7 and was only 475MB, and the Combo update was only 1.12GB. Mac OS X 10.6.6 brought the Mac App Store and was only 143MB.
I don't know why your updates are 4GB.
He didn't mean the Mac OS; he meant an app he bought from the App Store that was 4GB.
D.
Apple just a few days ago released Mac OS X 10.6.7 and was only 475MB, and the Combo update was only 1.12GB. Mac OS X 10.6.6 brought the Mac App Store and was only 143MB.
I don't know why your updates are 4GB.
He didn't mean the Mac OS; he meant an app he bought from the App Store that was 4GB.
D.
Jcoz
Mar 28, 12:57 PM
I believe Costco showed Apple the door.
This is also what I took from it.
It also happens to make more sense than apple showing them the door.
They probably were unable to secure the kind of discounted prices WITH acceptable profit margins to justify the retail space.
This is also what I took from it.
It also happens to make more sense than apple showing them the door.
They probably were unable to secure the kind of discounted prices WITH acceptable profit margins to justify the retail space.
vitaboy
Oct 16, 03:47 PM
We heard something really similar to that when every other company released video-playing mp3 players before Apple did, and Jobs said he didn't see anybody wanting to have portable video. Well, Apple bit its tongue and released it, calling it "innovation".
You know what, Steve never said Apple would NEVER do a video iPod. What he said was that video just didn't make sense at the time. For one thing, he said that there was practically zero demand from iPod users for video. Then he qualified his statement by saying that the situation might be different in the future, but the media being what it is, his comment was reduced to the overly simplistic (but easy to report), "APPLE WILL NEVER MAKE A VIDEO IPOD."
And for your information, the release of the video iPod was innovative because Apple launched it in conjunction with $1.99 music videos and TV shows on the iTunes Store. Less than a year later, there are like 250 TV shows you can buy on iTunes, from the latest hits like Grey's Anatomy to old classics like Knight Rider.
I always get a little peeved that people are so easily dismissive of the iTunes piece of the iPod pie. iPod wouldn't be where it is today without iTunes and the iTunes Store. If it took Apple 18 months to convince the music companies to sell their music for $0.99 on iTunes, then don't you think Apple made the right decision by waiting to launch the video iPod simultaneously with iTunes video offerings? iPod is nothing without content and Steve clearly believes that iPod should never lack for legal music/video content, ever.
I, for one, know from an Apple iPod engineer that Apple had a working video iPod in the labs more than 2 years ago, but it's quite clear that Steve had the patience and foresight to wait until the time was right for video, instead of launching a product into a vacuum. History is full of products that - while technical marvels - utterly failed because they were before their time. Newton was one. The Tucker automobile was another.
I'm a big iPod fan (i've purchased 3) but wireless capabilities is the way of the future. I don't see ourselves in 10 years still being limited by wired headphones and such. Maybe it'll be easier than the Zune (haven't seen the demo) but the idea of beaming a song for somebody else to download/hear is pretty cool to me.
Glad you are such a big fan of the iPod. :) I own 4 iPods myself. :-P
Your prediction about wireless isn't necessarily wrong, but what Steve understands is 1) timing is important and 2) technology in context is even more important. Microsoft never understood this - they're all about feature bullet points and will enthusiastically push out new tech that ends up being poorly implemented and doesn't even end up solving the problems that consumers face in using technology.
Zune is wireless for the sake of wireless. It's wireless crap. Having wireless will not make Zune a better device - in fact, I think most people will soon come to the conclusion that it's crap because there will be no other Zune users within 100 miles to "squirt" each other with.
What people seem to forget is that Apple isn't stupid. It's like all the bruhala that erupted last year when geeks of every stripe claimed iPod would finally be killed because the music cell phone would be the killer product. What's funny is how these people assume Apple suddenly sent all its engineers home and decided, "Well, we've sold 50 million iPods. Time to call it day. No new iPods, ever."
As is now all but certain, Apple has been working on an iPod phone for a while. So much for music phones killing the iPod - maybe this year's iPod, but Apple is not a company to stand still.
Same thing with wireless. What people seem to forget is that Apple already has shown the way in terms of wireless. I'm talking about the broadcasting features already built in to iTunes via Bonjour networking. If you go to any college dorm or library, you'll notice a few to a dozen iTunes music libraries that will show up in your iTunes. People are already streaming their music for free, direct from iTunes, over 802.11. iTunes Sharing has already been doing the "music community" thing for a long time now.
So it seems quite obvious to me that a wireless iPod will be able to pick up these local iTunes streams like a Mac or PC running iTunes can already do.
If Apple wanted to push the technology a bit, then iPods would be able to stream music iPod-to-Mac(s), iPod-to-PC(s), and iPod-to-iPod(s). None of these limited point-to-point crap like Zune. No slow, time-bomb file transfers. Instead, we'll see live streaming from one iPod to many iPods, PCs, or Macs. No music file will actually be transferred, just as in iTunes sharing, which allows Apple to avoid the messiness of wrapping files in DRM like with Zune. A wireless iPod could tune in simultaneously with many different streams at the same time, and it'd be instantaneous because no transfers actually occur.
Sure, you won't be able to take the streams with you, but wireless iPod with iTunes Sharing would be infinitely more usable and fun than some geeky, slow, unworkable Zune model.
So I say just wait. I mean, can you imagine how badly Zune will blow up after Microsoft has launched the product (when they've committed to expensive manufacturing and the R&D is finished) and Apple launches a wireless iPod that actually works like a wireless device is supposed to?
Remember - just think "iPod with iTunes Sharing" and compare that to Zune, and realize with a smile that Microsoft is rushing forward into one of the biggest trainwrecks in music history. Apple's just waiting for them to build up momentum so the spectacle will be spectacular when the tracks get cut out from under them! ;)
You know what, Steve never said Apple would NEVER do a video iPod. What he said was that video just didn't make sense at the time. For one thing, he said that there was practically zero demand from iPod users for video. Then he qualified his statement by saying that the situation might be different in the future, but the media being what it is, his comment was reduced to the overly simplistic (but easy to report), "APPLE WILL NEVER MAKE A VIDEO IPOD."
And for your information, the release of the video iPod was innovative because Apple launched it in conjunction with $1.99 music videos and TV shows on the iTunes Store. Less than a year later, there are like 250 TV shows you can buy on iTunes, from the latest hits like Grey's Anatomy to old classics like Knight Rider.
I always get a little peeved that people are so easily dismissive of the iTunes piece of the iPod pie. iPod wouldn't be where it is today without iTunes and the iTunes Store. If it took Apple 18 months to convince the music companies to sell their music for $0.99 on iTunes, then don't you think Apple made the right decision by waiting to launch the video iPod simultaneously with iTunes video offerings? iPod is nothing without content and Steve clearly believes that iPod should never lack for legal music/video content, ever.
I, for one, know from an Apple iPod engineer that Apple had a working video iPod in the labs more than 2 years ago, but it's quite clear that Steve had the patience and foresight to wait until the time was right for video, instead of launching a product into a vacuum. History is full of products that - while technical marvels - utterly failed because they were before their time. Newton was one. The Tucker automobile was another.
I'm a big iPod fan (i've purchased 3) but wireless capabilities is the way of the future. I don't see ourselves in 10 years still being limited by wired headphones and such. Maybe it'll be easier than the Zune (haven't seen the demo) but the idea of beaming a song for somebody else to download/hear is pretty cool to me.
Glad you are such a big fan of the iPod. :) I own 4 iPods myself. :-P
Your prediction about wireless isn't necessarily wrong, but what Steve understands is 1) timing is important and 2) technology in context is even more important. Microsoft never understood this - they're all about feature bullet points and will enthusiastically push out new tech that ends up being poorly implemented and doesn't even end up solving the problems that consumers face in using technology.
Zune is wireless for the sake of wireless. It's wireless crap. Having wireless will not make Zune a better device - in fact, I think most people will soon come to the conclusion that it's crap because there will be no other Zune users within 100 miles to "squirt" each other with.
What people seem to forget is that Apple isn't stupid. It's like all the bruhala that erupted last year when geeks of every stripe claimed iPod would finally be killed because the music cell phone would be the killer product. What's funny is how these people assume Apple suddenly sent all its engineers home and decided, "Well, we've sold 50 million iPods. Time to call it day. No new iPods, ever."
As is now all but certain, Apple has been working on an iPod phone for a while. So much for music phones killing the iPod - maybe this year's iPod, but Apple is not a company to stand still.
Same thing with wireless. What people seem to forget is that Apple already has shown the way in terms of wireless. I'm talking about the broadcasting features already built in to iTunes via Bonjour networking. If you go to any college dorm or library, you'll notice a few to a dozen iTunes music libraries that will show up in your iTunes. People are already streaming their music for free, direct from iTunes, over 802.11. iTunes Sharing has already been doing the "music community" thing for a long time now.
So it seems quite obvious to me that a wireless iPod will be able to pick up these local iTunes streams like a Mac or PC running iTunes can already do.
If Apple wanted to push the technology a bit, then iPods would be able to stream music iPod-to-Mac(s), iPod-to-PC(s), and iPod-to-iPod(s). None of these limited point-to-point crap like Zune. No slow, time-bomb file transfers. Instead, we'll see live streaming from one iPod to many iPods, PCs, or Macs. No music file will actually be transferred, just as in iTunes sharing, which allows Apple to avoid the messiness of wrapping files in DRM like with Zune. A wireless iPod could tune in simultaneously with many different streams at the same time, and it'd be instantaneous because no transfers actually occur.
Sure, you won't be able to take the streams with you, but wireless iPod with iTunes Sharing would be infinitely more usable and fun than some geeky, slow, unworkable Zune model.
So I say just wait. I mean, can you imagine how badly Zune will blow up after Microsoft has launched the product (when they've committed to expensive manufacturing and the R&D is finished) and Apple launches a wireless iPod that actually works like a wireless device is supposed to?
Remember - just think "iPod with iTunes Sharing" and compare that to Zune, and realize with a smile that Microsoft is rushing forward into one of the biggest trainwrecks in music history. Apple's just waiting for them to build up momentum so the spectacle will be spectacular when the tracks get cut out from under them! ;)
Rondue
Mar 25, 02:11 PM
Hopefully it fixes the FaceTime glitch on the iPad 2.
What FaceTime glitch?
What FaceTime glitch?
iphones4evry1
Nov 4, 12:31 AM
Who cares about Flash?
I am constantly going to websites that I cannot view because the iPhone is lacking Flash player. You don't like Flash? Great, if there is something better out there, then competition will cause the better product to prevail. But for now, iPhone users are being deprived of THOUSANDS of Flash websites that other smartphone owners are able to view!!!!!!!!!! :mad:
Why is Apple blocking Flash? This is one for the FCC! Same reason that Microsoft used to block Netscape. Apple wants websites to use Apple software and not Flash. FAIL! It's a violation of free markets! Here comes a Netscape-Microsoft lawsuit in the Supreme Court, except this time with Flash-Apple.
I am constantly going to websites that I cannot view because the iPhone is lacking Flash player. You don't like Flash? Great, if there is something better out there, then competition will cause the better product to prevail. But for now, iPhone users are being deprived of THOUSANDS of Flash websites that other smartphone owners are able to view!!!!!!!!!! :mad:
Why is Apple blocking Flash? This is one for the FCC! Same reason that Microsoft used to block Netscape. Apple wants websites to use Apple software and not Flash. FAIL! It's a violation of free markets! Here comes a Netscape-Microsoft lawsuit in the Supreme Court, except this time with Flash-Apple.
DudeDad
Mar 28, 02:24 PM
This is also what I took from it.
It also happens to make more sense than apple showing them the door.
They probably were unable to secure the kind of discounted prices WITH acceptable profit margins to justify the retail space.
Costco wanted to sell the first gen iPad. Apple said no, so Costco booted all the iPods and itunes cards. Oh well, plenty of other places to get Apple gear! I do miss the discounted iTunes cards ($56 for $60 in cards)...
It also happens to make more sense than apple showing them the door.
They probably were unable to secure the kind of discounted prices WITH acceptable profit margins to justify the retail space.
Costco wanted to sell the first gen iPad. Apple said no, so Costco booted all the iPods and itunes cards. Oh well, plenty of other places to get Apple gear! I do miss the discounted iTunes cards ($56 for $60 in cards)...
zephead
Oct 15, 05:52 PM
I actually like the idea of wireless communication on iPods. They could do it exactly like "sharing"in iTunes. Imagine you sitting somewhere in the underground or bus, taking out your iPod, checking "other iPods" on the main menu, browsing through the playlist and thinking: "hey, this guy/girl has a good music taste". You could see what she/he's listening to ("now playing") and listen to it. And if you see the other person rocking his head to the same song you're hearing, you know it's the right one. And if this person happens to share it's profile (contact information), you can get the phone number etc...
That sounds like it makes more sense than Zuneing a song. Instead of somebody asking "do you want to listen to this song" and maybe the person is annoyingly persistent about you listening to it to the point where you want to clock him one for not leaving you alone, the person can look on another person's iPod himself if he so desires and if the other guy has sharing on. If Apple makes iPod sharing exactly the same as iTunes sharing, and figures out a way to keep the battery life up, then that's what people would want to get.
That sounds like it makes more sense than Zuneing a song. Instead of somebody asking "do you want to listen to this song" and maybe the person is annoyingly persistent about you listening to it to the point where you want to clock him one for not leaving you alone, the person can look on another person's iPod himself if he so desires and if the other guy has sharing on. If Apple makes iPod sharing exactly the same as iTunes sharing, and figures out a way to keep the battery life up, then that's what people would want to get.
benixau
Oct 12, 03:36 PM
Look, dont get me wrong. I believe that as soon as apple and motorola say ta-ta to each other for the mac's CPU then we may have a decent processor under the hood. Look, whilst ironic that the very chip we want comes from a copmany at the complete opposite end of the market, a power4 even cut down at 2Ghz or 2.5Ghz may get apple upto maybe 10-15% of the market share. That is important because then we would become a sizable group. Worth seriously developing for maybe???
Most of the oldest apple allys dont take apple seriously anymore and they just pump out aps that are compatible to stop the email flood that would occur if they didnt.
Most of the oldest apple allys dont take apple seriously anymore and they just pump out aps that are compatible to stop the email flood that would occur if they didnt.
AdeFowler
Nov 27, 09:54 AM
This would be great but I honestly can't see it happening. Apple Corps surely have some pride?
