jaydentaku
Sep 30, 07:01 AM
This is a front. I want to see the plans for the 8 floors of subterranean mega vaults.
Mike31c
Nov 18, 10:01 AM
I don't see why AMD and Intel OSX laptops can't live together... We all see the windoze users have their choice of AMD or Intel, dual cores or single cores... why can't Apple/OSX?
As for the G5 ibook/powerbook, well judging by the way the G5 iMac was built, then frankly, I don't see why a G5 laptop could not of been built. The current line of iMacs practically IS a notebook on a vertical stand so they could of put it in a notebook form. Besides, how do we know the G5 iBook does not exist?
I mean besides from the fact that "unless Mr. Jobs says it exists, it does not exist" logic. :p
Come on folks, there has to be a LOT of stuff in the R&D labs of Apple that we will never know of or see because of a change of the Master Plan of Steve Jobs:
As for the G5 ibook/powerbook, well judging by the way the G5 iMac was built, then frankly, I don't see why a G5 laptop could not of been built. The current line of iMacs practically IS a notebook on a vertical stand so they could of put it in a notebook form. Besides, how do we know the G5 iBook does not exist?
I mean besides from the fact that "unless Mr. Jobs says it exists, it does not exist" logic. :p
Come on folks, there has to be a LOT of stuff in the R&D labs of Apple that we will never know of or see because of a change of the Master Plan of Steve Jobs:
MacRumors
Oct 6, 10:15 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/06/verizon-targets-atandts-network-with-theres-a-map-for-that-campaign/)
TechFlash noted (http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/10/verizon_goes_right_after_att_with_new_ad_campaign.html) yesterday that Verizon is rolling out a new advertising campaign targeting AT&T's network by focusing on the geographic coverage of the competing companies' networks. The campaign also employs a twist on Apple's "There's an app for that" iPhone slogan with its own tagline of "There's a map for that."The fine print also is worth checking out. It reads: "Browse the Web and download music and apps, at 3G speed, in five times more places than the nation's number two wireless carrier. Before you pick a phone, pick a network."A television commercial featuring the new campaign also debuted yesterday.
Article Link: Verizon Targets AT&T's Network With 'There's a Map For That' Campaign (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/06/verizon-targets-atandts-network-with-theres-a-map-for-that-campaign/)
TechFlash noted (http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/10/verizon_goes_right_after_att_with_new_ad_campaign.html) yesterday that Verizon is rolling out a new advertising campaign targeting AT&T's network by focusing on the geographic coverage of the competing companies' networks. The campaign also employs a twist on Apple's "There's an app for that" iPhone slogan with its own tagline of "There's a map for that."The fine print also is worth checking out. It reads: "Browse the Web and download music and apps, at 3G speed, in five times more places than the nation's number two wireless carrier. Before you pick a phone, pick a network."A television commercial featuring the new campaign also debuted yesterday.
Article Link: Verizon Targets AT&T's Network With 'There's a Map For That' Campaign (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/06/verizon-targets-atandts-network-with-theres-a-map-for-that-campaign/)
ritmomundo
Mar 18, 04:15 PM
Did you even read my original post?
yes. what's your point?
yes. what's your point?
more...
Chundles
Sep 12, 04:10 AM
What will it be where you are Chundles? :D
About 2 hours prior to sparrow-fart.
3am... can't wait to spend yet another late night in front of the computer waiting for Apple to release yet another product I can't afford.
About 2 hours prior to sparrow-fart.
3am... can't wait to spend yet another late night in front of the computer waiting for Apple to release yet another product I can't afford.
doctoree
Apr 15, 02:51 PM
Using aluminum would hinder the cellular reception wouldn't it ?
They could employ the same trick they employ in the iPad where they have a plastic Logo in the alu back and the antenna behind the plastic logo..
This shell is still fake as Apple would never use visible, hard edges for the bevelled back but a smooth roundness. Just like the ipad
They could employ the same trick they employ in the iPad where they have a plastic Logo in the alu back and the antenna behind the plastic logo..
This shell is still fake as Apple would never use visible, hard edges for the bevelled back but a smooth roundness. Just like the ipad
more...
woody888
Mar 17, 05:42 PM
true story, I walked into Apple store today. I saw a nice iPad on the display. I like it a lot, but I really just do not have the money to pay for it. I "rigged" it out of the anti-theft device and nobody was looking at me. everybody seemed busy doing their own thing. I then proceeded to take the iPad to the front of the store. I had the iPad in my jacket. And no alarm sounded! wow, I had just walked off with a new iPad. well, it is a display model, but hey, it is free. $230 for an iPad? I think I got the better deal than you......
OP, you obviously knew you did the wrong thing, because all along you knew about it. as soon as you walked out of Best Buy, you knew what is going on, so why not do the right thing? just a suggestion. it's not like any of us that have the most morale, but it just seem like a right thing to do. why make the cashier take the fall? sure, they may be stoned according to you, but it sounds to me that you are taking advantage of others on purpose. ok, my lame morale speech is over. I'm going to go into AT&T store now and see if I can take some display U-Verse boxes home. my jacket have plenty of pockets!
OP, you obviously knew you did the wrong thing, because all along you knew about it. as soon as you walked out of Best Buy, you knew what is going on, so why not do the right thing? just a suggestion. it's not like any of us that have the most morale, but it just seem like a right thing to do. why make the cashier take the fall? sure, they may be stoned according to you, but it sounds to me that you are taking advantage of others on purpose. ok, my lame morale speech is over. I'm going to go into AT&T store now and see if I can take some display U-Verse boxes home. my jacket have plenty of pockets!
Cutwolf
Mar 17, 01:20 AM
"Haters"?
Attack of the 16 year olds.
Explains a lot.
I hope he sold you a stolen iPad and you get arrested.
Attack of the 16 year olds.
Explains a lot.
I hope he sold you a stolen iPad and you get arrested.
more...
TomCondon
Apr 5, 03:26 PM
Well, then I'm a complete moron.
Some people are actually interested in marketing, and would love to have a centralized place to view how large companies are advertising on one of the largest mobile spaces in the world.
By all means, go back to playing Doodle Jump.
gladly, be boring.
Those ads are not exactly the pinnacle of creativity
MCRIB BACK
Some people are actually interested in marketing, and would love to have a centralized place to view how large companies are advertising on one of the largest mobile spaces in the world.
By all means, go back to playing Doodle Jump.
gladly, be boring.
Those ads are not exactly the pinnacle of creativity
MCRIB BACK
NebulaClash
May 4, 08:15 AM
I'm hoping by 2020 there's something out better than a trackpad, though.... I don't like them for long term usage (not comfortable, IMO). I'm thinking if Microsoft can do body tracking for XBox, it should be possible to do hand tracking for computers (e.g. put it on the webcam on a notebook. You could then do gestures and such in mid-air (e.g. touchscreen without getting fingerprints all over the screen. You could have templates for joysticks simulations, gun simulations, etc. Imagine just making a 'trigger' finger and playing a shooter game with no stick required.) I'd be thrilled if they could get voice interfaces and speech recognition/comprehension to work accurately so you could just talk to the computer for many things (ala Star Trek). Many things could be vastly improved over time.
I'm sure they will be improved over time. The way I look at it is the iPod touch of 2011 is amazingly advanced over the original iPod of 2001. So I'm sure the iPad (and track pads) of 2010 will be amazingly advanced over the original iPad (and today's track pads) of 2010.
In we could not have imagined (other than in SF) what an iPod would look like 10 years later. We got more than just obvious changes such as larger screens, thinner devices and color screens. We got apps and an App Store, and touch screens, and video, and syncing with Mobile Me across all your devices, and the ability to flip video from device to device, and switchover to SSD instead of hard disks, and books, and a port that allows add-on devices such as credit card readers, etc. etc.
When society has a need (touch technology that could be improved), people find ways to improve it. I suspect you will love the touch pads of a decade from now (and probably the mouse technology too!).
I'm sure they will be improved over time. The way I look at it is the iPod touch of 2011 is amazingly advanced over the original iPod of 2001. So I'm sure the iPad (and track pads) of 2010 will be amazingly advanced over the original iPad (and today's track pads) of 2010.
In we could not have imagined (other than in SF) what an iPod would look like 10 years later. We got more than just obvious changes such as larger screens, thinner devices and color screens. We got apps and an App Store, and touch screens, and video, and syncing with Mobile Me across all your devices, and the ability to flip video from device to device, and switchover to SSD instead of hard disks, and books, and a port that allows add-on devices such as credit card readers, etc. etc.
When society has a need (touch technology that could be improved), people find ways to improve it. I suspect you will love the touch pads of a decade from now (and probably the mouse technology too!).
more...
Ommid
Apr 25, 12:26 PM
I am perfectly happy with the iPhone 4 I have.
BTW, what is that extra little rectangle above the speaker? My phone doesn't have that.:confused:
It does, you cant see it.
It is a secret location tracker
BTW, what is that extra little rectangle above the speaker? My phone doesn't have that.:confused:
It does, you cant see it.
It is a secret location tracker
bassfingers
Apr 28, 01:28 AM
HAHAHA, funny, you happened to pick the *worst* possible example there, Transsexuals can and do compete in the Olympics, as long as they've been taking hormones that bring them to the typical range for their gender for a period of 2 years before competing. People do change gender physically.
I'm not going to bother to repeat myself with a detailed argument, feel free to read back through my discussing with MattSepeta.
well crap
I'm not going to bother to repeat myself with a detailed argument, feel free to read back through my discussing with MattSepeta.
well crap
more...
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
Full of Win
Mar 28, 02:36 PM
Good. I'm all in favor of Apple adding more incentives for devs to embrace the Mac App store. As a consumer I really like the idea of an App Store that makes buying and installing as easy as one click as well as fostering competition between comparable apps.
Before it was sooo.... hard. My wrist still hurts from dragging one single file to the Applications folder. Oh, and I just love having to pay sales tax on the apps. :rolleyes:
I don't hate the Mac App store, I just don't think it should be a factor in the award. With that said, its Apples award and they can do as they please with it, including making acceptance of onerous terms a prerequisite to compete.
Before it was sooo.... hard. My wrist still hurts from dragging one single file to the Applications folder. Oh, and I just love having to pay sales tax on the apps. :rolleyes:
I don't hate the Mac App store, I just don't think it should be a factor in the award. With that said, its Apples award and they can do as they please with it, including making acceptance of onerous terms a prerequisite to compete.
more...
mmcc
Mar 29, 06:34 PM
MMCC, excuse me if I don't buy that gross and volume of your niche has gone down with the introduction of the app store. It seems pretty much impossible that volume sold for products in your niche went down...
Impossible? How so? I've already said that the freebies are dominating my category. What is hard to understand about that? Before in the Apple Download pages, for example, all apps were listed first in each category by release date. Free or paid, each app enjoyed the top of the listing for a while.
In the Mac App Store the freebies are staring you in the face on the Category page and you cannot escape it. They have their own top list. They are always there taking possible sales.
Perhaps your volume went down, but what that most likely tells me is before you were better at marketing your product than competitors, but now given equal footing as others, people are choosing some competitors over you instead.
Really? I already said I was #1 in the Category for a time. I was #1 for a week back in January. Guess what? No big windfall (year over year comparison it was still well below last year at the same time) and that was within a month of the opening of the Mac App Store when interest is usually highest (at opening of a new store).
The idea that your whole segment was moving 100000 units before the App store and now are moving 50000 units just seems impossible, unless something else effecting the segment happened. It is not because of the Apple App Store.
love you mom poems. i love you
more...
love you mom poems.
love you mommy poems. i love
love you mom poems. we love
Impossible? How so? I've already said that the freebies are dominating my category. What is hard to understand about that? Before in the Apple Download pages, for example, all apps were listed first in each category by release date. Free or paid, each app enjoyed the top of the listing for a while.
In the Mac App Store the freebies are staring you in the face on the Category page and you cannot escape it. They have their own top list. They are always there taking possible sales.
Perhaps your volume went down, but what that most likely tells me is before you were better at marketing your product than competitors, but now given equal footing as others, people are choosing some competitors over you instead.
Really? I already said I was #1 in the Category for a time. I was #1 for a week back in January. Guess what? No big windfall (year over year comparison it was still well below last year at the same time) and that was within a month of the opening of the Mac App Store when interest is usually highest (at opening of a new store).
The idea that your whole segment was moving 100000 units before the App store and now are moving 50000 units just seems impossible, unless something else effecting the segment happened. It is not because of the Apple App Store.
TheMacBookPro
Mar 18, 09:01 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU 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)
Thats some pretty narrow minded thinking there buddy.
Not your buddy, tyvm.
I'm just posting about some harassment I've been experiencing because of the phone I've purchased and was wondering if other iPhone owners have experienced it, and by judging from the responses a lot have.
You should've searched before creating a new thread. This forum gets one of these 'omg what's wrong with people who prefer their own phone' and 'the iPhone is the best WTF is wrong with android users' every few days.
I already feel great about my purchase, and I haven't been here long enough to know if the users are fanboys. Judging from the responses I'd say these guys seem pretty fair. Pretty judgemental and silly post in my opinion.
Because they're agreeing with you (surprise, surprise). I'd say people are fair too if they blindly agreed to everything I say.
And my post is silly? Pot, kettle if I ever seen it ;)
I couldn't exactly call myself an Apple 'fanboy' either. If HTC made a better phone I'd gladly go pick it up, but I'm simply posting my experiences.
Fair enough. Most people on here refuse to think that anyone other than Apple can make a good phone.
Just curious now- what HTC phone was your friend using to play angry birds @2fps? I had no idea that HTC made a worse android phone (compared to the original G1).
Thats some pretty narrow minded thinking there buddy.
Not your buddy, tyvm.
I'm just posting about some harassment I've been experiencing because of the phone I've purchased and was wondering if other iPhone owners have experienced it, and by judging from the responses a lot have.
You should've searched before creating a new thread. This forum gets one of these 'omg what's wrong with people who prefer their own phone' and 'the iPhone is the best WTF is wrong with android users' every few days.
I already feel great about my purchase, and I haven't been here long enough to know if the users are fanboys. Judging from the responses I'd say these guys seem pretty fair. Pretty judgemental and silly post in my opinion.
Because they're agreeing with you (surprise, surprise). I'd say people are fair too if they blindly agreed to everything I say.
And my post is silly? Pot, kettle if I ever seen it ;)
I couldn't exactly call myself an Apple 'fanboy' either. If HTC made a better phone I'd gladly go pick it up, but I'm simply posting my experiences.
Fair enough. Most people on here refuse to think that anyone other than Apple can make a good phone.
Just curious now- what HTC phone was your friend using to play angry birds @2fps? I had no idea that HTC made a worse android phone (compared to the original G1).
more...
jinxednuance
Mar 10, 12:21 AM
No the world is not run by Apple; and despite some folks claims Apple I don't think wants to be the next Microsoft either.... it does want to own a comfortable niche however...
Niche? Really? So all the iPhones and iPads sold around the world and they're still niche? What's that niche called? the whole market?!
Niche? Really? So all the iPhones and iPads sold around the world and they're still niche? What's that niche called? the whole market?!
slffl
Jan 5, 04:35 PM
This is a great idea for those that would like this option. MR rocks as always!
Me though, I prefer the frequent frantic checks to the site as I try to get all my 'real work' done at the office.
One year everyone was going out to lunch and I lied and said I had too much work to do...just so I could eat at my desk and get all the late-breaking news. My co-workers would think I was weird if I said why I really wasn't going...
Yes, I'm a geek. :p
LOL, so I'm not the only one. Every apple event I get a nice latte and bagel sandwich and eat at my desk too. Macworld has replaced christmas for me :)
Me though, I prefer the frequent frantic checks to the site as I try to get all my 'real work' done at the office.
One year everyone was going out to lunch and I lied and said I had too much work to do...just so I could eat at my desk and get all the late-breaking news. My co-workers would think I was weird if I said why I really wasn't going...
Yes, I'm a geek. :p
LOL, so I'm not the only one. Every apple event I get a nice latte and bagel sandwich and eat at my desk too. Macworld has replaced christmas for me :)
pudrums
Apr 8, 06:09 PM
16 Blocks
http://pic.leech.it/i/7d0f6/a6317ca0125698104.jpg
http://pic.leech.it/i/7d0f6/a6317ca0125698104.jpg
fxtech
Mar 28, 03:17 PM
When was the last time a standards setting, headline grabbing, everyone's gotta have it Mac application created?
Oh I'm sure plenty of those $2 apps in the Mac App Store qualify... ;)
Oh I'm sure plenty of those $2 apps in the Mac App Store qualify... ;)
franmatt80
Apr 26, 11:08 AM
Apart from in this thread, I've hardly seen the system in use. Perhaps I'm just not visiting the right boards? Does it seem to be popular?
hamis92
Mar 25, 10:07 AM
The packaging has been getting uglier with every release after Panther. OK, I consider none of them ugly, just a bit less beautiful :rolleyes:
eric_n_dfw
Oct 28, 04:57 PM
The thin veneer is off the vast majority of people that clamor for OSS.
Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!
I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.
:rolleyes:
Anyone who understands what OSS and or "free software" is knows that they're not talking about money when they say it should be "free".
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software (emphasis added):
To help distinguish libre (freedom) software from gratis (zero price) software, Richard Stallman, founder of the free software movement, developed the following explanation: "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech', not as in 'free beer'". More specifically, free software means that computer users have the freedom to cooperate with whom they choose, and to control the software they use.
Are there people who steal software, yes - but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.
FWIW: I work every day developing commercial web sites with free software (JBoss, Tomcat, Ant, Apache, gcc, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Eclipse, etc...). Why? Because we don't want to pay for it? Hell no! We pay a lot of money in licenses and support contracts just like we would for non-OSS products. The difference is that, when needed, we can see why the software acts the way it does and even can change it if we find it necessary. We don't have to rely solely on a vendor's promise about how secure or optimized their code is because it's wide open for all to see. THAT is what OSS is all about.
Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!
I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.
:rolleyes:
Anyone who understands what OSS and or "free software" is knows that they're not talking about money when they say it should be "free".
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software (emphasis added):
To help distinguish libre (freedom) software from gratis (zero price) software, Richard Stallman, founder of the free software movement, developed the following explanation: "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech', not as in 'free beer'". More specifically, free software means that computer users have the freedom to cooperate with whom they choose, and to control the software they use.
Are there people who steal software, yes - but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.
FWIW: I work every day developing commercial web sites with free software (JBoss, Tomcat, Ant, Apache, gcc, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Eclipse, etc...). Why? Because we don't want to pay for it? Hell no! We pay a lot of money in licenses and support contracts just like we would for non-OSS products. The difference is that, when needed, we can see why the software acts the way it does and even can change it if we find it necessary. We don't have to rely solely on a vendor's promise about how secure or optimized their code is because it's wide open for all to see. THAT is what OSS is all about.
Doctor Q
May 3, 01:55 PM
I don't really get this... You already pay fees for the data - why do they care for how you use it?
Two answers come to mind:
Two answers come to mind:
No comments:
Post a Comment