peharri
Nov 26, 08:41 PM
NEWS:
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.
Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.
All it says is that cellphone owners can break the locks. It doesn't say cellphone operators have to help them. It also refers to specific instances where the software itself has to be modified to unlock a phone. It is already legal, because it's not a copyright violation, to unlock, for example, Nokia phones, whose locking code is actually algorithmically generated and therefore requires no copyright violation to use.
Truth is, most countries have no laws against breaking SP locks, and many countries, notably most in Europe, have laws forcing operators to unlock phones on demand. And yet most countries still have operators that sell subsidized phones in exchange for contracts. SP locks are there not so much because the phone is subsidized so much as to help enforce the contract, and reduce churn by making it more expensive to switch carrier.
So no, this change will make no difference as far as subsidized handsets go.
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.
Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.
All it says is that cellphone owners can break the locks. It doesn't say cellphone operators have to help them. It also refers to specific instances where the software itself has to be modified to unlock a phone. It is already legal, because it's not a copyright violation, to unlock, for example, Nokia phones, whose locking code is actually algorithmically generated and therefore requires no copyright violation to use.
Truth is, most countries have no laws against breaking SP locks, and many countries, notably most in Europe, have laws forcing operators to unlock phones on demand. And yet most countries still have operators that sell subsidized phones in exchange for contracts. SP locks are there not so much because the phone is subsidized so much as to help enforce the contract, and reduce churn by making it more expensive to switch carrier.
So no, this change will make no difference as far as subsidized handsets go.
�algiris
May 6, 02:04 AM
What's stopping Apple from putting 6, 8 of these little bastards on the motherboard? This way they can make up for any speed advantage Intel has right now.
coffey7
Jul 21, 09:32 PM
now if apple can build a laptop that won't give me a first degree burn we're in business :cool:
Tell me about it!
Tell me about it!
zim
Nov 24, 11:04 PM
Apple has about as good a chance of entering the cell phone market as LG does entering the MP3 player market.
Apple doesn't do inexpensive very well.. and 'playing with others' isn't one of their strengths, either. Both are requirements to enter an already highly competitive cell phone marketplace.
Apple needs to get back to what they do best, which is innovate in untapped or barely tapped markets where they really stand out and shine against the competition.. Apple II, Original Macintosh, iPod, etc. Not jump into an already saturated market with little to distinguish themselves between the competition but a pretty case.
LG does make an mp3 player (http://www.lge.com/products/category/list/audio_portable_mp3%20player.jhtml).
I believe that Apple's success has been based on the simplicity of the product not on how rich in features it is. Cell phones are currently overly complex, attempting to do more then what their intent was, which is where I think Apple can make a difference. Removing complexity is what Apple does best.
As for playing with others, Apple has constantly made attempts to bridge the gap between PC and Macs. Look at the early PowerMacs when apple had translation tools, and the ability to read PC formated disks.
"Apple doesn't do inexpensive very well"
- Simplicity comes at a price.
Apple doesn't do inexpensive very well.. and 'playing with others' isn't one of their strengths, either. Both are requirements to enter an already highly competitive cell phone marketplace.
Apple needs to get back to what they do best, which is innovate in untapped or barely tapped markets where they really stand out and shine against the competition.. Apple II, Original Macintosh, iPod, etc. Not jump into an already saturated market with little to distinguish themselves between the competition but a pretty case.
LG does make an mp3 player (http://www.lge.com/products/category/list/audio_portable_mp3%20player.jhtml).
I believe that Apple's success has been based on the simplicity of the product not on how rich in features it is. Cell phones are currently overly complex, attempting to do more then what their intent was, which is where I think Apple can make a difference. Removing complexity is what Apple does best.
As for playing with others, Apple has constantly made attempts to bridge the gap between PC and Macs. Look at the early PowerMacs when apple had translation tools, and the ability to read PC formated disks.
"Apple doesn't do inexpensive very well"
- Simplicity comes at a price.
macdoodled
May 7, 12:49 PM
now mac 10.4 512 we have to pay multitudes
to have access to the mac mail we bought
with cox cable slower than h3ll high speed internet
CONSTANTLY RELOADING
JUST TO SEE AND WRITE an EMAIL
ON WHAT LOOKS LIKE A CHEEZY FREE EMAIL PLATFORM
IS MADDENING.
MULTI DISABLED AND TYRING TO AVOID HOMELESSNESS
again
- another help to slow me down or give up food income to fix isn't what i needed.
to have access to the mac mail we bought
with cox cable slower than h3ll high speed internet
CONSTANTLY RELOADING
JUST TO SEE AND WRITE an EMAIL
ON WHAT LOOKS LIKE A CHEEZY FREE EMAIL PLATFORM
IS MADDENING.
MULTI DISABLED AND TYRING TO AVOID HOMELESSNESS
again
- another help to slow me down or give up food income to fix isn't what i needed.
phatpat88
Jul 30, 02:12 AM
Frankly, I don't buy engaget's report.. a "tech-unsavvy friend" sounds like complete BS. All the pros that would do something like that for apple would certainly be tech savvy, they have to now...
NY Guitarist
Apr 21, 03:24 PM
You'd think they'd want maybe to put more capabilities into expanding the GPU power to help with OpenCL and GCD - we'll see, but wouldn't a Mac Pro mountable rack or a new Xserve version want this?
Hell yeah.. :cool:
Hell yeah.. :cool:
Northgrove
Mar 31, 05:13 AM
Dear Apple
PLEASE can we have a UI update, even if it's a minor one (for instance, iTunes 10 scrollbars rather than the blue aqua ones). Just some extra polish really.
Signed
iFanboy
If you're looking for minor UI updates, that's exactly what Lion is getting?
The scroll bars are changed to be more iOS-like, windows are resizable from any corner, the buttons (and checkboxes AFAIK) are changed to no longer be Aqua styled. Small changes, but the sum of them is pretty substantial: All remaining traces of Aqua should now be gone.
PLEASE can we have a UI update, even if it's a minor one (for instance, iTunes 10 scrollbars rather than the blue aqua ones). Just some extra polish really.
Signed
iFanboy
If you're looking for minor UI updates, that's exactly what Lion is getting?
The scroll bars are changed to be more iOS-like, windows are resizable from any corner, the buttons (and checkboxes AFAIK) are changed to no longer be Aqua styled. Small changes, but the sum of them is pretty substantial: All remaining traces of Aqua should now be gone.
Digital Skunk
Apr 18, 03:32 PM
Wow, that does look familiar!
It looks just like the original Palm UI....
Maybe HP should sue Samsung instead :rolleyes:
--t
Wrong... Apple didn't invent the concept of the touch UI, they bought most of what they have and own very little rights to it.
Dang it!
Ya'll beat me too it.
It's nice to know though, that there are some at Macrumors that actually KNOW where Apple got most of their "innovation" from.
And I hope no one goes mentioning the Newton . . . when a simple Wikipedia search will do.
It looks just like the original Palm UI....
Maybe HP should sue Samsung instead :rolleyes:
--t
Wrong... Apple didn't invent the concept of the touch UI, they bought most of what they have and own very little rights to it.
Dang it!
Ya'll beat me too it.
It's nice to know though, that there are some at Macrumors that actually KNOW where Apple got most of their "innovation" from.
And I hope no one goes mentioning the Newton . . . when a simple Wikipedia search will do.
LagunaSol
Apr 7, 03:58 PM
Apple is anticompetitive and should be shut down. By producing products customers want when others in the industry can't, they are forcing the competition out of business.
Thanks for the feedback, comrade.
All Apple did was created a premium brand. Technology was cheap and affordable in the MP3 market. You could pick up an MP3 player for under a $100 bucks until Apple came into the market with its $300 dollar iPod.
Bear in mind that the original iPod was the only one with the combination of capacity (5GB) and physical size (pocketable) that made it attractive to the general market. The Creative Nomad of the time looked like my old portable Sony CD player. :(
So it's not that Apple created a market for devices at a particular price point - they created the devices people wanted to buy. At the right price. There was nothing "premium" about the original iPod when you saw what you got for the money. The equivalent 2.5" hard drive of that capacity at the time was selling for as much as the iPod.
Thanks for the feedback, comrade.
All Apple did was created a premium brand. Technology was cheap and affordable in the MP3 market. You could pick up an MP3 player for under a $100 bucks until Apple came into the market with its $300 dollar iPod.
Bear in mind that the original iPod was the only one with the combination of capacity (5GB) and physical size (pocketable) that made it attractive to the general market. The Creative Nomad of the time looked like my old portable Sony CD player. :(
So it's not that Apple created a market for devices at a particular price point - they created the devices people wanted to buy. At the right price. There was nothing "premium" about the original iPod when you saw what you got for the money. The equivalent 2.5" hard drive of that capacity at the time was selling for as much as the iPod.
treblah
Aug 3, 01:07 AM
But it's perfectly acceptable to round 1.67 down too, it's half way between 1.5 and 2. Also depends on the price of a Sidcrome socket set.
I'll believe this 2x battery life bollocks when I see the results from the labs, not some chintzy marketing ploy by Intel.
Thanks for being the voice of reason.
Multimedia, how is "twice the battery life" and "two times the battery life" different?
I'll believe this 2x battery life bollocks when I see the results from the labs, not some chintzy marketing ploy by Intel.
Thanks for being the voice of reason.
Multimedia, how is "twice the battery life" and "two times the battery life" different?
babydinosaur
Apr 20, 09:00 AM
Hopefully it comes in WHITE :o
rdowns
Apr 14, 04:29 PM
Repeating myself ...
I find this approach highly irrational. If you're overweight, it's important to lose fat. It does no good whatsoever to treat brain the same as fat ... to treat vital organs the same as fat ... to treat limbs and digits the same as fat.
I think we can all agree that there is a lot of waste in government. The fact is, a lot of it is hard to find. At this point in our financial situation, I agree with across the board cuts. After that, then you continue to cut, where it makes sense, surgically.
The Democrats agreed to historic spending cuts. Where are the Republicans who agree to tax increases?
That's crap and you know it.
According to a Congressional Budget Office comparison, the bill would produce only $350 million in tangible savings this year, partly because cuts in domestic programs were offset by an increase of about $5 billion for Pentagon programs.
When projected emergency contingency spending overseas is figured in by the budget office, estimated outlays for this year actually increase by over $3 billion.
The agreement does put the brakes on what had been a steady growth in spending by federal agencies. Future savings would be greater as the cuts took hold — a point Republican aides emphasized by noting that the plan is estimated to cut spending by $312 billion over the next decade.
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/us/politics/14congress.html?_r=2&hp)
I find this approach highly irrational. If you're overweight, it's important to lose fat. It does no good whatsoever to treat brain the same as fat ... to treat vital organs the same as fat ... to treat limbs and digits the same as fat.
I think we can all agree that there is a lot of waste in government. The fact is, a lot of it is hard to find. At this point in our financial situation, I agree with across the board cuts. After that, then you continue to cut, where it makes sense, surgically.
The Democrats agreed to historic spending cuts. Where are the Republicans who agree to tax increases?
That's crap and you know it.
According to a Congressional Budget Office comparison, the bill would produce only $350 million in tangible savings this year, partly because cuts in domestic programs were offset by an increase of about $5 billion for Pentagon programs.
When projected emergency contingency spending overseas is figured in by the budget office, estimated outlays for this year actually increase by over $3 billion.
The agreement does put the brakes on what had been a steady growth in spending by federal agencies. Future savings would be greater as the cuts took hold — a point Republican aides emphasized by noting that the plan is estimated to cut spending by $312 billion over the next decade.
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/us/politics/14congress.html?_r=2&hp)
Makosuke
May 6, 05:10 AM
I'm not so much joining in the discussion as publicly recording what I think is going to happen in a few years based not really on this prediction, but the way things are going in general, so that I can point to this post in a few years and either say "I told you so" or "look how clueless I was."
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
EricNau
May 3, 02:04 AM
I have to ask you, aside from base 10, what makes metric superior?
If it is to have an easier time with conversions and what not, then why would I leave a system that I am very familiar with, even if it is not base 10?
I don't believe one system is better than the other. They are just different.
That's sort of like asking, "aside from saving lives, what makes vaccines so great?" Base-10 is exactly what makes metric superior. Having a system of units based entirely on decimals is extremely powerful. You can convert between units simply by moving a decimal point, express very small/large numbers in scientific notation, and clearly see the greater of two numbers with precision clearly expressed.
For example, which is greater? 5/16 or 7/18
And if I've measured a golfball to be 42/25 inches in diameter, what is the precision of my measurement? Expressed as decimals, I know that a golfball measured at 42.67mm is precise to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter.
Now, of course you can express inches, feet, yards, etc. in decimal notation, but then you can't convert them without a calculator. If I tell you that a golfball has a diameter of 0.14 feet, how many inches is that? (Turns out to be 1.68.)
Besides, let's not forget that the metric system has popularity on it's side. Costly mistakes are made every year because units weren't converted between metric and customary correctly.
If it is to have an easier time with conversions and what not, then why would I leave a system that I am very familiar with, even if it is not base 10?
I don't believe one system is better than the other. They are just different.
That's sort of like asking, "aside from saving lives, what makes vaccines so great?" Base-10 is exactly what makes metric superior. Having a system of units based entirely on decimals is extremely powerful. You can convert between units simply by moving a decimal point, express very small/large numbers in scientific notation, and clearly see the greater of two numbers with precision clearly expressed.
For example, which is greater? 5/16 or 7/18
And if I've measured a golfball to be 42/25 inches in diameter, what is the precision of my measurement? Expressed as decimals, I know that a golfball measured at 42.67mm is precise to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter.
Now, of course you can express inches, feet, yards, etc. in decimal notation, but then you can't convert them without a calculator. If I tell you that a golfball has a diameter of 0.14 feet, how many inches is that? (Turns out to be 1.68.)
Besides, let's not forget that the metric system has popularity on it's side. Costly mistakes are made every year because units weren't converted between metric and customary correctly.
Small White Car
Apr 26, 02:21 PM
Once again, the seperating into 'smartphone' and 'tablet' markets makes little sense.
As the capabilities of both devices grow we'll soon find that the only difference between the two is screen size.
Do we consider the 13" Macbook to be in a different market than the 15" Macbook Pro? No, they're both laptops.
And thus, everyone will soon wake up and realize that ALL iOS devices should be compared against ALL Android devices. These 'smartphone only' lists may still make sense in but in 2 or 3 years these kind of measurements will be seen as worthless.
As the capabilities of both devices grow we'll soon find that the only difference between the two is screen size.
Do we consider the 13" Macbook to be in a different market than the 15" Macbook Pro? No, they're both laptops.
And thus, everyone will soon wake up and realize that ALL iOS devices should be compared against ALL Android devices. These 'smartphone only' lists may still make sense in but in 2 or 3 years these kind of measurements will be seen as worthless.
Akme
Mar 30, 08:30 PM
Can someone confirm if this preview can be installed on MBP 2011?
Thanks
Installed fine on mine.
Thanks
Installed fine on mine.
IntelliUser
Nov 28, 03:10 AM
awful program
locked up my mac multiple times and possibly was the cause of my bootcamp partition getting completely ruined
was working fine until i ran this
I wouldn't mess with the Bootcamp partition, regardless of the AV.
http://openforum.sophos.com/t5/Sophos-Anti-Virus-for-Mac-Home/Slow-down-when-scanning-Work-around-now-available/td-p/295
locked up my mac multiple times and possibly was the cause of my bootcamp partition getting completely ruined
was working fine until i ran this
I wouldn't mess with the Bootcamp partition, regardless of the AV.
http://openforum.sophos.com/t5/Sophos-Anti-Virus-for-Mac-Home/Slow-down-when-scanning-Work-around-now-available/td-p/295
firewood
May 7, 11:19 AM
Google wants to be Apple. So now Apple wants to be Google.
Given the market cap of those two companies, it doesn't seem like that bad a strategy for either of them.
Given the market cap of those two companies, it doesn't seem like that bad a strategy for either of them.
cdinca
Mar 29, 09:08 AM
The more things that are in the cloud, the closer I get to hitting AT&T's 150GB home DSL (non-uverse) data limit.
zacman
Mar 27, 03:52 AM
There will be a new iPhone during calendar 2011
Sure but in the financial Q&A Schiller already announced that Apple will go away from the June-June schedule and instead release the next iPhone in fall. Of course back then everyone said that he was "quoted wrong". Right....
Apple needs to hurry up to overhaul the complete iOS. Android is expected to have sold > 40 million smartphones in Q1 while Apple's numbers are a bit disappointing in regards of the Verizon launch with a total of around 20 million. Plus Android market is growing like crazy (http://www.androlib.com/appstats.aspx) with now over 300 000 apps and about 30 000 new apps every month. It seems history (MacOS vs Windows) repeats itself.
Sure but in the financial Q&A Schiller already announced that Apple will go away from the June-June schedule and instead release the next iPhone in fall. Of course back then everyone said that he was "quoted wrong". Right....
Apple needs to hurry up to overhaul the complete iOS. Android is expected to have sold > 40 million smartphones in Q1 while Apple's numbers are a bit disappointing in regards of the Verizon launch with a total of around 20 million. Plus Android market is growing like crazy (http://www.androlib.com/appstats.aspx) with now over 300 000 apps and about 30 000 new apps every month. It seems history (MacOS vs Windows) repeats itself.
shadowx
Sep 11, 01:23 AM
I could care less about the Movie Store... or a video iPod... I just want to hear the following in the same sentence:
"Core 2 Duo"; "Macbook Pro" ;)
It likely will not happen on Tuesdsay, but I'm going to be very disappointed if it doesn't happen in the next few weeks... I'm not angry and I'm not a whiner - I'll just be a little disappointed, that's all.
"Core 2 Duo"; "Macbook Pro" ;)
It likely will not happen on Tuesdsay, but I'm going to be very disappointed if it doesn't happen in the next few weeks... I'm not angry and I'm not a whiner - I'll just be a little disappointed, that's all.
SirHaakon
Mar 31, 07:00 PM
Only for a year. Fill up that 20 Gigs and a year later you can either empty it down to the free 5, or pony up.
This thing will be sued to hell and back before the year is up, so it won't make a difference. :)
This thing will be sued to hell and back before the year is up, so it won't make a difference. :)
fuwafuwa
Apr 18, 04:03 PM
Not at all. They can use those components for producing Galaxy devices. And they can use free Foxconn resources (since they would not be assembling iPhones anymore) for assembling. :D
Why not, because last year sales was "quite smooth".
Why not, because last year sales was "quite smooth".
