batchtaster
Jun 6, 09:53 AM
sure. apple has no problem giving a refund, as they keep their 30% that the developer now has to pay. that's a cool $300 that apple just ripped off from the developer all to protect their mistake and their idiot customers.
And you're basing this conclusion jumping on, what? You win for the most ill-informed, knee-jerk, baseless response in this thread.
And you're basing this conclusion jumping on, what? You win for the most ill-informed, knee-jerk, baseless response in this thread.
Popeye206
Apr 28, 10:30 AM
It is interesting to see the 3Gs doing so well. Too bad Apple doesn't make a "light version" of iOS for it so it's snappier again. It was a good phone and for many consumers at $49 or maybe even free someday a great entry level smart phone.
pdot
Sep 13, 08:22 PM
This shipped today, 3 weeks for International Shipping though. Ouch
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/2692481788_ec23411e7c.jpg
Just rocked that shirt a few days ago.
Every single time I wear it someone says something to me about it.
Wore it to Sing Sing (a dueling piano bar, in case anyone doesn't know it) once and the dude made a whole song up about it lol
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/2692481788_ec23411e7c.jpg
Just rocked that shirt a few days ago.
Every single time I wear it someone says something to me about it.
Wore it to Sing Sing (a dueling piano bar, in case anyone doesn't know it) once and the dude made a whole song up about it lol
Mr.Gadget
Oct 24, 08:26 AM
Sending my current 17" MBP refurb back on the 14 day satisfaction period. I know it may cost a few bucks... But hey, that is why I went refurb!
Besides, my refurb has the circle on the palm rest defect anyway!
:D
Besides, my refurb has the circle on the palm rest defect anyway!
:D
MikeTheC
Jan 26, 12:20 AM
Much like stupid users, stock market investors are a whole class of people for whom I have not the slightest bit of pity.
Apple's stock went down basically due to two factors. First, Apple's Stevenote and subsequent quarterly were lackluster. That's under Apple's direct control.
Second, the market was going down anyhow, so it dragged Apple's stock with it. Yet somehow Apple (or any other company) is supposed to react to this? Why? Because a bunch of fickle-minded simpletons want their money after behaving in a way which helped to contribute to lower stock prices? Yech. Give me a break.
Yes, I know the economy is in a slump. Er, downturn. Um, recession. Yeah, whatever. Call it what you will. But why companies have this fear-threat knee-jerk reaction to stock price when it has absolutely nothing to do with what they have done (which, again to be clear, is only 50% true here in Apple's case), I'll simply never know.
I, for one, didn't care for Stevenote '08. I think there should have been other things for Steve to have introduced. And they wouldn't have to be lavishly over-the-top, either. Just good, useful, and desired things. But nevertheless, it's not like I think Apple's leadership suddenly all developed alzheimers' and now *oh my God* the ship's going to run a-ground, oh save us, save us!
Load of crap, the lot of it.
Apple's stock went down basically due to two factors. First, Apple's Stevenote and subsequent quarterly were lackluster. That's under Apple's direct control.
Second, the market was going down anyhow, so it dragged Apple's stock with it. Yet somehow Apple (or any other company) is supposed to react to this? Why? Because a bunch of fickle-minded simpletons want their money after behaving in a way which helped to contribute to lower stock prices? Yech. Give me a break.
Yes, I know the economy is in a slump. Er, downturn. Um, recession. Yeah, whatever. Call it what you will. But why companies have this fear-threat knee-jerk reaction to stock price when it has absolutely nothing to do with what they have done (which, again to be clear, is only 50% true here in Apple's case), I'll simply never know.
I, for one, didn't care for Stevenote '08. I think there should have been other things for Steve to have introduced. And they wouldn't have to be lavishly over-the-top, either. Just good, useful, and desired things. But nevertheless, it's not like I think Apple's leadership suddenly all developed alzheimers' and now *oh my God* the ship's going to run a-ground, oh save us, save us!
Load of crap, the lot of it.
BrianMojo
Jul 26, 03:54 PM
I can look at diagrams all day long
I'm impressed by your endurance! ;)
I'm impressed by your endurance! ;)
Sodner
Apr 14, 07:29 AM
Sorry, this is a dumb question.
Whats a 16 GB AT&T iPhone cost without a 2 year plan?
Whats a 16 GB AT&T iPhone cost without a 2 year plan?
tjb1
Jan 26, 01:12 PM
Great game so far, who ever said I'll have loads of issues gaming on a PS3 must be dreaming and should probably get an upgrade from a dial-up speed Internet..
Everyone has to bash PSN because its free, only problem I have with that game is people playing CTF for kills...camping with the flag. NFS: Hot Pursuit is a good game, just got it monday and so far I like it, a lot better than GT5
Everyone has to bash PSN because its free, only problem I have with that game is people playing CTF for kills...camping with the flag. NFS: Hot Pursuit is a good game, just got it monday and so far I like it, a lot better than GT5
Vitruviux
Apr 14, 09:50 AM
So if the white iPhone 4 comes out in April/May, could we take it as an indicate that iPhone 5 won't be out in June?
Why would they release the white phone and then release iPhone 5 in a month after that?
On the other hand, iPhone 4 and 3GS co-exist, so what would be the problem if there was a cheaper black/white iPhone 4 and black/white iPhone 5 at the same time?
Why would they release the white phone and then release iPhone 5 in a month after that?
On the other hand, iPhone 4 and 3GS co-exist, so what would be the problem if there was a cheaper black/white iPhone 4 and black/white iPhone 5 at the same time?
840quadra
Dec 1, 07:31 PM
Okay, now I might end up being branded as an Apple apologist for this, but this thread is bugging me.
Really, people, lighten up! It's like the corner of the carpet is smoking a little bit and people start shouting about how the whole house is about to burn down.
Now, certainly, these issues should be looked at with all due diligence. But do you honestly think that Apple isn't? Do you honestly think that Apple has simple ignored security all this time? Certainly not. The fact that OS X is as secure as it is clearly shows that Apple has done a good job so far. Now, maybe we've crossed an invisible barrier on the scale of the visibility of the platform, and now a lot more people are trying to target OS X, so more vulnerabilities are being found. But, there really is a big difference between a vulnerability and an exploit in the wild. iAdware is the closest thing to a true exploit I've heard of to date, and we don't even know what kind of vector it uses to get itself installed.
So, really, lay off the heavy handed "Apple has to start paying attention to security" nonsense. The implication that Apple hasn't been paying attention to security is just irritating, to say the least.
Good points,
I agree with some of your points. Apple has done a good job historically, and currently with regards to security. I am not worried that my system is going to be taken over, or hacked the moment I go onto the internet, or sign into a public WIFI.
I do not agree that lower our demands for Apple with regards to security expectations. Now is Apple's chance to prevent getting an image that their competition has, with regards to holes in security. Apple themselves have advertised that Spyware, viruses, etc, are not part of the OS X experience (http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads1/viruses_480x376.mov). In my opinion, that may be received as a challenge, or incentive for someone to make that argument a fallacy.
Really, people, lighten up! It's like the corner of the carpet is smoking a little bit and people start shouting about how the whole house is about to burn down.
Now, certainly, these issues should be looked at with all due diligence. But do you honestly think that Apple isn't? Do you honestly think that Apple has simple ignored security all this time? Certainly not. The fact that OS X is as secure as it is clearly shows that Apple has done a good job so far. Now, maybe we've crossed an invisible barrier on the scale of the visibility of the platform, and now a lot more people are trying to target OS X, so more vulnerabilities are being found. But, there really is a big difference between a vulnerability and an exploit in the wild. iAdware is the closest thing to a true exploit I've heard of to date, and we don't even know what kind of vector it uses to get itself installed.
So, really, lay off the heavy handed "Apple has to start paying attention to security" nonsense. The implication that Apple hasn't been paying attention to security is just irritating, to say the least.
Good points,
I agree with some of your points. Apple has done a good job historically, and currently with regards to security. I am not worried that my system is going to be taken over, or hacked the moment I go onto the internet, or sign into a public WIFI.
I do not agree that lower our demands for Apple with regards to security expectations. Now is Apple's chance to prevent getting an image that their competition has, with regards to holes in security. Apple themselves have advertised that Spyware, viruses, etc, are not part of the OS X experience (http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads1/viruses_480x376.mov). In my opinion, that may be received as a challenge, or incentive for someone to make that argument a fallacy.
Charlie Sheen
Mar 11, 03:26 PM
who's charlie sheen?
sunfast
Jul 24, 06:06 PM
At long bl**dy last! If it doesn't cost the earth they can stick me down for one.
kevin2223
May 3, 07:49 AM
Two Thunderbolt ports on the 27".
You now get a 2TB drive and 256GB SSD for what the old 1TB+SSD combo. cost, although it would have been nice to see cheaper/more options here.
You now get a 2TB drive and 256GB SSD for what the old 1TB+SSD combo. cost, although it would have been nice to see cheaper/more options here.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 22, 10:43 AM
wimax is not 4G. it even shows up with the wifi icon when it's connected. LTE is a real ITU standard that will eventually pave the way for real 4G
Really? When my EVO connects to WiMAX the 3G turns into a 4G.
Really? When my EVO connects to WiMAX the 3G turns into a 4G.
yac_moda
Jul 21, 05:41 PM
Watch the BUNNY :confused:
What a PERFECT name for MS ...
... ZUNE ...
... much later then SUNE !!!
��� WoW !!!
Nothing looks more similar to a TOILET :eek: I think I will FLUSH ...
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/top/microsoft-argos-final-name-the-zune-186359.php
What a PERFECT name for MS ...
... ZUNE ...
... much later then SUNE !!!
��� WoW !!!
Nothing looks more similar to a TOILET :eek: I think I will FLUSH ...
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/top/microsoft-argos-final-name-the-zune-186359.php
wmk461
Jan 30, 05:39 PM
Interesting, considering there are only 194 recognized countries on Earth. Which planet are the other 6 countries located on?
Well after looking it up several reports state that about 130 countries have US occupied bases that are active... The point is we are overextended.
"It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.
These numbers, although staggeringly large, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. The Report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, although the U.S. military has established colossal base structures throughout the so-called arc of instability in the two-and-a-half years since 9/11.
For Okinawa, the southernmost island of Japan, which has been an American military colony for the past 58 years, the report deceptively lists only one Marine base, Camp Butler, when in fact Okinawa "hosts" ten Marine Corps bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Futenma occupying 1,186 acres in the center of that modest-sized island's second largest city. (Manhattan's Central Park, by contrast, is only 843 acres.) The Pentagon similarly fails to note all of the $5-billion-worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people's countries, but no one -- possibly not even the Pentagon -- knows the exact number for sure, although it has been distinctly on the rise in recent years."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
Well after looking it up several reports state that about 130 countries have US occupied bases that are active... The point is we are overextended.
"It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.
These numbers, although staggeringly large, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. The Report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, although the U.S. military has established colossal base structures throughout the so-called arc of instability in the two-and-a-half years since 9/11.
For Okinawa, the southernmost island of Japan, which has been an American military colony for the past 58 years, the report deceptively lists only one Marine base, Camp Butler, when in fact Okinawa "hosts" ten Marine Corps bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Futenma occupying 1,186 acres in the center of that modest-sized island's second largest city. (Manhattan's Central Park, by contrast, is only 843 acres.) The Pentagon similarly fails to note all of the $5-billion-worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people's countries, but no one -- possibly not even the Pentagon -- knows the exact number for sure, although it has been distinctly on the rise in recent years."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
beangibbs
Apr 25, 12:02 PM
matte screen option or fail.
Really? People downing the product already before we even know what it's going to have? Really?
Or are there people just trolling for a response?
Really? People downing the product already before we even know what it's going to have? Really?
Or are there people just trolling for a response?
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 01:30 PM
No, there were many specific allegation (for example the patent claims), and many others (trade dress) aimed at a broader range of devices. And for the claims that don't require pleading with great specificity, they did give examples.
So we agree that their lawsuit isn't "a specific claim against a specific model". ;)
So we agree that their lawsuit isn't "a specific claim against a specific model". ;)
chrmjenkins
Apr 29, 03:50 PM
Me too. Given the theme i was already picturing myself as the marquee artist of the production ;)
anyway, the situation right now is:
eldiablo: 4 (dontpanic, chrmjenkins, aggie, ucfgrad)
chrmjenkins: 1 (jav)
not voted yet: Lbro, eldiablo
not much room to maneouvre for eldiablo, except in deciding who to infect (if he hasn't done it already).
so tomorrow should be 4 vs 1 (or 5 vs 1 if the hunter is successful). with everyone with equal chances of being wolfized.
it's like starting a new game, a tricky one with two shots at finding the wolf
jav is making a good case for it being him already if his vote doesn't change and eldiablojoe does turn out to be a ww.
Ultimate con would be if aggie was/is infected and joe is a ww.
anyway, the situation right now is:
eldiablo: 4 (dontpanic, chrmjenkins, aggie, ucfgrad)
chrmjenkins: 1 (jav)
not voted yet: Lbro, eldiablo
not much room to maneouvre for eldiablo, except in deciding who to infect (if he hasn't done it already).
so tomorrow should be 4 vs 1 (or 5 vs 1 if the hunter is successful). with everyone with equal chances of being wolfized.
it's like starting a new game, a tricky one with two shots at finding the wolf
jav is making a good case for it being him already if his vote doesn't change and eldiablojoe does turn out to be a ww.
Ultimate con would be if aggie was/is infected and joe is a ww.
alhedges
Apr 28, 11:49 AM
The market share data needs to be looked at in a more nuanced way than "Apple Wins!" or "Android Wins!".
The iPhone's market share *right now* is okay - enviable even - because, when combined with the interests of people who are buying iPhones *right now*, it means that developers have more incentive to make apps for iPhones than for Android...and the better app availability for iPhones makes the platform even better. (And to some extent the Touch and the iPad play a role here)
The *trend* of the iPhone's market share is more concerning, though, and anyone interested in the future of the iPhone should pay attention to these numbers. (I'm sure Apple is). If the iPhone's marketshare drops too far, or stays too low for too long, there is a risk that developers may shift their resources to developing for Android first. Which will further undercut the iPhone's advantages.
But these trends are certainly not fixed in stone...I know a lot of people (non-techies) who recently bought a 3GS...$49 for that phone is a steal. But $49 for the iP4 when the iP5 comes out will be even more of a steal...and, presumably, the old iP4 will be available on both AT&T and Verizon. And as more Verizon users come off of their contracts, there may be some additional iP uptake.
I really see no reason why - with $49 phones available from both Verizon and AT&T, the iPhone market share shouldn't go up to 50% or beyond.
The iPhone's market share *right now* is okay - enviable even - because, when combined with the interests of people who are buying iPhones *right now*, it means that developers have more incentive to make apps for iPhones than for Android...and the better app availability for iPhones makes the platform even better. (And to some extent the Touch and the iPad play a role here)
The *trend* of the iPhone's market share is more concerning, though, and anyone interested in the future of the iPhone should pay attention to these numbers. (I'm sure Apple is). If the iPhone's marketshare drops too far, or stays too low for too long, there is a risk that developers may shift their resources to developing for Android first. Which will further undercut the iPhone's advantages.
But these trends are certainly not fixed in stone...I know a lot of people (non-techies) who recently bought a 3GS...$49 for that phone is a steal. But $49 for the iP4 when the iP5 comes out will be even more of a steal...and, presumably, the old iP4 will be available on both AT&T and Verizon. And as more Verizon users come off of their contracts, there may be some additional iP uptake.
I really see no reason why - with $49 phones available from both Verizon and AT&T, the iPhone market share shouldn't go up to 50% or beyond.
Arcady
Jul 25, 09:25 AM
$70 for a mouse? Give me a break.
I just bought a two button scrollwheel mouse for $1.67. There's no reason for it to cost more than that. $10 is too much.
I just bought a two button scrollwheel mouse for $1.67. There's no reason for it to cost more than that. $10 is too much.
ten-oak-druid
May 4, 12:22 AM
They'll likely time it to match the release of the sprint iphone.
KnightWRX
Mar 29, 08:24 AM
There won't be iPhone 5!
With an A5 chip and called the iPhone 4S!
Uh, that would be an iPhone 5. You do realise that 5 is the generation when people talk about iPhone. Apple has yet to name their next device, but whatever real name it will have, it will still be the 5th generation iPhone.
The one next year would be iPhone 6.
With an A5 chip and called the iPhone 4S!
Uh, that would be an iPhone 5. You do realise that 5 is the generation when people talk about iPhone. Apple has yet to name their next device, but whatever real name it will have, it will still be the 5th generation iPhone.
The one next year would be iPhone 6.
zacmac
Apr 13, 03:32 PM
a television doesn't make sense. For one thing it'll be too expensive. I say focus on making the apple tv a better product.
No comments:
Post a Comment