cmaier
Apr 19, 08:12 PM
Me, Urg, first caveman to make rock round! Michelin and Firestone steal idea!
Sorry. Your patent expired many thousands of years ago.
Sorry. Your patent expired many thousands of years ago.
Patch^
Sep 13, 06:52 AM
cool!! They should hopefully increase speed :)
I like the fact that you can upgrade the processors now, but Xeons are pretty expensive.
I like the fact that you can upgrade the processors now, but Xeons are pretty expensive.
k995
Apr 20, 05:56 PM
No, it wasn't shown before the iPhone, the F700 had a different interface when it was shown.
I am talking about lg prada among others if you bothered to read my post you would see that .
I am talking about lg prada among others if you bothered to read my post you would see that .
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 10:42 PM
Even if that were true, so what? Apple Records was not a competitor of Apple Computer. Trademark law allows multiple companies to have the same trademark so long as they don't sell the same type of products in the same location. This is why you can have a 100 companies like "AAA Locksmith, AAA Laundry," etc. Or you can have "Hollywood Video" in Michigan being totally different than "Hollywood Video" everywhere else [interesting story that. I may have the state wrong.]
Only truly "famous" marks (e.g. Coke, McDonalds, etc.) which can be "diluted" by use with other types of products are protected against this sort of thing.
But App Store is like Coke, right? Of course it's ok if Apple does it. They've becoming one of the most hypocritical companies on the planet. Maybe Steve suffers from extreme paranoia?
Only truly "famous" marks (e.g. Coke, McDonalds, etc.) which can be "diluted" by use with other types of products are protected against this sort of thing.
But App Store is like Coke, right? Of course it's ok if Apple does it. They've becoming one of the most hypocritical companies on the planet. Maybe Steve suffers from extreme paranoia?
Cowinacape
Jul 23, 05:32 PM
Multimedia, I'd love to see a line up like that released, dual 2.3 here I come :D here's hoping that your predictions are close to the mark!
Nuck81
Dec 10, 11:57 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyj_c6ddTLS6DfhpU5Zq6Iv6JDoD8kbIQAuVUTJV11h-32YTxntY1_fzN8mv8o6QeV6l_kSkOTOQ7AqQVeTGAeU0sgJR_txzICarO2kalsuuONxYxXrked1VFuiVQ2E43pWRY0J7Jdbpg/s400/Haters_Gonna_Hate_20.jpg
k2k koos
Nov 28, 07:11 PM
What on earth are these people at music studio's thinking!!! Did they get royalties for every stereo sold? NO, so neither should they get anything for iPod or any hardware sales. Only for the products THEY supply, should they get money, being the music and movies/ video's, in other words the content.
This is typical behaviour of music studio's and I sincerely hope that Apple will not budge, nor should any other company. Of course MS is eager to pay as they need their Zune to succeed, and Universal is riding along for a slice of the pie, but who will loose out in the end is the consumer, as these royalties are eventually going to get calculated such that we will pay them......
We should all start protesting all record companies to clean up their act, in the mean time, the general consumer should to, copying of music is stealing, the prices on iTunes are fair and reasonable, so lets be nice and buy them properly, and the record companies can then make sure there is more for us to buy (some real refreshing new music would be nice, instead of all this "X factor, American idol, etc etc manufactured stuff....) , and not just fill their pockets as they are trying to do all the time
This is typical behaviour of music studio's and I sincerely hope that Apple will not budge, nor should any other company. Of course MS is eager to pay as they need their Zune to succeed, and Universal is riding along for a slice of the pie, but who will loose out in the end is the consumer, as these royalties are eventually going to get calculated such that we will pay them......
We should all start protesting all record companies to clean up their act, in the mean time, the general consumer should to, copying of music is stealing, the prices on iTunes are fair and reasonable, so lets be nice and buy them properly, and the record companies can then make sure there is more for us to buy (some real refreshing new music would be nice, instead of all this "X factor, American idol, etc etc manufactured stuff....) , and not just fill their pockets as they are trying to do all the time
mabaker
Mar 31, 09:32 PM
Free, open, and free!!!!!!!!! Google fanboiis have been raving about Apple and Google is turning into the very same Xerox machine like the whole others out there. Not that it wasn�t copying Apple in first place.
It�s juts ironical.
It�s juts ironical.
The Beatles
Apr 12, 02:52 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone 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)
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition
If you're going to judge "looks," the Atrix looks (and feels) like cheap junk next to the iPhone. Just like practically every other Android phone on the market. The iPhone looks like a Rolex sitting next to the Casio of the Android offerings.
Enjoy the plastic. ;)
That's what I was think but decided, if that's his taste live and let live.
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition
If you're going to judge "looks," the Atrix looks (and feels) like cheap junk next to the iPhone. Just like practically every other Android phone on the market. The iPhone looks like a Rolex sitting next to the Casio of the Android offerings.
Enjoy the plastic. ;)
That's what I was think but decided, if that's his taste live and let live.
TangoCharlie
Jul 28, 05:17 AM
Ensoniq, thanks so much for the useful corrections. How significant do you think that 64-bit capability will be in the future compared to not having it(say, 2-3 years time)?
AFAIK, the Merom CPUs have an improved SpeedStep technology, so that
on average the heat generation may infact be lower for Merom.
AFAIK, the Merom CPUs have an improved SpeedStep technology, so that
on average the heat generation may infact be lower for Merom.
aswitcher
Aug 11, 09:11 PM
Apple can really lead the way with GPS if they start putting it in iPods and iPhones, as well as the next generation of portable Macs.
Even a Mac wrist watch with GPS and BT like the Suunto range would rock - and I am sure sell well.
Even a Mac wrist watch with GPS and BT like the Suunto range would rock - and I am sure sell well.
infidel69
Apr 11, 11:57 AM
I don't think so.
Apple will announce iOS 5 at WWDC. It will have a lot of new features people whose contracts are ending will drool over.
They will announce that iOS 5 will be available with the new iPhone 5 in September/October. This will give enough time for developers to make new apps and people to not jump to new contracts, because of what is promised coming soon.
Of course, hackers will get beta versions of iOS 5 installed on their iPhone 3s and 4s to keep them happy, for the summer.
Those new features will have been available on competing phones for months by the time the iphone5 is available. They won't really be new for anybody but Apple. Sure the die hard Apple fans will wait an eternity for the next iphone but alot of people wont.
Apple will announce iOS 5 at WWDC. It will have a lot of new features people whose contracts are ending will drool over.
They will announce that iOS 5 will be available with the new iPhone 5 in September/October. This will give enough time for developers to make new apps and people to not jump to new contracts, because of what is promised coming soon.
Of course, hackers will get beta versions of iOS 5 installed on their iPhone 3s and 4s to keep them happy, for the summer.
Those new features will have been available on competing phones for months by the time the iphone5 is available. They won't really be new for anybody but Apple. Sure the die hard Apple fans will wait an eternity for the next iphone but alot of people wont.
NAG
Mar 31, 03:39 PM
What the heck is this? The "Steve was right" month?
Pathetic Dell and HP, desperate Microsoft, Samsung aka Mr. "Smoothbastic", Google inhibiting fragmentation, the very one, which does NOT exist, really...
who is next? Oh, i have got it - Adobe. So come on, resistance is futile.
Adobe showing how the iPad is only for consumption and not worth their time. (http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/30/adobe.photoshop.for.ipad.to.get.layers/)
Pathetic Dell and HP, desperate Microsoft, Samsung aka Mr. "Smoothbastic", Google inhibiting fragmentation, the very one, which does NOT exist, really...
who is next? Oh, i have got it - Adobe. So come on, resistance is futile.
Adobe showing how the iPad is only for consumption and not worth their time. (http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/30/adobe.photoshop.for.ipad.to.get.layers/)
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
netdog
Aug 11, 10:47 AM
"...Earlier than some may be expecting"??
Wasn't everyone expecting this a year ago?
Using TimeMachine, Steve is going to release it two years ago.
Wasn't everyone expecting this a year ago?
Using TimeMachine, Steve is going to release it two years ago.
Blue Velvet
Apr 27, 03:06 PM
Amazing that anyone ever wonders why conservatives never stay around these parts, your level of debate is at rock bottom.
I'm quite sure that my rare posts in this forum have little to do with what you and your army think of this forum...besides, my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
I saw it on Drudge
Now there's a reliable source. Instead of me taking more time to explain it to someone who hasn't got the slightest idea of what he's talking about, I'll go one better. I'll let a conservative explain it:
We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That�s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they�re being called, aren�t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They�re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
What�s plausible is that somewhere along the way � from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) � these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What�s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama�s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It�s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let�s leave it at that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding
Now are we done with this useless nonsense?
I'm quite sure that my rare posts in this forum have little to do with what you and your army think of this forum...besides, my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
I saw it on Drudge
Now there's a reliable source. Instead of me taking more time to explain it to someone who hasn't got the slightest idea of what he's talking about, I'll go one better. I'll let a conservative explain it:
We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That�s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they�re being called, aren�t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They�re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
What�s plausible is that somewhere along the way � from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) � these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What�s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama�s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It�s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let�s leave it at that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding
Now are we done with this useless nonsense?
prady16
Aug 26, 04:13 PM
Yippee.....
Definitely buying a MBP asap.....not gonna wait for santa rosa!
Definitely buying a MBP asap.....not gonna wait for santa rosa!
leekohler
Feb 28, 09:45 PM
Correct I have no idea what causes homosexuality, neither do scientists.
I wanted to know what he expected from me, he doesn't necessarily have to know the cause(s). I don't remember saying you could not live with the person you love. Also one can not infer what "that" means from your paragraph.
I seem to recall you agreeing with this post:
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
I wanted to know what he expected from me, he doesn't necessarily have to know the cause(s). I don't remember saying you could not live with the person you love. Also one can not infer what "that" means from your paragraph.
I seem to recall you agreeing with this post:
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
Cachiro
Apr 6, 04:55 PM
[QUOTE=
Xoom.... I say Fail.
[/QUOTE]
Popeye, you hit a nail on the head.
:D
Xoom.... I say Fail.
[/QUOTE]
Popeye, you hit a nail on the head.
:D
FearlessFreep
Apr 11, 01:31 PM
I still don't get why people just don't follow the components to figure out the timing. If the touchscreen size is indeed going to change, then it has to be manufactured in sufficient quantity before launch. Otherwise you end up with not enough product in the pipeline to meet demand (see Ipad, 2).
There's outside factors at work here as well - namely the Japan disaster which has constrained supplies.
Apple may not have any choice but to wait until Fall.
There's outside factors at work here as well - namely the Japan disaster which has constrained supplies.
Apple may not have any choice but to wait until Fall.
Scott90
Apr 7, 10:51 PM
For everybody wondering why they would do it like this:
Corporate looks at whether or not daily sales goals are made. An iPad is a guarantee sale, so if they have five available, and already made today's goal, they want to keep it until the next day, because that's a guaranteed $2500 (at least!) they'll make. For Best Buy as a company it doesn't matter and it's probably not beneficial, but it makes a store manager look good if he can say he made the sales goal every day since the launch of the iPad 2.
Corporate looks at whether or not daily sales goals are made. An iPad is a guarantee sale, so if they have five available, and already made today's goal, they want to keep it until the next day, because that's a guaranteed $2500 (at least!) they'll make. For Best Buy as a company it doesn't matter and it's probably not beneficial, but it makes a store manager look good if he can say he made the sales goal every day since the launch of the iPad 2.
Eidorian
Jul 27, 02:32 PM
Actually, the merom in not completely compatible with the yonah chips. There will have to be some redesign on Apple's part that is supposed to delay the new MBPs. This article somewhat explains it:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.WRYYYYYY!!!
Looks like I'm going with a tower or iMac for school then.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.WRYYYYYY!!!
Looks like I'm going with a tower or iMac for school then.
netdog
Aug 11, 02:55 PM
I wonder what carrier they'll go with?
I think the question is more likely to be this...
What providers will meet Steve's qualifications to offer the Apple phone bundled with their service?
One of the primary factors may very well be that the provider is not allowed to cripple the phone (as some love to do).
If there is enough demand for the phone, network providers will have to meet his terms.
I think the question is more likely to be this...
What providers will meet Steve's qualifications to offer the Apple phone bundled with their service?
One of the primary factors may very well be that the provider is not allowed to cripple the phone (as some love to do).
If there is enough demand for the phone, network providers will have to meet his terms.
KnightWRX
Apr 7, 10:46 AM
but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo.
No indeed, it's not. Intel forced the whole OEM industry to use their IGP, not just Apple. ;)
No matter how you slice it, for some applications, IGPs make sense. Intel cut out the competence from that market with their shenanigans. And now the consumers pays for it with sub-par graphics processors.
No indeed, it's not. Intel forced the whole OEM industry to use their IGP, not just Apple. ;)
No matter how you slice it, for some applications, IGPs make sense. Intel cut out the competence from that market with their shenanigans. And now the consumers pays for it with sub-par graphics processors.