jayducharme
May 3, 07:51 AM
Wow. Apple is gradually starting to push more aggressive pricing. $1200 for a quad-core iMac is pretty decent. I'm happy with my "old" i7 for now. But the next iMac upgrade should be pretty amazing. (8-core base model?)
Millionaire2K
Apr 29, 03:41 PM
it is not against the law in any way to give a different deal to someone else. Amazon bring more to the table than Apple and to add to it Apple strong arming has pissed a lot of people off and they want to break Apple strong hold.
Exactly. Apple says they will pay 70% to the music companies. They worked out their deals with them at that rate. If another company wants to sell music, they by no means have to get the same deal as every other company selling music. It�s just nuts to think that way.
All companies go and negotiate their own deals. Wal-Mart negotiates for most products they sell. They never say �What�s Target paying you?, we have to match that� but they might say �What�s Target paying you?, we have to BEAT that� They could end up paying more or less depending on how good the company is at negotiating. Also bigger companies with more products sold normally will get a better deal. A lot of companies would be screwed if Wal-Mart stopped carrying their products. This leverage allows Wal-Mart to work out great deals.
Nothing is preventing Apple from reworking their deals. However no company has to change any deal unless they both agree to terms.
Stop feeling �poor Apple� just because another company �may� have a better deal. It�s just business.
Exactly. Apple says they will pay 70% to the music companies. They worked out their deals with them at that rate. If another company wants to sell music, they by no means have to get the same deal as every other company selling music. It�s just nuts to think that way.
All companies go and negotiate their own deals. Wal-Mart negotiates for most products they sell. They never say �What�s Target paying you?, we have to match that� but they might say �What�s Target paying you?, we have to BEAT that� They could end up paying more or less depending on how good the company is at negotiating. Also bigger companies with more products sold normally will get a better deal. A lot of companies would be screwed if Wal-Mart stopped carrying their products. This leverage allows Wal-Mart to work out great deals.
Nothing is preventing Apple from reworking their deals. However no company has to change any deal unless they both agree to terms.
Stop feeling �poor Apple� just because another company �may� have a better deal. It�s just business.
steadysignal
Apr 29, 05:45 PM
Competition = Good Thing
I disagree with this....
Its been my observation that most of the prices on existing content was increased to 1.29. I don't have hard number to back this up, just my observation that most of the content was bumped to the higher price point from being at 0.99 before.
why is paying less out of your pocket not a good thing? (unless i am reading you incorrectly...)
I disagree with this....
Its been my observation that most of the prices on existing content was increased to 1.29. I don't have hard number to back this up, just my observation that most of the content was bumped to the higher price point from being at 0.99 before.
why is paying less out of your pocket not a good thing? (unless i am reading you incorrectly...)
VPrime
Jan 26, 01:37 AM
After the XBMC announcement I knew I had to get one :). Jailbroke and installed XBMC right when I got home :D
http://images.apple.com/appletv/images/whatis_gallery_slide120100901.jpg
http://images.apple.com/appletv/images/whatis_gallery_slide120100901.jpg
more...
Surely
Feb 25, 09:50 AM
That`s not a sit-com, it`s a fly on the wall documentary :D
It's not a sitcom, because:
sitcom = situational comedy
That show is/was not funny.
It's not a sitcom, because:
sitcom = situational comedy
That show is/was not funny.
kernkraft
Jun 6, 01:10 PM
$1000 worth of a beating he'd get if i were his parent. Luckily for kids, i hate them and would never have one. Ever.
Luckily for you, your parents didn't share your sentiment.
Luckily for you, your parents didn't share your sentiment.
more...
lordonuthin
Nov 23, 09:24 PM
Something just happened in the stats, we got a big jump and many teams too. Yet I don't think this is the whole catch up as we still miss points as a team and I still miss a big unit...
That was enough to get us to #58 though, just by a hair...
Yes indeed, we just passed club lexus, I'll have to take a look to see if I got my points back.
That was enough to get us to #58 though, just by a hair...
Yes indeed, we just passed club lexus, I'll have to take a look to see if I got my points back.
louis Fashion
Apr 26, 12:03 PM
Well they won't be charging me.
more...
*LTD*
Apr 24, 03:40 PM
There is a lot of Apple Dick riding going on. Their is nothing wrong with that. But at some point you have to wake up and look at the rest of the world. World wide in smartphone sells Iphone leads by a large margin. World wide Smartphone OSs, iPhone is generally in third or fourth place (Depends on who made it, Some put RIM in front of iOS). But the majority of them place Android or Symbian as the top selling OS.
If many of your theories that android would disappear if the iPhone was on the same carrier holds no weight. AT&T is still selling millions of Android based phones next to the iPhone (that is was even when AT&T had a piss poor line up android phones.) Right now yes iPhone is selling more then android OS on verizon. But once the honey moon phase is over android based phones will slip back ahead in sells.
And please for the love of all thats good stop going by your personal observations. Watch me do it. In my men of honor meetings on campus I see no iOS devices and half the room has Androids. In my history class there is an equal proportion of Android OS to iOS phones. its based on where and when you look however it does not represent the entire world.
But this does my school did a survey online and we found as March 20 the Ratios look like this- Blackberry 17%, iOS 40, Android 35%, other ties in the rest. Highest selling phone: iPhone 4, iPhone 3gs, Lg Optimus 1 series of phones.
Thanks for the anecdote.
The iPhone sets the bar. Google has to flood the market with a lot of junk to achieve higher share. That's hardly impressive. Google is the MS of mobile. Hardly a compliment. License out your beta OS to anyone that can slam together a box, give it away, and away you go.
The iPhone is still the #1 selling handset. Where are the iPhone killers? There aren't any. Because the competition doesn't know how to make one. Because Apple approaches tech from a totally different place.
The iOS platform still dominates, and given the iPad's success, it'll be that way for the foreseeable future.
Android enjoys highest smartphone market share. Yet the OS is pretty brutal and their ecosystem is a mess. So why do they have greater share? Not because they make a superior product, but because the only alternative to an iPhone was an Android-based device, and Eric T. Mole got to work licensing it out to everyone with no regard for design or User Experience. If you flood the market with what, 70+ (probably a lot more) devices and let everyone and their dog make the devices you'll eventually enjoy force of numbers.
Android is given away free to anyone to manufacture, to make as many POS devices as they wish, to sell for peanuts, in massive volume.
That's all it is. Market flooding at every price point and you get some sort of touchscreen and some sort of app store. And given Google's Microsoftian horizontal business model, that's all it'll ever be.
For instance, THIS is the kind of total junk that Google puts their name to:
http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_racer-reviews-3423.php
And guess what: Dell went ahead and copied it. The DELL XCD28. Same junk. But Android market share just went up!
Here's another amazing Android device:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars
Anything to be proud of? But hey, they're dirt cheap. And uh . . . "open" or whatever.
If Google actually *cared* about what they put the Android name to, if they actually gave a damn about the USER, would they allow this? Ask yourself that. That's the difference. There are some things Apple *will not* allow to exist - namely: garbage.
Google does not care - I'll repeat that - DOES NOT CARE, about what happens to their OS, on what devices it's used, what the result is when someone like ZTE or Dell gets their hands on it. It's a great recipe for pushing huge amounts of volume. It's also a great recipe for manufacturing cheap, poorly-made phones in China. The upshot of all this is you get massively inflated market share, a good chunk owing to phones that should have never seen the light of day. Yes, you have the choice to buy junk. You have the choice to just buy a cheapie. Nothing inherently wrong with this. It's your call, right? HOWEVER, this also contributes to Android market share. That's the catch. The question is not just: how big is your market share? But also: what constitutes your market share?
What constitutes Apple's market share? There's no chance for any confusion here. The iPhone. Same attention to detail in hardware and OS, same high-quality User Experience device to device. All the things that make it the #1 selling handset. There is no chance of junk. In fact, if you're Apple, you owe it to yourself to get as close to perfection as you can every time, because you only sell ONE phone, and not on every carrier, and your licensing is closed. Every last % of Apple's share is an iPhone. There is no chance for crap or inflated share from the sale of cheap commodity-phones.
Apple's share constitutes the #1-selling handset. Exclusively. Android share constitutes: the good, the bad, and the downright ugly.
How does Android market share look now? I'd wager it looks a bit different than before you looked at what's behind the numbers, that is, the kind of infrastructure that supports those high numbers.
Yes, highest market share for Android. Until you go hunting for the REASON.
If many of your theories that android would disappear if the iPhone was on the same carrier holds no weight. AT&T is still selling millions of Android based phones next to the iPhone (that is was even when AT&T had a piss poor line up android phones.) Right now yes iPhone is selling more then android OS on verizon. But once the honey moon phase is over android based phones will slip back ahead in sells.
And please for the love of all thats good stop going by your personal observations. Watch me do it. In my men of honor meetings on campus I see no iOS devices and half the room has Androids. In my history class there is an equal proportion of Android OS to iOS phones. its based on where and when you look however it does not represent the entire world.
But this does my school did a survey online and we found as March 20 the Ratios look like this- Blackberry 17%, iOS 40, Android 35%, other ties in the rest. Highest selling phone: iPhone 4, iPhone 3gs, Lg Optimus 1 series of phones.
Thanks for the anecdote.
The iPhone sets the bar. Google has to flood the market with a lot of junk to achieve higher share. That's hardly impressive. Google is the MS of mobile. Hardly a compliment. License out your beta OS to anyone that can slam together a box, give it away, and away you go.
The iPhone is still the #1 selling handset. Where are the iPhone killers? There aren't any. Because the competition doesn't know how to make one. Because Apple approaches tech from a totally different place.
The iOS platform still dominates, and given the iPad's success, it'll be that way for the foreseeable future.
Android enjoys highest smartphone market share. Yet the OS is pretty brutal and their ecosystem is a mess. So why do they have greater share? Not because they make a superior product, but because the only alternative to an iPhone was an Android-based device, and Eric T. Mole got to work licensing it out to everyone with no regard for design or User Experience. If you flood the market with what, 70+ (probably a lot more) devices and let everyone and their dog make the devices you'll eventually enjoy force of numbers.
Android is given away free to anyone to manufacture, to make as many POS devices as they wish, to sell for peanuts, in massive volume.
That's all it is. Market flooding at every price point and you get some sort of touchscreen and some sort of app store. And given Google's Microsoftian horizontal business model, that's all it'll ever be.
For instance, THIS is the kind of total junk that Google puts their name to:
http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_racer-reviews-3423.php
And guess what: Dell went ahead and copied it. The DELL XCD28. Same junk. But Android market share just went up!
Here's another amazing Android device:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars
Anything to be proud of? But hey, they're dirt cheap. And uh . . . "open" or whatever.
If Google actually *cared* about what they put the Android name to, if they actually gave a damn about the USER, would they allow this? Ask yourself that. That's the difference. There are some things Apple *will not* allow to exist - namely: garbage.
Google does not care - I'll repeat that - DOES NOT CARE, about what happens to their OS, on what devices it's used, what the result is when someone like ZTE or Dell gets their hands on it. It's a great recipe for pushing huge amounts of volume. It's also a great recipe for manufacturing cheap, poorly-made phones in China. The upshot of all this is you get massively inflated market share, a good chunk owing to phones that should have never seen the light of day. Yes, you have the choice to buy junk. You have the choice to just buy a cheapie. Nothing inherently wrong with this. It's your call, right? HOWEVER, this also contributes to Android market share. That's the catch. The question is not just: how big is your market share? But also: what constitutes your market share?
What constitutes Apple's market share? There's no chance for any confusion here. The iPhone. Same attention to detail in hardware and OS, same high-quality User Experience device to device. All the things that make it the #1 selling handset. There is no chance of junk. In fact, if you're Apple, you owe it to yourself to get as close to perfection as you can every time, because you only sell ONE phone, and not on every carrier, and your licensing is closed. Every last % of Apple's share is an iPhone. There is no chance for crap or inflated share from the sale of cheap commodity-phones.
Apple's share constitutes the #1-selling handset. Exclusively. Android share constitutes: the good, the bad, and the downright ugly.
How does Android market share look now? I'd wager it looks a bit different than before you looked at what's behind the numbers, that is, the kind of infrastructure that supports those high numbers.
Yes, highest market share for Android. Until you go hunting for the REASON.
southernpaws
Apr 22, 03:23 PM
It will add a few more onces and drain a little bit more battery. That is what will happen and that is not a worthwhile thing to apple.
It will drain a significant amount of battery. not a little bit more
It will drain a significant amount of battery. not a little bit more
more...
NickZac
Dec 29, 01:51 PM
How can she afford that?!
caspersoong
Apr 15, 02:46 AM
Another huge update... Apple should test their updates better. These frequent updates are getting really annoying to me and my friends.
more...
shen
Jul 21, 10:44 PM
Apple produces very high quality machines and that's always going to ding them (ironically) in terms of market share as people will buy new machines less often and because loads of people aren't picking up bargain Macs at Wal-Mart. I know lots of Windows users and they buy new PCs on average every two years. I buy a new Mac on average every 5 years and most Mac users I know do the same. Market share is just meaningless, even when it's positive news.
Besides, Apple deals in the kind of quality that will keep it around for many, many years, regardless of which way its market share is going and that's all that I care about.
it is still odd to me using a Mac after so many years running windows networks and running linux and BSD. i used to upgrade at least parts, and generally whole machines every 14-20 months. now i have a G3 ibook, and it is fast approaching 4 years old, and i have no plans to upgrade for at least 9 months to a year.
when you can buy the low end entry level notebook and get great performance for 3-5 years, why would you upgrade?
....thanks apple!
Besides, Apple deals in the kind of quality that will keep it around for many, many years, regardless of which way its market share is going and that's all that I care about.
it is still odd to me using a Mac after so many years running windows networks and running linux and BSD. i used to upgrade at least parts, and generally whole machines every 14-20 months. now i have a G3 ibook, and it is fast approaching 4 years old, and i have no plans to upgrade for at least 9 months to a year.
when you can buy the low end entry level notebook and get great performance for 3-5 years, why would you upgrade?
....thanks apple!
Apple Corps
Apr 12, 11:12 PM
That doesn't say anything remotely similar to "envisioned by apple." either. In fact, from your own article, try this link :
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/09/30/yeah-apple-wasnt-integral-in-light-peak-transfer-technology/
Let's not give a bigger role to Apple than the one they played.
NO - it does state that Apple had a major role - don't have the interest to get into a tech crunch vs engadget pi$$ing match as to which one is correct BUT there are some articles CITING the point.
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/09/30/yeah-apple-wasnt-integral-in-light-peak-transfer-technology/
Let's not give a bigger role to Apple than the one they played.
NO - it does state that Apple had a major role - don't have the interest to get into a tech crunch vs engadget pi$$ing match as to which one is correct BUT there are some articles CITING the point.
more...
Westside guy
Dec 1, 04:34 PM
Windows Vista is NOT Windows XP.
Hey, somewhat going off on a tangent here but...
Vista is just now coming out. Are you old enough to remember that, when XP came out, it was lauded as "the most secure Windows ever"? It's silly to pay any attention to what MS says - until Vista has a track record, we won't know how its security stacks up.
Love or hate Steve Gibson, but he's pointed out some extremely stupid holes in Vista's security during the beta process. Stuff that was fixed in Windows back in the days of 95/98. They've got a totally new network stack in Vista, and frankly Microsoft has very little experience writing core network code (remember much or most of their previous stack was shown to have been pulled from BSD).
Now back to the Mac side. I'm glad to see this thread isn't filled with Apple apologists. :) Apple certainly has work ahead of them, but I think all in all they've been pretty responsive to most vulnerability reports over the past couple years. But Mac people need to shed this false air of invulnerability that's far too common on this forum and elsewhere. In the end, common sense will go far to protect you - don't run day to day as an admin account, use a strong password, don't use the same password everywhere. If you have a home network, use NAT (by default you probably will be). Don't try to download a "free" version of Microsoft Office off Gnutella. :D
Hey, somewhat going off on a tangent here but...
Vista is just now coming out. Are you old enough to remember that, when XP came out, it was lauded as "the most secure Windows ever"? It's silly to pay any attention to what MS says - until Vista has a track record, we won't know how its security stacks up.
Love or hate Steve Gibson, but he's pointed out some extremely stupid holes in Vista's security during the beta process. Stuff that was fixed in Windows back in the days of 95/98. They've got a totally new network stack in Vista, and frankly Microsoft has very little experience writing core network code (remember much or most of their previous stack was shown to have been pulled from BSD).
Now back to the Mac side. I'm glad to see this thread isn't filled with Apple apologists. :) Apple certainly has work ahead of them, but I think all in all they've been pretty responsive to most vulnerability reports over the past couple years. But Mac people need to shed this false air of invulnerability that's far too common on this forum and elsewhere. In the end, common sense will go far to protect you - don't run day to day as an admin account, use a strong password, don't use the same password everywhere. If you have a home network, use NAT (by default you probably will be). Don't try to download a "free" version of Microsoft Office off Gnutella. :D
dmr727
Dec 30, 01:38 PM
I'm sorry, if you struggle to lose weight, you're not doing it right. Losing weight is dead easy.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
more...
a.gomez
Apr 29, 11:37 PM
fantastic!... I already bought an album so I could get the free 20 Gig Amazon Cloud player for a year
SolarJ
May 3, 09:06 AM
I was hoping for the 24" to come back:(:(
IJ Reilly
Jul 22, 11:22 AM
Microsoft bought 150 million in non-voting stock. Hardly a controlling interest. They have since sold most if not all of that stock for a tidy profit. Apple in turn dropped the "Look and Feel" lawsuit (which they weren't going to win anyway) and MS promised updates to "Office" and IE. Microsoft has NO significant financial stake in Apple.
It had nothing to do with the "look and feel" lawsuit. Apple had lost that one five years earlier. The legal issues still remaining between Apple and Microsoft in 1997 were over multimedia.
Edit: And FWIW, Microsoft's "investment" in Apple amounted to about 5% of their market value at the time, which would hardly have been a controlling interest even if they stock bought them any votes, which it did not. Microsoft is thought to have divested the shares in 2000.
It had nothing to do with the "look and feel" lawsuit. Apple had lost that one five years earlier. The legal issues still remaining between Apple and Microsoft in 1997 were over multimedia.
Edit: And FWIW, Microsoft's "investment" in Apple amounted to about 5% of their market value at the time, which would hardly have been a controlling interest even if they stock bought them any votes, which it did not. Microsoft is thought to have divested the shares in 2000.
KnightWRX
Apr 15, 03:08 PM
Poster wasn't stirring the pot.
No, I guess this guy wasn't bashing Google at all :
Learn from Google? What has Google developed that's anything close to an OS?
The fact is, Android/Chrome OS have a lot in common with the efforts Apple put forth into making iOS/OS X. Both companies are well placed to learn from each other and this crap doesn't belong in this thread.
just so you know, summer begins june 21 and ends sept 23 this year. so even it it comes out sept 22, its still a summer release.
Yes, I am quite aware of this fact, thank you for pointing it out to other posters who might say "an august release isn't a summer release!" though.
No, I guess this guy wasn't bashing Google at all :
Learn from Google? What has Google developed that's anything close to an OS?
The fact is, Android/Chrome OS have a lot in common with the efforts Apple put forth into making iOS/OS X. Both companies are well placed to learn from each other and this crap doesn't belong in this thread.
just so you know, summer begins june 21 and ends sept 23 this year. so even it it comes out sept 22, its still a summer release.
Yes, I am quite aware of this fact, thank you for pointing it out to other posters who might say "an august release isn't a summer release!" though.
UniPro
Mar 11, 12:13 PM
Wow, 150 people at Brea? That's nuts. I got mine at South Coast last year but that was a month after release.
Not really sure where I'm going yet. I think I may try Cerritos or a Best Buy...
Not really sure where I'm going yet. I think I may try Cerritos or a Best Buy...
southernpaws
Apr 22, 03:26 PM
The fact is, we've been through this before. The iPhone 1 was going to be a huge failure because it didn't have 3G. They were concerned about coverage and battery life. It's the same issue now.
People are saying apple should make those sacrifices now to keep up with technology. But nobody is addressing the fact that apple has historical evidence that this is a sound approach.
People are saying apple should make those sacrifices now to keep up with technology. But nobody is addressing the fact that apple has historical evidence that this is a sound approach.
milbournosphere
Apr 28, 05:09 PM
This is one of those threads that enforces the Apple fanboi stereotype. It's 1mm. That's it. Steve Jobs is not out to kill your children anymore than he is to fleece you on your white iPhone purchase, and the typical person won't even notice anyway. Can we all move along now?
deputy_doofy
Apr 28, 10:56 AM
.....About the the mentality of the people who buy a two year old phone just so they can say they have an iPhone.
Not much different than people who get cheap/free (and crappy) Android phones to say they have a phone that's "good enough as the iPhone." And those phones, though they may be recently manufactured, generally run Android 1.6-2.0. Not exactly high quality...
Not much different than people who get cheap/free (and crappy) Android phones to say they have a phone that's "good enough as the iPhone." And those phones, though they may be recently manufactured, generally run Android 1.6-2.0. Not exactly high quality...
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий