ezekielrage_99
Aug 24, 01:23 AM
100 mil might be a lot, but I think apple got its moneys worth, the got Creative of their back, they got a new accessory vendor, and they get to hold the pattent against other companies. I personally hope that more creative stuff becomes available for the mac, everyone seems to hate them but they make very good speakers, and their sound cards are very popular in the PC world amongst the gamers and even a few pro audio people. With so many products apple shouldnt leave a opportunity overlooked. :D
Good points, I really thought Apple got off this pretty cheaply and if they wanted to settle so quickly it must be because Apple has a range of new iPod products being released very shortly.
Good points, I really thought Apple got off this pretty cheaply and if they wanted to settle so quickly it must be because Apple has a range of new iPod products being released very shortly.
LightSpeed1
May 3, 06:41 PM
Dual ports should have been on the notebooks as well.
I agree with this completely.
I agree with this completely.
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 11:54 PM
There are ways of walking on the moon. Doesnt mean its particularly consumer-friendly.
I brought up using a phone internationally because of the technical compatibility of using GSM over CDMA. price is irrelevant. the fact that "some cdma phones are gsm compatible" is proof that CDMA has very limited use worldwide.
so basically. IF your CDMA carrier has a phone that you like AND is GSM compatible, you can take it and roam.
or. you can accept that while it may be technically superior (i said MAY. speed isnt everything) CDMA is a very tiny pocket of the mobile market.
The only reason why CDMA is basically only in the US is because it was still being developed while the EU jumped on GSM and endorsed it for every country. If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.
I brought up using a phone internationally because of the technical compatibility of using GSM over CDMA. price is irrelevant. the fact that "some cdma phones are gsm compatible" is proof that CDMA has very limited use worldwide.
so basically. IF your CDMA carrier has a phone that you like AND is GSM compatible, you can take it and roam.
or. you can accept that while it may be technically superior (i said MAY. speed isnt everything) CDMA is a very tiny pocket of the mobile market.
The only reason why CDMA is basically only in the US is because it was still being developed while the EU jumped on GSM and endorsed it for every country. If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.
MrNomNoms
Apr 29, 06:17 AM
Three points:
1) Microsoft is primarily a software that is transitioning from a two trick pony into a diverse company addressing many areas - such diversification will take years to occur but to write Microsoft off at this stage is simply being stupid (as some have done on other forums out there on the internet).
2) Apple is stretched too thinly with the latest font fiasco being one of many fiascos; from the design defects in MacBook Pro's generation after generation to the design defect in the iPhone 4, the constant bugs appearing and made worse in each release and update of Mac OS X. Then there is the mountain of bugs in iOS with phones being dropped in terms of support asap and bugs once again not being fixed. Sooner or later people are going to catch onto the fact that Apple isn't dedicating the resources to their products and it'll come back to bite them in the ass. Apple is on a winning streak but remember that these winning streaks can't last forever.
3) Lion appears to be yet another example of a rushed job by Apple where once again a mountain of bugs are introduced, old bugs aren't being fixed promptly, promises but failure to deliver, new features but old hardware unsupported even though the actual hardware itself supports the said features (OpenGL 3.x support being one example of that). Again, sooner or later people are going to hook onto the fact that once again Apple ships yet another half baked operating system that'll require minimum 2-3 combo updates just to make it useful not only for end users but also for third party vendors to write their applications against.
Cheer all you want but there are genuine issues that need resolving by Apple but I don't see it happening any time soon. As for me, I am holding off till the end of this year to decide whether I stick with Mac's or whether I head over to the Windows world. If they can't even design a 17 MacBook Pro correctly then I don't hold out much hope that Lion isn't a complete clusterf-ck.
Edit: For WP7 haters, I suggest you actually use one before judging it. Microsoft is like Intel, a large company that takes a while for the ship to be turned around - anyone who remembers the P4 fiasco should remember how long it took for them to get back on track again. Microsoft is in the same situation, it will take at least 1-2 years to get back on track and by that time Microsoft will have a product for the tablet that'll be running Windows and Microsoft Office. People may boohoo Microsoft but when push comes to shove the big corporates will be wetting their pants with delight when they see a tablet running Microsoft Office.
1) Microsoft is primarily a software that is transitioning from a two trick pony into a diverse company addressing many areas - such diversification will take years to occur but to write Microsoft off at this stage is simply being stupid (as some have done on other forums out there on the internet).
2) Apple is stretched too thinly with the latest font fiasco being one of many fiascos; from the design defects in MacBook Pro's generation after generation to the design defect in the iPhone 4, the constant bugs appearing and made worse in each release and update of Mac OS X. Then there is the mountain of bugs in iOS with phones being dropped in terms of support asap and bugs once again not being fixed. Sooner or later people are going to catch onto the fact that Apple isn't dedicating the resources to their products and it'll come back to bite them in the ass. Apple is on a winning streak but remember that these winning streaks can't last forever.
3) Lion appears to be yet another example of a rushed job by Apple where once again a mountain of bugs are introduced, old bugs aren't being fixed promptly, promises but failure to deliver, new features but old hardware unsupported even though the actual hardware itself supports the said features (OpenGL 3.x support being one example of that). Again, sooner or later people are going to hook onto the fact that once again Apple ships yet another half baked operating system that'll require minimum 2-3 combo updates just to make it useful not only for end users but also for third party vendors to write their applications against.
Cheer all you want but there are genuine issues that need resolving by Apple but I don't see it happening any time soon. As for me, I am holding off till the end of this year to decide whether I stick with Mac's or whether I head over to the Windows world. If they can't even design a 17 MacBook Pro correctly then I don't hold out much hope that Lion isn't a complete clusterf-ck.
Edit: For WP7 haters, I suggest you actually use one before judging it. Microsoft is like Intel, a large company that takes a while for the ship to be turned around - anyone who remembers the P4 fiasco should remember how long it took for them to get back on track again. Microsoft is in the same situation, it will take at least 1-2 years to get back on track and by that time Microsoft will have a product for the tablet that'll be running Windows and Microsoft Office. People may boohoo Microsoft but when push comes to shove the big corporates will be wetting their pants with delight when they see a tablet running Microsoft Office.
PlipPlop
Apr 28, 05:31 PM
Then Microsoft will surge to the top again when they release Windows 8 and a new version of Office.
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
cube
May 3, 12:46 PM
DP 1.2 has up to 17.28 Gbps.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels.
Only one channel is for DisplayPort.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels.
Only one channel is for DisplayPort.
emw
Aug 23, 04:42 PM
Really, though $100 million isn't all that significant to a company with reserves like Apple has, vs. having a possible patent infringement hanging over them that could, given a ruling against them, cost much more.
Warbrain
Sep 26, 08:25 AM
I call up Verizon and tell them I have a problem, on last thursday, I talk to a supervisor and we get the issue worked out. She asked me when I would like my credit applied, as soon as possible or on my next billing cycle. I told her as soon as possible, I had my credit applied to my account saturday.
I know this got a off topic, but switching back to a crap company like Cingular is not in my future, no matter if they call me up and offer me a free iPhone to come back to them.
Christopher
You got customer service from Verizon? Is this before or after they tacked on the taxes that aren't being collected anymore? Or crippled the Bluetooth on their phones? Or put a terrible GUI on their phones? Or any other number of things that they've done that are anti-consumer?
I know this got a off topic, but switching back to a crap company like Cingular is not in my future, no matter if they call me up and offer me a free iPhone to come back to them.
Christopher
You got customer service from Verizon? Is this before or after they tacked on the taxes that aren't being collected anymore? Or crippled the Bluetooth on their phones? Or put a terrible GUI on their phones? Or any other number of things that they've done that are anti-consumer?
AlBDamned
Aug 23, 06:12 PM
You seem to be unfamiliar with our court system. This case could have dragged on for YEARS, and cost Apple a TON of money--possibly far more than 100 Million.
Not really. Creative was going broke. This was the best possible outcome for them.
To Apple it could have made all the sense of a business deal.
Imagine the lawyers:
"Ride it out and you may win or you may lose and it'll cost you $200-250 million.
Pay up now, get Creative on board, don't appear to be the bad guy and close any issues with patents - now and in the future - for $100 million."
Not really. Creative was going broke. This was the best possible outcome for them.
To Apple it could have made all the sense of a business deal.
Imagine the lawyers:
"Ride it out and you may win or you may lose and it'll cost you $200-250 million.
Pay up now, get Creative on board, don't appear to be the bad guy and close any issues with patents - now and in the future - for $100 million."
ArcaneDevice
Mar 23, 04:40 PM
Besides...who the h*ll is the government to tell Apple what they can and cannot do with their business? Regulations are one thing...such as safety regs and such...those are needed, but Christ...this is over the line.
The government tells Apple what they can and can't do all the time. That's why Jobs gets deposed, the FCC regulate their cell phones and Apple can't knock down your house to build an Apple Store on top of it or irradiate small Chinese kids to make the products for it.
If thousands can ask Apple to take down an anti-gay app then why not a few officials asking them to take down an app that gives drunken dicks an advantage?
If it was just 150,000 regular people asking Apple to take it down (MADD for example) would you have a problem with it?
The government tells Apple what they can and can't do all the time. That's why Jobs gets deposed, the FCC regulate their cell phones and Apple can't knock down your house to build an Apple Store on top of it or irradiate small Chinese kids to make the products for it.
If thousands can ask Apple to take down an anti-gay app then why not a few officials asking them to take down an app that gives drunken dicks an advantage?
If it was just 150,000 regular people asking Apple to take it down (MADD for example) would you have a problem with it?
JobsRules
Oct 27, 10:45 AM
There's two things going on here...
2) More importantly, the big problem is the loud minority that has emerged from within Greenpeace (and other similar organizations). There is a growing problem in this country of people taking the "one person can make a difference" idea and translating it into "act inapporpriately and without moral or social constraint, or you wont get noticed." This is GIANT problem. People aren't being held accountable for their actions anymore, especially when their actions are tied to some sort of noble cause.
Amen.
Yes, they should just just shut-up and vote for corporate-sponsored Republicrats or Converalabour every four or five years and take it.
It's a shame that there is no longer any meaningful democracy.
2) More importantly, the big problem is the loud minority that has emerged from within Greenpeace (and other similar organizations). There is a growing problem in this country of people taking the "one person can make a difference" idea and translating it into "act inapporpriately and without moral or social constraint, or you wont get noticed." This is GIANT problem. People aren't being held accountable for their actions anymore, especially when their actions are tied to some sort of noble cause.
Amen.
Yes, they should just just shut-up and vote for corporate-sponsored Republicrats or Converalabour every four or five years and take it.
It's a shame that there is no longer any meaningful democracy.
asparagus
Sep 14, 09:16 PM
I'm hoping for the MPB -still, since around June.
Something that has been mentioned a few times here and there that I would like clarifying. I will be purchasing (as part of a group order) an MPB this Saturday. When I go to the apple website, for glossy, it says 5-7 days. If I ordered the MBP, and somehow managed to hold onto it without tearing it open until the 25th, could I really send it in, unopened, for an updated MBP not questions asked?
Sorry, just wanted to clarify.
Something that has been mentioned a few times here and there that I would like clarifying. I will be purchasing (as part of a group order) an MPB this Saturday. When I go to the apple website, for glossy, it says 5-7 days. If I ordered the MBP, and somehow managed to hold onto it without tearing it open until the 25th, could I really send it in, unopened, for an updated MBP not questions asked?
Sorry, just wanted to clarify.
MisterMe
Dec 30, 04:16 PM
It makes sense. iProducts are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, therefore they will become more profitable for malware developers to attack. It's not a McAfee sales pitch so much as it's stating the obvious. Same with Android.No, it is the same nonsense that Microsoft and its apologists have been saying for the past decade. It isn't any truer today than it was a decade ago.
iJohnHenry
Apr 17, 09:04 AM
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
Your choice, entirely.
Sorry we are not "Republican" enough for you and your money. :p
Your choice, entirely.
Sorry we are not "Republican" enough for you and your money. :p
MikeMc
Nov 14, 10:05 AM
I'm just a regular iPhone user...not a developer. I just want my phone work. And I want the apps to be fully vetted and tested before they are available for download. RA's action doesn't make me dislike the iPhone, Mac computers, or Apple. In fact, quite the opposite. It makes RA look childish. I say...good riddance. Oh, and I'm also now less likely to purchase other software from RA. Just sayin'
Peterkro
Apr 17, 04:59 AM
Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
The bottom 80% of the U.S. population own 8.9% of stocks,that means those who you refer to as middle class own around 7% (incidentally because of the bizarre use of the social term middle class in the U.S. it hides the obvious fact the entire 80% are actually economically best described as workers).
http://seekingalpha.com/article/193014-the-haves-and-have-nots-of-the-stock-market
The bottom 80% of the U.S. population own 8.9% of stocks,that means those who you refer to as middle class own around 7% (incidentally because of the bizarre use of the social term middle class in the U.S. it hides the obvious fact the entire 80% are actually economically best described as workers).
http://seekingalpha.com/article/193014-the-haves-and-have-nots-of-the-stock-market
cwt1nospam
Mar 3, 06:50 AM
Maybe the 'antivirus' for iOS.. will be more of a barrier, since they are wireless and bluetooth enabled etc... Isn't it pretty simple for certain programs to scan for vulnerable iOS devices.?
Seriously, how do you not get this? It is infinitely hard to scan for vulnerable IOS devices because they are not vulnerable! You can't be a barrier to viruses if a better barrier already exists (the OS itself) and is sitting between you and them.
The only way to get a virus onto an IOS device is to get it approved to be sold on the app store. If you think that's possible then you also have to believe that it's possible to write a virus that no anti virus software can detect, since Apple has better knowledge of the inner workings of IOS than any AV company.
Seriously, how do you not get this? It is infinitely hard to scan for vulnerable IOS devices because they are not vulnerable! You can't be a barrier to viruses if a better barrier already exists (the OS itself) and is sitting between you and them.
The only way to get a virus onto an IOS device is to get it approved to be sold on the app store. If you think that's possible then you also have to believe that it's possible to write a virus that no anti virus software can detect, since Apple has better knowledge of the inner workings of IOS than any AV company.
triceretops
May 3, 11:30 AM
Who has room for two external displays on a desk that already has a 27" iMac?!
I do. Probably have room for 3.:D
I do. Probably have room for 3.:D
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 26, 08:04 AM
What about India? I want me an iPhone!! :mad:
And why the exclusive deal? Wouldn't that mean that Apple would sell LESS iPhone's? I can't see how an exclusive deal with Cingular/O2 benefits anyone other than Cingular/O2...
i`d once bought an unlocked T-Mobile Sony T610 in India and it worked absolutely fine with all the GSM providers I tried. So in case even if this iPhone is exclusive to Cingular we`d still be able to get it to work here(fingers crossed).
And why the exclusive deal? Wouldn't that mean that Apple would sell LESS iPhone's? I can't see how an exclusive deal with Cingular/O2 benefits anyone other than Cingular/O2...
i`d once bought an unlocked T-Mobile Sony T610 in India and it worked absolutely fine with all the GSM providers I tried. So in case even if this iPhone is exclusive to Cingular we`d still be able to get it to work here(fingers crossed).
liketom
Oct 12, 12:19 PM
if true thats good , but should be more like 10%
asleep
Mar 23, 05:42 PM
Don't drink and drive.
Peace
Sep 5, 05:51 PM
That makes no sense. Why wouldn't it just download straight to the computer in the first place? That's where it's stored, that's where it's streamed from. You just added an extra step and made it that much more complicated.
Tell ya what..If I want to watch a full length movie I'm gonna do it in my living room in front of my TV NOT wherever the computer is.
Tell ya what..If I want to watch a full length movie I'm gonna do it in my living room in front of my TV NOT wherever the computer is.
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 01:34 PM
Check out DeaPeaJay's mockup at AppleInsider. Me want.
http://www.exit42design.com/stuffDirectory/redNano.jpg
There's an even better one on there with a red clickwheel.
http://www.exit42design.com/stuffDirectory/redNano.jpg
There's an even better one on there with a red clickwheel.
No comments:
Post a Comment