spacepower7
May 3, 12:22 AM
Ok a couple of things
Assume Apple and Amazon have the same deals with the record labels which is most likely the case.
Let's rough estimate that for every $0.99 song sold by Apple or Amazon then 69 cents go to the label. Therefore Amazon does not lose money on the sale but maybe a tiny fraction of a cent on infrastructure and credit card processing.
If Amazon sold the songs for $0.68 then that would be considered "dumping" by the FTC and WTO, and that is an illegal action, especially if it was intended to gain market share.
Competition is good - and then results benefit the consumer.
If Amazon has an incredible increase of market share by selling low, they either have to raise prices eventually or renege their contracts with the labels making music downloads cheaper. If they are successful at lowering prices then Apple will do the same, and we all benefit. ;)
Assume Apple and Amazon have the same deals with the record labels which is most likely the case.
Let's rough estimate that for every $0.99 song sold by Apple or Amazon then 69 cents go to the label. Therefore Amazon does not lose money on the sale but maybe a tiny fraction of a cent on infrastructure and credit card processing.
If Amazon sold the songs for $0.68 then that would be considered "dumping" by the FTC and WTO, and that is an illegal action, especially if it was intended to gain market share.
Competition is good - and then results benefit the consumer.
If Amazon has an incredible increase of market share by selling low, they either have to raise prices eventually or renege their contracts with the labels making music downloads cheaper. If they are successful at lowering prices then Apple will do the same, and we all benefit. ;)
Gem�tlichkeit
May 3, 08:46 AM
http://www.apple.com/macbookair/specs.html
Where's the macbook air upgrades!
Where's the macbook air upgrades!
chrmjenkins
Apr 28, 04:50 PM
another confirmation from the Tipb.com editor
http://twitter.com/#!/reneritchie/status/63718878731190272
dietgate 2011 confirmed
http://twitter.com/#!/reneritchie/status/63718878731190272
dietgate 2011 confirmed
snebes
Apr 14, 05:40 PM
Does a proximity sensor work off light? (Honest question, I'm ignorant)
Some light wave. I believe it is infrared, but don't quote me on it.
Some light wave. I believe it is infrared, but don't quote me on it.
bpaluzzi
May 3, 08:06 AM
I hope I'm not the only one disappointed that you see an i7 in 3 out of the 4 MBPs, but i7 is only available for an extra $180 in the iMac.
The i5 2400 costs $150 @ MicroCenter, and that's the processor they use in the $2000 iMac!!! This is why people say Macs are overpriced (and they most certainly are). That having been said, I'll be buying an MBA or MBP 13 soon enough.
One thing to consider -- the iMac slots into the "midrange" position for the Apple desktop family (above Mini, below Pro), while the MBP is in the "high end" position for the laptop family.
Not going to go into the spec-chasing / validating. People have feelings one way or the other, and discussing / arguing online isn't likely to change either side's opinion :-)
The i5 2400 costs $150 @ MicroCenter, and that's the processor they use in the $2000 iMac!!! This is why people say Macs are overpriced (and they most certainly are). That having been said, I'll be buying an MBA or MBP 13 soon enough.
One thing to consider -- the iMac slots into the "midrange" position for the Apple desktop family (above Mini, below Pro), while the MBP is in the "high end" position for the laptop family.
Not going to go into the spec-chasing / validating. People have feelings one way or the other, and discussing / arguing online isn't likely to change either side's opinion :-)
Lixivial
Aug 15, 12:03 PM
Ahem... Time Machine!
I believe icerabbit was referring to a feature to restore an item to its original location once putting it in the trash. Windows has this feature in the recycle bin and it's a handy little feature.
This isn't to do with Time Machine as the user has not yet deleted the item from the Trash and the system.
I believe icerabbit was referring to a feature to restore an item to its original location once putting it in the trash. Windows has this feature in the recycle bin and it's a handy little feature.
This isn't to do with Time Machine as the user has not yet deleted the item from the Trash and the system.
louis Fashion
Apr 26, 03:01 PM
Originally Posted by Darlo770
Should have bloody known >
Originally Posted by louis Fashion
Well they won't be charging me.
You wouldn't consider paying $20 per YEAR?
No, I pay Verizon, I pay COMCAST, I have my music on my iPods/iPad/Imacs another monthly fee is just one bridge too far. If you need it/want it bless you. I have to draw the line somewhere
Should have bloody known >
Originally Posted by louis Fashion
Well they won't be charging me.
You wouldn't consider paying $20 per YEAR?
No, I pay Verizon, I pay COMCAST, I have my music on my iPods/iPad/Imacs another monthly fee is just one bridge too far. If you need it/want it bless you. I have to draw the line somewhere
hobo.hopkins
Mar 31, 01:13 PM
Bad interfaces based on silly metaphors isn't a new phenomenon at Apple. May I remind you of this abomination?
http://www.dailyapplequiz.com/wp-content/uploads/quicktime_4_player.jpg
To be fair, the brushed metal interface first debuted in 1999 with Quicktime 4.0. Compared to the horrendous user interfaces of the time period, that looks amazing. It is sad though that it took them until leopard to get rid of it...
http://www.dailyapplequiz.com/wp-content/uploads/quicktime_4_player.jpg
To be fair, the brushed metal interface first debuted in 1999 with Quicktime 4.0. Compared to the horrendous user interfaces of the time period, that looks amazing. It is sad though that it took them until leopard to get rid of it...
Arran
Dec 29, 11:30 AM
Indeed...
http://www.weightlosssurgerychannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/donna-simpson.jpg
I rest my case!
And that reminds me, I need a new office chair. Broke the old one.
http://www.weightlosssurgerychannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/donna-simpson.jpg
I rest my case!
And that reminds me, I need a new office chair. Broke the old one.
ssk2
May 2, 03:23 PM
You have implied your own proof. The fact that they are in Court at all should tell you money is not going from the site to the record labels / artists etc.
The only reason the cases have failed is that its not illegal under Russian law. Russian sites are violating international law in making this content available, but international law is very, very difficult to enforce. Especially where the action is legal in the violating nation.
So by your logic, if you end up in court on flagrantly made up charges, you're guilty by implication? Jesus...
The only reason the cases have failed is that its not illegal under Russian law. Russian sites are violating international law in making this content available, but international law is very, very difficult to enforce. Especially where the action is legal in the violating nation.
So by your logic, if you end up in court on flagrantly made up charges, you're guilty by implication? Jesus...
Xian Zhu Xuande
Mar 31, 12:31 PM
My first reaction to this was definitely 'ugh', but iCal could use a better interface. I'll hold off on my judgement until I actually use it a while. If it works more efficiently I'll be happy.
jll62
Apr 14, 08:55 PM
For anyone with multitasking gestures enabled, is it me or has the animation for when you use four fingers to swipe left or right to switch between apps changed?
When you activate the app switch, the page drops back and the different apps are separated, then zooms back out on release? i thought the last one was a continuous image with no separation?
Please ignore me if it was the same!
The previous animation is the same: drop back, separation between views, zoom back.
When you activate the app switch, the page drops back and the different apps are separated, then zooms back out on release? i thought the last one was a continuous image with no separation?
Please ignore me if it was the same!
The previous animation is the same: drop back, separation between views, zoom back.
maclaptop
Apr 22, 04:52 PM
No thanks.
4.0 max whilst retaining current size. It's a phone not a tablet.
This is unique to a large number of Apple users that must have small hands.
My 4.3" HTC incredible is only 4mm wider than iPhone .
25.4mm = 1.0" so how can a measly 4mm be such a big deal?
4.0 max whilst retaining current size. It's a phone not a tablet.
This is unique to a large number of Apple users that must have small hands.
My 4.3" HTC incredible is only 4mm wider than iPhone .
25.4mm = 1.0" so how can a measly 4mm be such a big deal?
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Calendar Girl 2011
Beer Lao Calendar 2011
Calendar Girl 2011
Kingfisher Calendar Girl 2011
Kingfisher Calendar Girls 2011
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Mystikal
Mar 17, 01:05 PM
Anyone have any luck with CSUF or UCI?
I go to CSUF. They only have iPad 1's.
Same as yesterday Was it the older guy with the eye that looked the other way? A-holes.
--Sean
Thats why you guys shouldn't go to mall stores, the cops are dicks.
I go to CSUF. They only have iPad 1's.
Same as yesterday Was it the older guy with the eye that looked the other way? A-holes.
--Sean
Thats why you guys shouldn't go to mall stores, the cops are dicks.
icstars989
Apr 21, 10:38 PM
Good for you Samsung!
bman1209
Mar 31, 11:03 AM
I definitely don't like the new look! I agree with other people who said it looks corny. I mean it works on the iPad, but everything isn't an iPad!;)
vincenz
May 1, 11:22 PM
Good thing. About time...
DeathChill
Apr 23, 12:55 AM
Nope. I see every issue from the consumer perspective - as I should (being a consumer). Any other perspective would be an abomination (unless for those who hold tons of AAPL shares).
Phrases like "in Apple's eyes" is a good example of what I am talking about. Apple does not use iPhones, consumers do. Consumer eyse are the only eyes that matter. And that is exactly why people are switching to Android. If Apple cares more about what they think is right than what I think is right (for me) it would be stupid for me to care about what Apple thinks or does.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You say that it would be stupid for you to care about what Apple thinks or does, yet you're on here berating them left and right. It makes zero sense to me.
Consumer eyes do matter and that's who Apple builds devices for. They don't build them for the spec junkie who has to have everything in the spec list checked off. They want people to have a great experience on their device in areas that matter in their mind.
I doubt that but even if that was the case then what? Every other phone manufacturer on the planet can design a phone that has LTE and Apple could not? Because they spend on R&D much less than any other hi-tech company of comparable size?
It is definitely true currently. No chip supports LTE and the other specifications (CDMA, GSM) yet.
Apple certainly can design a phone that supports LTE, but getting good battery life out of it is another thing. This is an area of focus for Apple so they won't make compromises here.
Phrases like "in Apple's eyes" is a good example of what I am talking about. Apple does not use iPhones, consumers do. Consumer eyse are the only eyes that matter. And that is exactly why people are switching to Android. If Apple cares more about what they think is right than what I think is right (for me) it would be stupid for me to care about what Apple thinks or does.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You say that it would be stupid for you to care about what Apple thinks or does, yet you're on here berating them left and right. It makes zero sense to me.
Consumer eyes do matter and that's who Apple builds devices for. They don't build them for the spec junkie who has to have everything in the spec list checked off. They want people to have a great experience on their device in areas that matter in their mind.
I doubt that but even if that was the case then what? Every other phone manufacturer on the planet can design a phone that has LTE and Apple could not? Because they spend on R&D much less than any other hi-tech company of comparable size?
It is definitely true currently. No chip supports LTE and the other specifications (CDMA, GSM) yet.
Apple certainly can design a phone that supports LTE, but getting good battery life out of it is another thing. This is an area of focus for Apple so they won't make compromises here.
meepm00pmeep
Oct 23, 09:07 AM
just another way to put more $ into Microsoft's pockets... it's a good thing i refuse to install Windows on my MBP
Snowy_River
Jul 12, 06:40 PM
I'm sorry if my comment came off as being snide.
But it really bothers me when people post how wonderful an app is and how useful it is and how it completely replaces a much more expensive app. When in reality it is only a simple consumer level product.
Others read this forum and buy Pages thinking that they can eliminate the use of Word. Then they find out that it really isn't that compatible with Word files. If you email a windows user a .doc file exported from pages, 7 times out of 10 they have problems with it.
Most pro printshops, publishers, law firms etc. only except word .doc files. Almost all law firms require a revision history. Collaboration tools are useally also required. Word handles this expertly. Plus it has table of contents tools, book publishing tools, bibliography tools, direct faxing,multitudes of custom templates, VB programing hooks, etc. etc. None of this has an equivalent in Pages.
I'm glad you found a solution to your problem and I am glad that Pages satisfies your needs for word processing. Maybe someday it will move out of the "consumer" ranks and into the "Pro" ranks when more functionality is added. Apple seems to know the niche that they are addressing very well.
I've been using Pages since it first came out, and I've exchanged documents that were exported from Pages into Word format with other users without any problems. In general, of all word processors that I've worked with (and I've tried out quite a few), Pages has some of the best Word compatibility that I've seen. (That's not to say that I haven't seen some things move - i.e. graphics - on export, but the errors, if any, are generally minor).
To go back to the CAD analogy, in years gone by AutoCAD was the only CAD program, for all intents and purposes. Any new CAD programs were frequently measured, first and foremost, by their ability to exchange documents with AutoCAD. Of course, there was never a perfect ability to make such exchanges, as AutoDesk (makers of AutoCAD) kept the definitions of the dwg file format secret, and usually changed it from one version to the next. So, it made import/export difficult for the competitors, much like what MS does with Office. Did the fact that the exchanges weren't perfect mean that companies who chose to use other CAD packages weren't really professionals? No.
Again, these are just tools.
Will Pages fit the bill for everyone? Of course not. Does MS Word fit the bill for everyone? No. That's why there are different products out there. Certainly, Pages is not as feature rich (you named some specifics, though you missed some of Pages features in your citation ;) ) as MS Word. It's also a much younger program. Is it going to be a Word Killer? Probably not for the foreseeable future. But it's quite capable of doing what probably 90% of what the Word users out there use Word for. If the other 10% are stupid enough to buy it without checking to see whether or not it has the features that they need to do their jobs, then they deserve to have their money go to Apple.
Oh, and what's this about "pro print shops" only taking Word files? I've never been to a print shop that didn't like PDF.
But it really bothers me when people post how wonderful an app is and how useful it is and how it completely replaces a much more expensive app. When in reality it is only a simple consumer level product.
Others read this forum and buy Pages thinking that they can eliminate the use of Word. Then they find out that it really isn't that compatible with Word files. If you email a windows user a .doc file exported from pages, 7 times out of 10 they have problems with it.
Most pro printshops, publishers, law firms etc. only except word .doc files. Almost all law firms require a revision history. Collaboration tools are useally also required. Word handles this expertly. Plus it has table of contents tools, book publishing tools, bibliography tools, direct faxing,multitudes of custom templates, VB programing hooks, etc. etc. None of this has an equivalent in Pages.
I'm glad you found a solution to your problem and I am glad that Pages satisfies your needs for word processing. Maybe someday it will move out of the "consumer" ranks and into the "Pro" ranks when more functionality is added. Apple seems to know the niche that they are addressing very well.
I've been using Pages since it first came out, and I've exchanged documents that were exported from Pages into Word format with other users without any problems. In general, of all word processors that I've worked with (and I've tried out quite a few), Pages has some of the best Word compatibility that I've seen. (That's not to say that I haven't seen some things move - i.e. graphics - on export, but the errors, if any, are generally minor).
To go back to the CAD analogy, in years gone by AutoCAD was the only CAD program, for all intents and purposes. Any new CAD programs were frequently measured, first and foremost, by their ability to exchange documents with AutoCAD. Of course, there was never a perfect ability to make such exchanges, as AutoDesk (makers of AutoCAD) kept the definitions of the dwg file format secret, and usually changed it from one version to the next. So, it made import/export difficult for the competitors, much like what MS does with Office. Did the fact that the exchanges weren't perfect mean that companies who chose to use other CAD packages weren't really professionals? No.
Again, these are just tools.
Will Pages fit the bill for everyone? Of course not. Does MS Word fit the bill for everyone? No. That's why there are different products out there. Certainly, Pages is not as feature rich (you named some specifics, though you missed some of Pages features in your citation ;) ) as MS Word. It's also a much younger program. Is it going to be a Word Killer? Probably not for the foreseeable future. But it's quite capable of doing what probably 90% of what the Word users out there use Word for. If the other 10% are stupid enough to buy it without checking to see whether or not it has the features that they need to do their jobs, then they deserve to have their money go to Apple.
Oh, and what's this about "pro print shops" only taking Word files? I've never been to a print shop that didn't like PDF.
gramirez2012
Apr 26, 12:37 PM
$20/year is only $1.66/month. :rolleyes: Can't be any more reasonable, if you ask me.
Macnoviz
Jul 21, 10:26 AM
Finally Apple are back from those awful tanking sales G4 years, though will they ever break through that 5% glass ceiling?
yes, over the years, the general public gets smarter, just look at the evolution of computing from dirty backrooms and offices to the living room. Macs are bound to grow
yes, over the years, the general public gets smarter, just look at the evolution of computing from dirty backrooms and offices to the living room. Macs are bound to grow
peapody
Jan 28, 01:26 PM
You can't hack a DS Lite.
:p
But really, I want that jerky, it looks yum.
Lol I pretty much killed that whole bag in one day. $9 in my belly!
Picked up a 32gb Transcend Class 10 SDHC for the hp mini. $50 is not bad for all that extra storage space.
:p
But really, I want that jerky, it looks yum.
Lol I pretty much killed that whole bag in one day. $9 in my belly!
Picked up a 32gb Transcend Class 10 SDHC for the hp mini. $50 is not bad for all that extra storage space.