KnightWRX
Mar 26, 07:58 AM
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
law guy
Aug 5, 10:20 PM
EVERYONE is missing something that MUST be updated A.S.A.P.!
AirPort Base Stations!
Express and especially the Extreme. The Extreme is YEARS old!!
:eek: :eek:
Good point - CNET just did a round up of "pre-n" series routers http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-3319_7-6544166-1.html - the extreme hasn't entered that area yet - although it was ahead of the curve a bit with the "g" standard.
AirPort Base Stations!
Express and especially the Extreme. The Extreme is YEARS old!!
:eek: :eek:
Good point - CNET just did a round up of "pre-n" series routers http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-3319_7-6544166-1.html - the extreme hasn't entered that area yet - although it was ahead of the curve a bit with the "g" standard.
daneoni
Aug 27, 04:33 PM
PS I thought the PB G5 next Tuesday thing was quite funny - precisely because it has been done to death, first dead straight (remember how excited people got for so many years), and now because it's a useful reminder not to take our speculations too seriously...
Another person who grasps it.
Another person who grasps it.
yac_moda
Jul 20, 08:26 PM
I'm betting on Mac Pro OctaCore 2 :D
Should that "a" be an "o" ?
Its Mac raised to the power of INFINITY :eek:
The loga will just be a mobius loop !!!
Should that "a" be an "o" ?
Its Mac raised to the power of INFINITY :eek:
The loga will just be a mobius loop !!!
Cougarcat
Mar 26, 02:10 AM
I don't see Apple moving to any version of ReiserFS or ext#, so I think we are stuck with HFS+ and extensions/improvements of it, until the ZFS situation gets clearer.
Apple abandoned ZFS due to licensing and they're working on their own new file system.
Apple abandoned ZFS due to licensing and they're working on their own new file system.
Cameront9
Aug 7, 05:02 PM
Like the whole 3ghz thing?
Ahh, but that was a different situation. In that case, Steve said that, but was dependent on IBM to make it come true.
In this Case, steve is only dependent on his own company to make it come true.
And did anyone else laugh today when they showed the top of the line Mac Pro--at 3Ghz?
Ahh, but that was a different situation. In that case, Steve said that, but was dependent on IBM to make it come true.
In this Case, steve is only dependent on his own company to make it come true.
And did anyone else laugh today when they showed the top of the line Mac Pro--at 3Ghz?
ssk2
Mar 22, 03:39 PM
Why are you comparing the Playbook that is coming out this summer to iOS 4? Chances are it will be competing with iOS 5. If you want to be fair and all.
Oh FFS... Ok, yes, if we're being pedantic, I'll wait until I try both iOS 5 and the Playbook before deciding.
Oh FFS... Ok, yes, if we're being pedantic, I'll wait until I try both iOS 5 and the Playbook before deciding.
DesmoPilot
Aug 5, 02:13 AM
i thought this game was vaporware
November, 2, 2010.
November, 2, 2010.
shawnce
Jul 27, 07:04 PM
looking at reference systems - for $2049, Gateway's Core 2 Duo gets the 2.4GHz/4MB L2 cache Conroe, 2GB of RAM from the factory, an x1900 512MB graphics card, 320GB hard drive, card reader and DL DVD burner.
make sure to note that is an ATI X1900 CrossFire XT adapter
make sure to note that is an ATI X1900 CrossFire XT adapter
tundrabuggy
Apr 19, 03:23 PM
I'm sure quite sure what Apple hopes to accomplish here. Every smart phone steals from every other one. I don't know if you can differentiate design "concepts". It's like suing someone because the chords for his blues song goes in a 1-4-5 pattern like yours does. It's just part of the genre.
Tony
Chord patterns are indeed part of the genre; however, when you also copy the melody and simply change the title AKA(George Harrison..."Here comes the sun"), then, you get the pants sued off of you.
Tony
Chord patterns are indeed part of the genre; however, when you also copy the melody and simply change the title AKA(George Harrison..."Here comes the sun"), then, you get the pants sued off of you.
yg17
Mar 4, 01:53 PM
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
The problem with your "logic" is that not everybody is gay. Homosexuality is nothing new, gay people have been around for a long time, and humanity is surviving.
The problem with your "logic" is that not everybody is gay. Homosexuality is nothing new, gay people have been around for a long time, and humanity is surviving.
jeffereyj
Apr 6, 01:12 PM
sorry but if you're trying to do "pro" work on a MBA, ur doin it wrong.
i'm glad Apple has their MBA line for ultra-portability, plus the MBP line for intensive portable work.
i'm glad Apple has their MBA line for ultra-portability, plus the MBP line for intensive portable work.
Dicx
Nov 28, 07:55 PM
Was trying for a long time to find this article:
http://db.tidbits.com/article/8751
A good story of how Microsoft got screwed into paying the $1. Long story short, because of them not controlling a market for once and not having the largest publisher of music to get tunes from, Universal held MS's feet to the fire and said pay up or forget it.
Good read nonetheless.
http://db.tidbits.com/article/8751
A good story of how Microsoft got screwed into paying the $1. Long story short, because of them not controlling a market for once and not having the largest publisher of music to get tunes from, Universal held MS's feet to the fire and said pay up or forget it.
Good read nonetheless.
bassfingers
Apr 27, 01:49 PM
Who would think I'd support Bush? He's not conservative enough for me, and his administration spent to much.
How much did government intervene in business affairs during the Roaring 20's? The government has already failed to do what it should do: It should promote the common good. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Government had this country's best interests at heart when I hear Mrs. Pelosi say that to find out what's in Obamacare, you need to pass it.
I know a lot about alcoholism and codependence because my mother is a nurse who specialized in treating alcoholics and other drug addicts and in counseling them. You don't help an alcoholic by protecting him from the consequences of his actions. The protection can help him make even bigger mistakes. I've seen that happen in many families I know of that include alcoholics. I also know about entitled welfare recipients who abuse social programs by demanding too much from social programs, by getting it, and by defrauding them. I saw the entitlement firsthand when a relative of mine was a landlord who rented houses to welfare recipients. Welfare recipients ruined a house, my relative kept the security deposit, and then the family got the Department of Social Services to put them into a house for twice the rent my relative charged. But the family still had the nerve to complain that my relative had overcharged it.
Good points. All of them.
not sarcasm^
How much did government intervene in business affairs during the Roaring 20's? The government has already failed to do what it should do: It should promote the common good. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Government had this country's best interests at heart when I hear Mrs. Pelosi say that to find out what's in Obamacare, you need to pass it.
I know a lot about alcoholism and codependence because my mother is a nurse who specialized in treating alcoholics and other drug addicts and in counseling them. You don't help an alcoholic by protecting him from the consequences of his actions. The protection can help him make even bigger mistakes. I've seen that happen in many families I know of that include alcoholics. I also know about entitled welfare recipients who abuse social programs by demanding too much from social programs, by getting it, and by defrauding them. I saw the entitlement firsthand when a relative of mine was a landlord who rented houses to welfare recipients. Welfare recipients ruined a house, my relative kept the security deposit, and then the family got the Department of Social Services to put them into a house for twice the rent my relative charged. But the family still had the nerve to complain that my relative had overcharged it.
Good points. All of them.
not sarcasm^
FearlessFreep
Apr 11, 01:31 PM
I still don't get why people just don't follow the components to figure out the timing. If the touchscreen size is indeed going to change, then it has to be manufactured in sufficient quantity before launch. Otherwise you end up with not enough product in the pipeline to meet demand (see Ipad, 2).
There's outside factors at work here as well - namely the Japan disaster which has constrained supplies.
Apple may not have any choice but to wait until Fall.
There's outside factors at work here as well - namely the Japan disaster which has constrained supplies.
Apple may not have any choice but to wait until Fall.
Killyp
Aug 7, 05:04 AM
Now now Leoff, no need to be so harsh :)
I think he has a point though. There is no way that you could sue apple based on this. Apple released the Mac, and they call it the Mac now (not the Macintosh). There is a company (I can't remember who) that makes plastic coats called Macs, and yet you don't see those two sueing each other.
If apple did release the MacPro, which seems highly likely, then what is going to be the negative effect on your business? if anything, it will bring in more business as more people will be typing mac-pro.com into their browsers.
I think he has a point though. There is no way that you could sue apple based on this. Apple released the Mac, and they call it the Mac now (not the Macintosh). There is a company (I can't remember who) that makes plastic coats called Macs, and yet you don't see those two sueing each other.
If apple did release the MacPro, which seems highly likely, then what is going to be the negative effect on your business? if anything, it will bring in more business as more people will be typing mac-pro.com into their browsers.
milozauckerman
Jul 14, 02:54 PM
Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac
I'm talking about Core2 Duo machines - either Conroe or Woodcrest.
Ports? My G5 tower had no more ports than any other PC I've seen. My current CD iMac actually lacks any kind of high-speed port for external hard-drives or burners.
Software? OK, I know it's supposed to be a selling point, but there's not a damn thing outside of iTunes I use in iLife enough to justify hardware prices at any level. They're nice freebies, but I happily pay the Apple Tax to have an OS that works with me rather than against me. Unquestionably worth it, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm getting good value in the (theoretical) hardware.
I think I know what the apologists will say - no one else will offer Woodcrest in a low-end pro machine, they'll use Conroe. And yeah, that's probably true, but for a reason - there's no reason to put Woodcrest in the low-end tower offering, aside from a desire to perpetuate the artifical line distinctions. Which isn't going to cut it in the Intel world.
I'm talking about Core2 Duo machines - either Conroe or Woodcrest.
Ports? My G5 tower had no more ports than any other PC I've seen. My current CD iMac actually lacks any kind of high-speed port for external hard-drives or burners.
Software? OK, I know it's supposed to be a selling point, but there's not a damn thing outside of iTunes I use in iLife enough to justify hardware prices at any level. They're nice freebies, but I happily pay the Apple Tax to have an OS that works with me rather than against me. Unquestionably worth it, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm getting good value in the (theoretical) hardware.
I think I know what the apologists will say - no one else will offer Woodcrest in a low-end pro machine, they'll use Conroe. And yeah, that's probably true, but for a reason - there's no reason to put Woodcrest in the low-end tower offering, aside from a desire to perpetuate the artifical line distinctions. Which isn't going to cut it in the Intel world.
Vegasman
Apr 27, 08:40 AM
Apple's solution is fine by me. They wouldn't have done anything if there wasn't so much press about it, but I guess that's a good reason (one of the only ones) for the press to exist.
Interestingly, this behavior of waiting for things to blow up in the press before they are addressed will only lead to MORE things getting blown up in the press. Maybe Apple likes that? I dunno.
Interestingly, this behavior of waiting for things to blow up in the press before they are addressed will only lead to MORE things getting blown up in the press. Maybe Apple likes that? I dunno.
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
Gatesbasher
Apr 6, 04:18 PM
Link? Wasn't there the whole story a month or two ago that the actual number of Galaxy Tabs delivered to customers was much less than had been reported. How can this cause a 30% reduction in market share when the HIGH number of Galaxy Tabs was < 10% the number of iPads?
B
He's still using that 2,000,000 Tabs "shipped", adding it to iPads sold in the same period, and finding the Tab's number is 30% of the total. Very..."smooth", could I say?
B
He's still using that 2,000,000 Tabs "shipped", adding it to iPads sold in the same period, and finding the Tab's number is 30% of the total. Very..."smooth", could I say?
layte
Mar 31, 04:23 PM
Well at least you are an honest troll. Can't say that about everyone who starts attacking groups of people over their OS choice. *shrug*
:confused:
Where have I posted anything that could be construed as trolling? Or are we doing the 'I don't agree with you therefore it is trolling' thing?
:confused:
Where have I posted anything that could be construed as trolling? Or are we doing the 'I don't agree with you therefore it is trolling' thing?
Thunderbird
Aug 7, 04:52 PM
January is not Spring. Do not expect a release in January; Expect a full-featured preview, with an announcement of a final shipping-date.
But Steve always likes to try to be ahead of his own schedules ....underpromising and overdelivering. :)
But Steve always likes to try to be ahead of his own schedules ....underpromising and overdelivering. :)
Nym
Nov 29, 11:28 AM
I don't listen to anything that comes from that Universal Artists list shown above :)
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
AHAHAHAHAHA
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
More like a Capitalist, he thinks they should get money, profit logic.
Universal is being greedy, they are entitled to 1$ per iPod the same way as I am, because after all, I'm advertising for Apple when I'm holding it in my hand right? It's just stupid beyond everything I've heard! And the artists will be the last ones to get even a glimpe of the money that M$ is gonna pay Universal (7$ ??).
If by any chance Apple would give in to Universal, every crap Record Label would start requiring the same fee and one day we'll have "the new iPod Nano, starting at 500$" :)
iPoop on Record Labels :D
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
AHAHAHAHAHA
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
More like a Capitalist, he thinks they should get money, profit logic.
Universal is being greedy, they are entitled to 1$ per iPod the same way as I am, because after all, I'm advertising for Apple when I'm holding it in my hand right? It's just stupid beyond everything I've heard! And the artists will be the last ones to get even a glimpe of the money that M$ is gonna pay Universal (7$ ??).
If by any chance Apple would give in to Universal, every crap Record Label would start requiring the same fee and one day we'll have "the new iPod Nano, starting at 500$" :)
iPoop on Record Labels :D
Riemann Zeta
Apr 27, 09:42 AM
Whether or not the behavior of this cache was in fact "a bug", I think the update that flushes the cache files when Location Services is disabled will settle the issue.