hob
Jan 9, 04:05 PM
Unfortunately, the keynote itself is on a product page for a new product, so before you watch it, you will know what the new product is.
It's still not up yet though...
It's still not up yet though...
evilgEEk
Jan 15, 12:36 AM
Wow. Are they 14 years old?
Seriously, I remember doing something like this back in junior high school with one of those giant remote control watches.
But that was when I was 14 years old; this is just ridiculous, and not funny in the least. Way to show some professionalism. I truly hope they suffer for this.
I really am baffled that "adults" would find this funny.
Idiots.
Seriously, I remember doing something like this back in junior high school with one of those giant remote control watches.
But that was when I was 14 years old; this is just ridiculous, and not funny in the least. Way to show some professionalism. I truly hope they suffer for this.
I really am baffled that "adults" would find this funny.
Idiots.
ipedro
Jan 9, 12:20 PM
Keynote Stream Available Live On Cnn Pipeline.
ezekielrage_99
Jan 15, 06:06 PM
Dude this is insane if its real. Yah think???
I wasn't saying if it's real or not it's the fact that Gizmodo just did a huge prank and they listed a Keynote supposedly from Apple. Real or not Apple is very protective about information about themselves.
I wasn't saying if it's real or not it's the fact that Gizmodo just did a huge prank and they listed a Keynote supposedly from Apple. Real or not Apple is very protective about information about themselves.
dethmaShine
Apr 29, 04:01 PM
283509
EDIT: How do I make this look bigger? ^ this?
EDIT: How do I make this look bigger? ^ this?
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
ju5tin81
Sep 12, 07:27 AM
I'm in Washington D.C. (8:24am EST) and just tried going into iTMS and there's a black page, with white text, announcing "It's Showtime. The iTunes Store is being updated." Here come the movies!
in UK, I just get a 'sorry, music store busy message'.... hmmm....
in UK, I just get a 'sorry, music store busy message'.... hmmm....
deannnnn
May 3, 10:19 PM
I like it :)
Macnoviz
Oct 11, 01:53 AM
I think that would be really great, because now, Zune and iPod are on par, with Zune slightly ahead for consumers that don't think too much (no, it is not widescreen, but try telling that to people)
Now Apple has a chance to realy boost Christmas sales by just blowing Zune out of the water with a cheaper "music" iPod (30 gigs, no video?, $199) and a video iPod (60/120 gigs, widescreen, touch controls $349, $449)
I don't know about the specs or prices, but new and better iPods could kill Zune in it's first season, before m$ completes the lineup with more players and devices.
Now Apple has a chance to realy boost Christmas sales by just blowing Zune out of the water with a cheaper "music" iPod (30 gigs, no video?, $199) and a video iPod (60/120 gigs, widescreen, touch controls $349, $449)
I don't know about the specs or prices, but new and better iPods could kill Zune in it's first season, before m$ completes the lineup with more players and devices.
TheRunningChef
Jul 25, 09:24 PM
I don't really see why anyone thinks that Apple is not taking responsibility what's going on with the iPhone 4. They are saying that this signal attenuation is a problem, but that's it's not uncommon in regards to cell phones and that other reputable companies make devices with similar problems. This, in my opinion is great PR. They are bringing the topic down to a relatable level where most people can see that it's not because they don't care about the their products anymore or are not worried about maintaining their good image. Does anyone seriously believe they rushed this out just to get some more money without properly testing it? I have spent a lot of time with the new iPhone and have noticed that it performs incredibly well and that the supposed "signal attenuation" issue people blew out of proportion is something I have to go out of my way to achieve. Sure I might accidentally do it a few times in the phones life time, but I already had minor hiccups with the 3GS that didn't make the phone worthless. Honestly, if the phone bothers anyone that much, just get that free bumper. And I believe Apple is offering a money back option for returning the phone.
swarmster
Apr 5, 03:52 PM
Thanks for the passing insult however I think I was pretty clear that your use for it was one I hadn't considered and also a rare case that made this app actually useful. I apologize for recognizing your rare and interesting situation.
I think you're missing the source of the issue here. The problem you and vast majority of people commenting here have is that anything that doesn't apply to you or interest you is met with hatred and ridicule. Instead of apologizing for overlooking the one use you consider acceptable, apologize for looking down on everything you don't understand and accepting that most things in life have applicability to someone.
But hey, here's another example, from before your post:
haha this is as lame as a tv station bringing out a half hour of the most "unique" and "fascinating" ads, wow.
also, maybe if they were some good, funny ads it would be ok, but no. The ads shown in the pic are just "EAT MCRIB" and "MAYBELLINE"...
This person doesn't realize that iAds aren't just a banner, but can actually contain some pretty complex and varied app-like content. Maybe if they downloaded this they'd learn something.
I think you're missing the source of the issue here. The problem you and vast majority of people commenting here have is that anything that doesn't apply to you or interest you is met with hatred and ridicule. Instead of apologizing for overlooking the one use you consider acceptable, apologize for looking down on everything you don't understand and accepting that most things in life have applicability to someone.
But hey, here's another example, from before your post:
haha this is as lame as a tv station bringing out a half hour of the most "unique" and "fascinating" ads, wow.
also, maybe if they were some good, funny ads it would be ok, but no. The ads shown in the pic are just "EAT MCRIB" and "MAYBELLINE"...
This person doesn't realize that iAds aren't just a banner, but can actually contain some pretty complex and varied app-like content. Maybe if they downloaded this they'd learn something.
evilbert420
Oct 20, 09:32 AM
When will we see these numbers broken out into business/enterprise vs. consumer?
Seriously, Apple is pretty much a non-factor in the enterprise. There simply is no integration, no large-scale server application use other than web, and few enterprise-ready applications. There's no Biztalk/Websphere/SQL/Oracle running on Apple outside of a few educational institutions. Microsoft and IBM own the enterprise and considering Apple in an enterprise outside of some limited marketing/advertising/media/audio verticals is absurd. I personally deal with 130 companies that have 500-250k computers and Apple is simply not a factor at all.
However, in the consumer world it's a very different story. Apple has the potential to continue making huge inroads into the consumer/home user/SOHO segments where the lack of enterprise applications means little if anything.
I'd like to see the numbers of how Apple compares in the home segment rather than just the overall. Why can't we see this broken out?
Seriously, Apple is pretty much a non-factor in the enterprise. There simply is no integration, no large-scale server application use other than web, and few enterprise-ready applications. There's no Biztalk/Websphere/SQL/Oracle running on Apple outside of a few educational institutions. Microsoft and IBM own the enterprise and considering Apple in an enterprise outside of some limited marketing/advertising/media/audio verticals is absurd. I personally deal with 130 companies that have 500-250k computers and Apple is simply not a factor at all.
However, in the consumer world it's a very different story. Apple has the potential to continue making huge inroads into the consumer/home user/SOHO segments where the lack of enterprise applications means little if anything.
I'd like to see the numbers of how Apple compares in the home segment rather than just the overall. Why can't we see this broken out?
*LTD*
Apr 10, 07:37 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
PS... Still got the silly giggles from thinking about the upcoming MS App store. :D:p:eek::p
You do know that Windows had an App Store before OS X, but it got axed due to it being badly implemented which resulted in lack of custom? All they are doing there is returning and improving one of their own features, not copying Apple.
You kinda proved her point, rb.
PS... Still got the silly giggles from thinking about the upcoming MS App store. :D:p:eek::p
You do know that Windows had an App Store before OS X, but it got axed due to it being badly implemented which resulted in lack of custom? All they are doing there is returning and improving one of their own features, not copying Apple.
You kinda proved her point, rb.
Osarkon
Jan 10, 04:09 PM
Whilst hilarious for the first few times, it did go on way too far.
And they shouldn't have done it to live presentations, that's just plain evil.
I also hope they're not allowed to Macworld. Even if they have matured up, banning them from it this year will ensure that they don't misbehave the next time.
And they shouldn't have done it to live presentations, that's just plain evil.
I also hope they're not allowed to Macworld. Even if they have matured up, banning them from it this year will ensure that they don't misbehave the next time.
wordoflife
Mar 19, 05:29 PM
Here in England thats a pretty common figure of speech that people use all the time. It doesn't mean literally ages. I forgot this was an American forum, but what does that have to do with anything anyway?
I'm from the US and I even understood what you were saying. It's just figurative language. It looks like people just want something to rant on you about.
I'm from the US and I even understood what you were saying. It's just figurative language. It looks like people just want something to rant on you about.
iVoid
Sep 28, 04:29 PM
Wow, my dream home is bigger than that. :) :)
Of course, I have no money to build my dream home. So maybe Steve can give me some since he's not spending a lot of this home. :)
I wonder if he will have a glass spiral staircase?
Only looks like a single story to me.
Of course, I have no money to build my dream home. So maybe Steve can give me some since he's not spending a lot of this home. :)
I wonder if he will have a glass spiral staircase?
Only looks like a single story to me.
geenosr
Sep 28, 02:52 PM
Did anybody see an ATT cell tower on his property so SJ can use his iPhone with enough signal strength?
The windows joke was a good one!
The windows joke was a good one!
Clive At Five
Oct 19, 02:20 PM
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality.
I don't doubt this, but from someone who has been using Windows since 3.1.1, take my word that Vista is a gigantic improvement over XP. While I agree that MS's claims of grandure aren't justified, there's no denying that Vista is a noteworthy upgrade (rather than an 8-month downgrade until SP1 surfaces).
Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better.
You're half right and half wrong. Some people wouldn't even consider upgrading (whether it's because they don't know what Vista is / how it's different or due to apathy). More people, however, will (one way or another) become convinced that an upgrade is necessary. They're also convinced that whatever slop MS puts on their plate is good enough (as you suggested). They say, "This upgrade from XP to Vista is good enough for MS so it's good enough for me. No need to explore the other options."
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
And sadly, it doesn't matter how they're sold. Once people start using Vista and see that it's an improvement over what they've been using. They won't consider a switch to the Mac. People talk often about iLemmings, but it really goes QUITE understated the number of MS Lemmings there are. (Think "1984" ad.) MS has great power over those who are unconscious to the computing world. Vista is not going to change that. The only thing that will drive people to the Mac is their becoming "conscious." That is much harder to do and Apple deserves MUCH applause for the amount of waking up they've done to the MS Lemmings.
-Clive
I don't doubt this, but from someone who has been using Windows since 3.1.1, take my word that Vista is a gigantic improvement over XP. While I agree that MS's claims of grandure aren't justified, there's no denying that Vista is a noteworthy upgrade (rather than an 8-month downgrade until SP1 surfaces).
Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better.
You're half right and half wrong. Some people wouldn't even consider upgrading (whether it's because they don't know what Vista is / how it's different or due to apathy). More people, however, will (one way or another) become convinced that an upgrade is necessary. They're also convinced that whatever slop MS puts on their plate is good enough (as you suggested). They say, "This upgrade from XP to Vista is good enough for MS so it's good enough for me. No need to explore the other options."
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
And sadly, it doesn't matter how they're sold. Once people start using Vista and see that it's an improvement over what they've been using. They won't consider a switch to the Mac. People talk often about iLemmings, but it really goes QUITE understated the number of MS Lemmings there are. (Think "1984" ad.) MS has great power over those who are unconscious to the computing world. Vista is not going to change that. The only thing that will drive people to the Mac is their becoming "conscious." That is much harder to do and Apple deserves MUCH applause for the amount of waking up they've done to the MS Lemmings.
-Clive
chuckles:)
Oct 10, 09:39 PM
yawn.
Ommid
Apr 25, 12:21 PM
Would love a larger screen if they can maintain the same body size. I have no interest in something like the giant PDA-sized Android phones.
Maybe the phone is smaller and it makes it look like the screen is bigger, food for thought!
Maybe the phone is smaller and it makes it look like the screen is bigger, food for thought!
infidel69
Apr 9, 03:20 PM
Best Buy knows who D:apple:ddy is... They know who's keeping that company afloat and relevant in todays chaotic economy.
They wouldn't do anything to jeopardize a business relationship they NEED.
Again they know who D:apple:ddy is.
Yes because BB would go out of business if they didn't sell Apple products:rolleyes:
Apple may be your daddy but they don't hold the god like status you think they do.
They wouldn't do anything to jeopardize a business relationship they NEED.
Again they know who D:apple:ddy is.
Yes because BB would go out of business if they didn't sell Apple products:rolleyes:
Apple may be your daddy but they don't hold the god like status you think they do.
Preclaro_tipo
Mar 28, 02:23 PM
What a lame rule...clearly they don't care about the best or most innovative products for people, they care about themselves and this time they aren't even TRYING to make it look like it is people/software/design first...it is purely Apple first.
I know Apple (and Microsoft, and google and Oracle, etc) gets accused of being evil, slimy, greedy, monopolistic, or some combination or derivation of these from time to time, or even regularly, but for me this is the one of the most flagrant 'slimy' (et al) practices I've seen of Apple.
I know Apple (and Microsoft, and google and Oracle, etc) gets accused of being evil, slimy, greedy, monopolistic, or some combination or derivation of these from time to time, or even regularly, but for me this is the one of the most flagrant 'slimy' (et al) practices I've seen of Apple.
iOS v Android
May 3, 02:18 PM
why are you on macrumors.....you have something to do with Android to....practice what you...ah you know the rest
Yes and this story has little to do with iOS. It has nothing to do with openness vs Close. It is just something to mislead people. Read the article and look at all the comments.
Yes and this story has little to do with iOS. It has nothing to do with openness vs Close. It is just something to mislead people. Read the article and look at all the comments.
dsnort
Aug 1, 03:32 PM
Do not act as stupid ass consumers with no brain. It is your right when you by music to listen to i where ever you want it too.
You payed for it didn't you so now it is yours ....
DRM is ******** and it takes away your rights as a consumers.
Act now stop that ********.
One more thing. At least we have the freedom and our goverment tries too help.
I don't FEEL ignorant and stupid. Maybe that's because I took the time to READ and UNDERSTAND the limitations imposed on me by iTunes/iPod before I BOUGHT in. And maybe because I understand that what I am BUYING is a DIGITAL DATA FILE that must be interpreted by a certain APPLICATION to become music, and that this was EXPLAINED to me before I BOUGHT. That I don't OWN the MUSIC, and that there are LIMITATIONS to what I can do with it. ( And if you think I'm wrong on that last point, let a copyright holder catch you using their music for commmercial gain. Write back to us and describe the world of hurt that descends on you)!
The fact of the matter is that reasonable DRM's protect the artists who are the source of the music. And Apples DRM is one the most reasonable in the industry, both protecting the artist, and allowing fair use by the customer.
You payed for it didn't you so now it is yours ....
DRM is ******** and it takes away your rights as a consumers.
Act now stop that ********.
One more thing. At least we have the freedom and our goverment tries too help.
I don't FEEL ignorant and stupid. Maybe that's because I took the time to READ and UNDERSTAND the limitations imposed on me by iTunes/iPod before I BOUGHT in. And maybe because I understand that what I am BUYING is a DIGITAL DATA FILE that must be interpreted by a certain APPLICATION to become music, and that this was EXPLAINED to me before I BOUGHT. That I don't OWN the MUSIC, and that there are LIMITATIONS to what I can do with it. ( And if you think I'm wrong on that last point, let a copyright holder catch you using their music for commmercial gain. Write back to us and describe the world of hurt that descends on you)!
The fact of the matter is that reasonable DRM's protect the artists who are the source of the music. And Apples DRM is one the most reasonable in the industry, both protecting the artist, and allowing fair use by the customer.
