BRLawyer
Sep 9, 01:16 PM
Well they were selling them back in 1996 so you might want to add 5 years to your 5 year statement. You could buy dual 604e in the 9500 and the 9600 too I think.
You are right, but if I remember well the 9500 had 604s, not 604e...and actually the 9600 had the best-ever case for any Mac...you just had to pull down one of the panels to have full access to everything in the MOBO and drives...really beautiful...
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac/media/easytower_movie.html
You are right, but if I remember well the 9500 had 604s, not 604e...and actually the 9600 had the best-ever case for any Mac...you just had to pull down one of the panels to have full access to everything in the MOBO and drives...really beautiful...
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac/media/easytower_movie.html
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:34 PM
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
Popeye206
Apr 20, 01:55 PM
I fall into the "who cares" category.
If someone wants to waste their time figuring out where I've been... have a ball! I might be concerned if I was a drug lord, or cereal murderer (Die! Captain Crunch, die!). :) But since I'm just a software guy... again, who cares?
P.S. Snap, Crackle and Pop... you're next!
If someone wants to waste their time figuring out where I've been... have a ball! I might be concerned if I was a drug lord, or cereal murderer (Die! Captain Crunch, die!). :) But since I'm just a software guy... again, who cares?
P.S. Snap, Crackle and Pop... you're next!
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 17, 06:36 PM
The Safari exploit launched a Mac OSX program. How is that NOT an "OS" issue? The exploit could have just as easily told the Mac to delete a directory on the hard drive, for instance. So it's not just Safari that's an issue but the fact that OSX would let Safari execute a program outside the browser.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
robeddie
Apr 25, 02:17 PM
YESSSS after 3 years of waiting!
It's been 2 years 6 months. The aluminum design prior to that lasted 5 years 10 months (with only a minor thinning when it became the macpro).
Since when did two and a half years become a long time to keep a particular design? And how did some of us get so impatient in our consumer-based lives?
It's been 2 years 6 months. The aluminum design prior to that lasted 5 years 10 months (with only a minor thinning when it became the macpro).
Since when did two and a half years become a long time to keep a particular design? And how did some of us get so impatient in our consumer-based lives?
SeaFox
Apr 22, 10:45 PM
LOL at some of the responses here. Something to think about:
Prom Half Up Half Down Hair
A half up half down hairstyle
Half up half down hairstyles
Dianna Agron Half Up Half Down
Half up half down prom
Half up half down prom
half down prom hairstyle 11
Long Wedding Hair Styles. This
prom hairstyles 2011 half up
Try something half up half
down hairstyles, half up
Beyonce Knowles#39; half-up,
up half down hairstyle at
Reacent Post
ZipZap
Apr 19, 10:16 AM
Will be settled out of court with no disclosure of terms. Fees/royaltys will be paid....life goes on.
These are business actions and have little to do with what's right and wrong.
These are business actions and have little to do with what's right and wrong.
Warbrain
Sep 26, 08:50 AM
Yeah, but not if it's locked. I had to call up my provider and beg for my unlock code so that I could use *my* phone in Asia, and then they said yes, and never sent it to me. Call them back, and...well..rinse, repeat.
What about people like me who travel a lot and want to pop in SIM cards in other places? I'm sick and tired of the U.S. market and all of its stupid contract / vendor lock-in ********.
Pity to see Apple on that bandwagon; I hope they just sell the phone in the Apple Store unlocked, and let us choose the carrier we want.
But then they need to build two different phones based on two different sets of components and it would end up being too expensive in the end. Yes, the provider of the service will give you the unlock code for when you want to travel, but Apple and any other company that makes a cell phone will never be able to sell unlocked phones in this country and allow you to choose which provider you want. Nokia is trying it now at their two stores in Chicago and New York, but I can tell you that it's not going to work.
What about people like me who travel a lot and want to pop in SIM cards in other places? I'm sick and tired of the U.S. market and all of its stupid contract / vendor lock-in ********.
Pity to see Apple on that bandwagon; I hope they just sell the phone in the Apple Store unlocked, and let us choose the carrier we want.
But then they need to build two different phones based on two different sets of components and it would end up being too expensive in the end. Yes, the provider of the service will give you the unlock code for when you want to travel, but Apple and any other company that makes a cell phone will never be able to sell unlocked phones in this country and allow you to choose which provider you want. Nokia is trying it now at their two stores in Chicago and New York, but I can tell you that it's not going to work.
suzerain
Sep 5, 04:15 PM
Um, gee. I wonder if the studio with the $9.99 downloads will be Disney...
HecubusPro
Sep 13, 09:18 PM
Not what i was looking for
I wanted a smart phone wheres the keyboard ?
i can buy an itunes phone right now from cingular but i dont want one
what makes them think i will buy one now because its from apple and not motorola
I think one of the main tenets to apple's philosophy is simplicity, from their iPods to their computer systems to their OS. I just could not see apple releasing something to a consumer market that would place it over the heads of everyday, casual users, which is who apple traditionally aims for. A smart iPhone would add way too much complexity for that basic demographic.
If this is truly what to expect when the phone comes out, then it's obviously not for you. While I too would like to see something as you described, I also find the simplicity of apple products alluring. I'd be very interested in this product.
I wanted a smart phone wheres the keyboard ?
i can buy an itunes phone right now from cingular but i dont want one
what makes them think i will buy one now because its from apple and not motorola
I think one of the main tenets to apple's philosophy is simplicity, from their iPods to their computer systems to their OS. I just could not see apple releasing something to a consumer market that would place it over the heads of everyday, casual users, which is who apple traditionally aims for. A smart iPhone would add way too much complexity for that basic demographic.
If this is truly what to expect when the phone comes out, then it's obviously not for you. While I too would like to see something as you described, I also find the simplicity of apple products alluring. I'd be very interested in this product.
Ja Di ksw
Oct 13, 12:10 AM
From looking at the picture, should it be a fact that the red iPod nano is coming out? It doesn't look like a rumor that I see red iPod nanos on display.
It's fact, not rumor. One of my friends was there while they were doing stuff with it, and the picture is obviously not photoshopped. They talked about it on CBS as well.
It's fact, not rumor. One of my friends was there while they were doing stuff with it, and the picture is obviously not photoshopped. They talked about it on CBS as well.
Captainobvvious
Mar 30, 11:59 AM
Its important to always note context.
Windows may be generic but only when you're trying to trademark the term for actual windows. Windows doesn't describe an OS... It is the same with office. If they wanted to call Office "Word Processor" it would be considered generic because they are trying to trademark the generic term to describe something.
App Store IS generic in that same sense.
But I think consideration needs to be paid to the circumstances too. There have been MANY application repositories many with names like "Marketplace". The term App Store was always there for the taking but none used it because it was a generic term that they didn't think was catchy.
Now Apple has used the term and it has become a household term associated with Apple... There is a brand awareness there they cultivated without needing a trademark.
Now that all the work has been done and people have an association with App Store the other companies want to use to for no other reason than to cash in on the strong name brand APP STORE has.
It is certainly incredibly generic but it does have strong brand association, consumer trust and recognition that was completely created by Apple.
NOTE: I KNOW the term App Store has been used in the past and Apple didn't invent it. They did take it from a n obscure, not widely used term and made it to the household name it is today.
Windows may be generic but only when you're trying to trademark the term for actual windows. Windows doesn't describe an OS... It is the same with office. If they wanted to call Office "Word Processor" it would be considered generic because they are trying to trademark the generic term to describe something.
App Store IS generic in that same sense.
But I think consideration needs to be paid to the circumstances too. There have been MANY application repositories many with names like "Marketplace". The term App Store was always there for the taking but none used it because it was a generic term that they didn't think was catchy.
Now Apple has used the term and it has become a household term associated with Apple... There is a brand awareness there they cultivated without needing a trademark.
Now that all the work has been done and people have an association with App Store the other companies want to use to for no other reason than to cash in on the strong name brand APP STORE has.
It is certainly incredibly generic but it does have strong brand association, consumer trust and recognition that was completely created by Apple.
NOTE: I KNOW the term App Store has been used in the past and Apple didn't invent it. They did take it from a n obscure, not widely used term and made it to the household name it is today.
iJohnHenry
Apr 17, 09:04 AM
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
Your choice, entirely.
Sorry we are not "Republican" enough for you and your money. :p
Your choice, entirely.
Sorry we are not "Republican" enough for you and your money. :p
wkhahn
Oct 12, 02:32 PM
I would love to have a red iPod, but I don't know why we would ever give money to help fight AIDS on a continent where the people take NO precautions to prevent themselves from getting AIDS... I mean, sure many children are born with it in Africa, but for soooo many adults, they could prevent the spread if they would just be monogamous.
So there, I solved AIDS for free, no Oprah, no Bono, no Ipods. Just have sex only within a lifetime committed relationship and AIDS is all but gone in one generation!
I'll stick to my black aluminum iPod nano, anyhow. I just hope 10% of the proceeds didn't go to research finding cures for the black plague... or frostbite...
Thank you Captain Obvious. Next you'll tell me that water is generally wet. I'll bet you know people who have had sex outside a monogamous relationship, and you probably live outside of Africa. While you're solution, if put into perfect practice, would "solve" the problem, this solution is not even workable in more modern societies, much less those where the local healer has more credibility and less reliable information than the Doctors Without Borders or Peace Crops volunteers. Part of the problem with AIDS in Africa is the belief that men who have sex, whether consensual or not, with a virgin girl will cure themselves of AIDS. So of course the focus in on women and children. Treat and support the women, so they can help raise the children resulting from these unwanted sexual encounters,and educate the children, boys and girls alike, about the realities of the disease.
So there, I solved AIDS for free, no Oprah, no Bono, no Ipods. Just have sex only within a lifetime committed relationship and AIDS is all but gone in one generation!
I'll stick to my black aluminum iPod nano, anyhow. I just hope 10% of the proceeds didn't go to research finding cures for the black plague... or frostbite...
Thank you Captain Obvious. Next you'll tell me that water is generally wet. I'll bet you know people who have had sex outside a monogamous relationship, and you probably live outside of Africa. While you're solution, if put into perfect practice, would "solve" the problem, this solution is not even workable in more modern societies, much less those where the local healer has more credibility and less reliable information than the Doctors Without Borders or Peace Crops volunteers. Part of the problem with AIDS in Africa is the belief that men who have sex, whether consensual or not, with a virgin girl will cure themselves of AIDS. So of course the focus in on women and children. Treat and support the women, so they can help raise the children resulting from these unwanted sexual encounters,and educate the children, boys and girls alike, about the realities of the disease.
X38
Apr 15, 01:00 AM
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point. With 3.0 barely entering the market, there is no value in letting it get a foothold. It is pathetically obsolete compared to TB.
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money - you should be wanting TB on more peripherals. Even if Intel is going to be dumb enough to keep USB 3.0 around, hopefully Apple will hold the line and refuse to put it in Macs. With Apple's resurgent strength in the computer market while everyone else is tanking, that would be enough incentive to get the peripheral makers to adopt TB.
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money - you should be wanting TB on more peripherals. Even if Intel is going to be dumb enough to keep USB 3.0 around, hopefully Apple will hold the line and refuse to put it in Macs. With Apple's resurgent strength in the computer market while everyone else is tanking, that would be enough incentive to get the peripheral makers to adopt TB.
Creibold
Oct 12, 03:55 PM
Look at the Story on the front page of the chicago tribune, it's true. It says right there that apple is introducing a Red iPod Nano, it's not photoshoped you goofs.
williedigital
Sep 13, 10:52 PM
Two things
1) it seems like people are overexagerating with the "having to slide the clickwheel up to call anyone" thing. Everyone I know uses a contact list almost exclusively, something which could very easily be incorporated into the standard ipod interface (already is sort of). Calling the odd number i'd be fine with sliding it up. Perhaps they could introduce some really innovative contact list stuff software wise to make it even less necessary to "dial" people.
2) Maybe all the touchscreen stuff we think is for the video ipod is really for the phone and the dialpad and clickwheel both use a touch sensitive thing to work.
1) it seems like people are overexagerating with the "having to slide the clickwheel up to call anyone" thing. Everyone I know uses a contact list almost exclusively, something which could very easily be incorporated into the standard ipod interface (already is sort of). Calling the odd number i'd be fine with sliding it up. Perhaps they could introduce some really innovative contact list stuff software wise to make it even less necessary to "dial" people.
2) Maybe all the touchscreen stuff we think is for the video ipod is really for the phone and the dialpad and clickwheel both use a touch sensitive thing to work.
jmoore5196
Mar 29, 01:01 PM
You bet!
vitaboy
Aug 24, 05:01 AM
I hope you're joking about that. iTunes is not about making money for apple
It may not be making the kind of money that iPod is making, but iTunes is indeed making money for Apple. Indeed, it has become a significant revenue story for Apple, if only recently.
In fact, contrary to popular belief, iTMS has been marginally profitable for many quarters now, although of course its profit margins are small compared to iPods and Macs.
Just remember - iTunes is profitable and a billion plus song sales a year makes it a Top 10 music retailer in the U.S., behind only the likes of Walmart, Best Buy, Target, and FYE.
iTunes Outsells Traditional Music Stores (http://news.com.com/iTunes+outsells+traditional+music+stores/2100-1027_3-5965314.html)
It's the iTunes wannabes that are neither profitable nor revenue machines! ;-)
It may not be making the kind of money that iPod is making, but iTunes is indeed making money for Apple. Indeed, it has become a significant revenue story for Apple, if only recently.
In fact, contrary to popular belief, iTMS has been marginally profitable for many quarters now, although of course its profit margins are small compared to iPods and Macs.
Just remember - iTunes is profitable and a billion plus song sales a year makes it a Top 10 music retailer in the U.S., behind only the likes of Walmart, Best Buy, Target, and FYE.
iTunes Outsells Traditional Music Stores (http://news.com.com/iTunes+outsells+traditional+music+stores/2100-1027_3-5965314.html)
It's the iTunes wannabes that are neither profitable nor revenue machines! ;-)
rmhop81
Apr 22, 04:06 PM
This isn't the content of music on iTunes isn't DRM protected, furthermore I still own the content (even the DRM) as I can do exactly what I want with it. I can back it up, move it between devices, and have absolutely no dependence on sustainable bandwidth, company's servers, and policy changes revolving around the use of the server.
As for your netflix comment, there have been plenty of times that Netflix has removed content from their servers that was previously available, if I actually own the content I don't even have to worry about the company removing availability of item <x>.
Streaming content is inferior to downloaded content, it depends on a reliable connection, it depends on your bandwidth not being capped or being regulated to a lower setting because you went over (it'd be pretty easy to stream videos and go over your limit especially in HD).
With the recent iPhone privacy fiasco, APPLE would be the LAST company on earth that I would want to depend on.
As a backup option I think its great, as a primary service that eliminates the concept of downloading and owning your content, its complete bull. I'm not paying money for content that essentially stays in someone else's computer that they could do what they want with it at ANY time. Forget it.
speed, quality and reliability through internet connections is absolutely INFERIOR than when it is run from a hard drive (avg transfer for a hard drive in 2007 was 1030 MBits (128MB/sec) or flash memory (even the lowest class runs at 2MB/sec, which is more than most people can get in their internet connection).
If it goes further to where computers start using cloud services just to run and store their computer it becomes a) a privacy issue, b) a security issue. People like their privacy and like to own stuff they pay for.
who is to say you can't do the same with the cloud service? why can't you download ur music from the cloud to your computer?
Why is it now OK to be a backup service? they are still going to have your data....why does it matter if it's your primary version or a backup?
There is a reason why this has come about. if it was so stupid it wouldn't be happening. People can be really weird about "owning" things. I have friends who collect thousands of dvds. wow, to view 1-2 times. what a waste.
I guess the music and documents i have in idisk i don't own either right?
I was referring to netflix bc the content one may like is there. maybe not all of it, but with the apple option on the cloud you'd have that option to load what you want to listen to.....aka you would choose the playlist.
If netflix had that option for movies. Why would you spend thousands of dollars buying dvds when you can have it at a subscription price in the cloud?
As for your netflix comment, there have been plenty of times that Netflix has removed content from their servers that was previously available, if I actually own the content I don't even have to worry about the company removing availability of item <x>.
Streaming content is inferior to downloaded content, it depends on a reliable connection, it depends on your bandwidth not being capped or being regulated to a lower setting because you went over (it'd be pretty easy to stream videos and go over your limit especially in HD).
With the recent iPhone privacy fiasco, APPLE would be the LAST company on earth that I would want to depend on.
As a backup option I think its great, as a primary service that eliminates the concept of downloading and owning your content, its complete bull. I'm not paying money for content that essentially stays in someone else's computer that they could do what they want with it at ANY time. Forget it.
speed, quality and reliability through internet connections is absolutely INFERIOR than when it is run from a hard drive (avg transfer for a hard drive in 2007 was 1030 MBits (128MB/sec) or flash memory (even the lowest class runs at 2MB/sec, which is more than most people can get in their internet connection).
If it goes further to where computers start using cloud services just to run and store their computer it becomes a) a privacy issue, b) a security issue. People like their privacy and like to own stuff they pay for.
who is to say you can't do the same with the cloud service? why can't you download ur music from the cloud to your computer?
Why is it now OK to be a backup service? they are still going to have your data....why does it matter if it's your primary version or a backup?
There is a reason why this has come about. if it was so stupid it wouldn't be happening. People can be really weird about "owning" things. I have friends who collect thousands of dvds. wow, to view 1-2 times. what a waste.
I guess the music and documents i have in idisk i don't own either right?
I was referring to netflix bc the content one may like is there. maybe not all of it, but with the apple option on the cloud you'd have that option to load what you want to listen to.....aka you would choose the playlist.
If netflix had that option for movies. Why would you spend thousands of dollars buying dvds when you can have it at a subscription price in the cloud?
DudeDah
Sep 5, 10:53 AM
Let's hope the video streaming is less interupted than that of AirTunes.
stealthboy
Sep 26, 10:15 AM
NooooO! Please, for the love of all things right in this world, just let me buy a phone, and THEN decide who I want to use as my carrier. I hate these bundling tactics. While it's not quite a trust (as in Sherman Anti-Trust Act) issue, it reeks of collusion. Especially with new technology, I need more choices, not fewer.
Boo. Shame on Apple for considering this. Just release your phone and LET THE MARKET DECIDE. How hard is that? I used Cingular many years ago and dropped them fast because their coverage in the D.C. area is pretty bad.
Boo. Shame on Apple for considering this. Just release your phone and LET THE MARKET DECIDE. How hard is that? I used Cingular many years ago and dropped them fast because their coverage in the D.C. area is pretty bad.
Maccus Aurelius
Oct 27, 08:49 PM
Just for the record, I hate greencepeace and everything they stand for.
Actually, it's not what they stand for that's the problem. the problem is their methods. They grandstand and make big a big stink, which completely destroys their credibility. im all for better components, but id never associate myself with those fruits.
Actually, it's not what they stand for that's the problem. the problem is their methods. They grandstand and make big a big stink, which completely destroys their credibility. im all for better components, but id never associate myself with those fruits.
Jamesbot
Mar 23, 04:47 PM
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
Whatever. Just because you're over the legal limit doesn't mean you're so completely smashed that you can't operate a touch screen device. Using an iphone is much, much easier than driving a car while intoxicated.
That said, I don't want to make this about whether or not drunk driving is OK. We all know it's wrong. At least I hope we all know it.
The way I see it, a group of politicians get together to conceive some non-issue, complain about something that is completely legal, in order to score points with their constituents and look like they're being tough on drunk driving. I guarantee you that these guys have driven home drunk just as much as the average person. Maybe I'm being cynical, but come on! Don't we have enough on our plate already with all the actual work we need to get done. Enough with the goddamned showmanship already!
Ask apple to take the apps down, who are you kidding?
Whatever. Just because you're over the legal limit doesn't mean you're so completely smashed that you can't operate a touch screen device. Using an iphone is much, much easier than driving a car while intoxicated.
That said, I don't want to make this about whether or not drunk driving is OK. We all know it's wrong. At least I hope we all know it.
The way I see it, a group of politicians get together to conceive some non-issue, complain about something that is completely legal, in order to score points with their constituents and look like they're being tough on drunk driving. I guarantee you that these guys have driven home drunk just as much as the average person. Maybe I'm being cynical, but come on! Don't we have enough on our plate already with all the actual work we need to get done. Enough with the goddamned showmanship already!
Ask apple to take the apps down, who are you kidding?
0 comments:
Post a Comment