Edge100
Oct 23, 09:17 AM
Success in not necessarily about accumulating cash. Far from it, in fact. A company that sits on huge piles of cash and does nothing with it, is not seen as managing their capital resources well. Many if not most financial analysts would argue that if the company is not investing their cash in future growth (and Apple decidedly is not), then they should give at least some of it back to the stockholders.
In addition to what I said above, dividends are a signal from the company that they're feeling secure about the future. Dividends, even token dividends, are a sign of maturity and stability. Hoarding cash is not.
I agree, the huge stockpile of cash is an issue. That's money that should be working for Apple, and IMHO that should be in the form of purchasing other companies that will strengthen Apple in key areas, like music distribution and/or audio/video/graphics production.
And I also agree with you on the dividend issue. A small investment of that money into dividends may have the exact effect as you describe. On the other hand, putting that money into new products/enhancing existing products, may do more for Apple's long-term health vs. providing a dividend to improve the 'optics' of the company in shareholders' eyes.
In addition to what I said above, dividends are a signal from the company that they're feeling secure about the future. Dividends, even token dividends, are a sign of maturity and stability. Hoarding cash is not.
I agree, the huge stockpile of cash is an issue. That's money that should be working for Apple, and IMHO that should be in the form of purchasing other companies that will strengthen Apple in key areas, like music distribution and/or audio/video/graphics production.
And I also agree with you on the dividend issue. A small investment of that money into dividends may have the exact effect as you describe. On the other hand, putting that money into new products/enhancing existing products, may do more for Apple's long-term health vs. providing a dividend to improve the 'optics' of the company in shareholders' eyes.
Xian Zhu Xuande
Jul 21, 10:27 AM
I'm a Mac raised the bar, this thing just pulls the bar down.
No, it raises the bar, because the bar was about as far down as it can get due to media attention and representation. Apple's decision, speaking from an advertising perspective, to demonstrate to people the attenuation issues present in all phones, seeks to strike out the negative that our mothers have been hearing about while the rest of the phone continues to shine for itself. Besides, what would the alternative be? Pretending the attenuation doesn't exist? What would be a representation of holding to the highest standard? Saying they're the best in this regard? That would be a lie. And they couldn't ignore the issue.
No, it raises the bar, because the bar was about as far down as it can get due to media attention and representation. Apple's decision, speaking from an advertising perspective, to demonstrate to people the attenuation issues present in all phones, seeks to strike out the negative that our mothers have been hearing about while the rest of the phone continues to shine for itself. Besides, what would the alternative be? Pretending the attenuation doesn't exist? What would be a representation of holding to the highest standard? Saying they're the best in this regard? That would be a lie. And they couldn't ignore the issue.
mclihah2
Oct 11, 12:11 AM
At this point, ill believe it when it happens
Well personally, I'll fervently believe in it, until it happens, at which point I will stop believing in it at all.
Well personally, I'll fervently believe in it, until it happens, at which point I will stop believing in it at all.
Al Coholic
Apr 29, 07:26 PM
It's really hard to screw up a simple UI "Button" but leave it to Apple to constantly assume their user base is stupid and can't manage a simple "click". Give us the ability to change themes if you want to the UI to look differently.
We promise not to kill ourselves.
We promise not to kill ourselves.
JAT
May 4, 10:54 PM
The iPad is soo ultimate in access, that you can't even access its file system...
...and the only professional work being done on iPads in meetings are trying to get to the last level in Angry Birds LOL
Aww, does the iPad scare you? See, bullies that take their **** out on others are just scared because someone is already doing it to them. It's sad, really. I pity bullies.
We should get some kittens for you.
...and the only professional work being done on iPads in meetings are trying to get to the last level in Angry Birds LOL
Aww, does the iPad scare you? See, bullies that take their **** out on others are just scared because someone is already doing it to them. It's sad, really. I pity bullies.
We should get some kittens for you.
CaoCao
Apr 15, 07:27 PM
From the article ...
After passage in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and singing by Gov. Jerry Brown, both of which seem likely, California would become the first state to make curricula include notable gay Americans along with the contributions of women and various ethnic groups.
Shaun Travers, a San Diego activist, told San Diego 6: "It's very important that we represent all of California and that includes the LGBT community. Our people and our history."
But opponents said the move would add non-essential material to already-short instruction time.
Hmmm ... they don't seem to share that same concern when it comes to teaching Creationism in science class. :rolleyes:
Honestly, there isn't enough time, we are rushing through WWII to know it before the CST. I also don't remember people pushing creationism in California
After passage in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and singing by Gov. Jerry Brown, both of which seem likely, California would become the first state to make curricula include notable gay Americans along with the contributions of women and various ethnic groups.
Shaun Travers, a San Diego activist, told San Diego 6: "It's very important that we represent all of California and that includes the LGBT community. Our people and our history."
But opponents said the move would add non-essential material to already-short instruction time.
Hmmm ... they don't seem to share that same concern when it comes to teaching Creationism in science class. :rolleyes:
Honestly, there isn't enough time, we are rushing through WWII to know it before the CST. I also don't remember people pushing creationism in California
!� V �!
Apr 29, 05:40 PM
iCal has taken a turn for the worse. I makes me uneasy. :(
maflynn
Apr 16, 07:48 AM
Good ideas never die, they just get pulled from OS releases.
http://www.macrumors.com/2003/10/08/pulled-panther-feature-home-on-ipod/
B
Indeed, not bashing MS, but they completely over promised "longhorn" and under-delivered when Vista was released. I think they learned their lesson and provide features that can actually be added in the time frame.
With the latest two releases (SL & Lion) apple isn't really promising too many features so it would be very disappointing to get one pulled.
As for the list, it looks very encouraging and exciting. win8 is still a ways off, but I hope to get a beta when its available.
http://www.macrumors.com/2003/10/08/pulled-panther-feature-home-on-ipod/
B
Indeed, not bashing MS, but they completely over promised "longhorn" and under-delivered when Vista was released. I think they learned their lesson and provide features that can actually be added in the time frame.
With the latest two releases (SL & Lion) apple isn't really promising too many features so it would be very disappointing to get one pulled.
As for the list, it looks very encouraging and exciting. win8 is still a ways off, but I hope to get a beta when its available.
ten-oak-druid
May 2, 07:57 AM
Are you just kidding?
Oh well I will just answer it just in case.:rolleyes:
Vista = version 6 :(
Windows 7 = version 7 :) No blue screen ever just in case anyone is wondering.
Windows 8 = version 8 :D When it comes out, 2015?
Actually I have seen a number of explanations on this thread from people who use Windows more than myself. The answer to why it is "7" does not seem to be well known even to Windows users.
Because it took them 7 years to get it right.
LOL. And counting.
Does that mean it took Apple 10 years to get OSX right? :p
Actually 10 comes after 9.
Oh well I will just answer it just in case.:rolleyes:
Vista = version 6 :(
Windows 7 = version 7 :) No blue screen ever just in case anyone is wondering.
Windows 8 = version 8 :D When it comes out, 2015?
Actually I have seen a number of explanations on this thread from people who use Windows more than myself. The answer to why it is "7" does not seem to be well known even to Windows users.
Because it took them 7 years to get it right.
LOL. And counting.
Does that mean it took Apple 10 years to get OSX right? :p
Actually 10 comes after 9.
virus1
Sep 12, 08:33 AM
s*** this is so exciting! im probably not the first one to notice that it says "the itunes store" not the itunes music store.... !!!
airforce1
May 2, 12:00 PM
Nothing is being removed they are changing the cache limit. And do you really think Apple is tracking 120+ million users....
unless you where asleep, every single device was tracked, whether or not Apple themselves collected the info is like asking if the CIA eavesdrops on every single US citizen, answer is no, but the history of the devices unique ID, locations can help connect via remote desktop and collect political views, which was what Apple is really been questioned about by Congress,
Who ever claims they have nothing to hide is full of BS, its not that you have anything to hide, access to the Unique Device ID can also help the perpetrator remotely use the device, internet, access bank and other private information with out the users knowledge, and they paid allot for the device unlike some of the free Social networking services who took advantages of bugs in the past until it was proven intentional to fish info too,
So until you accomplices prove what exactly was the purpose behind this with hardware and transitional data readings no one can say Apple is innocent, as it is they are due in court over year now and just mentioned today that they will respond to this, Maybe Steve was not sick after all and had a ball listening to Gates or Microsoft, or wall street taking the hike along with them.
unless you where asleep, every single device was tracked, whether or not Apple themselves collected the info is like asking if the CIA eavesdrops on every single US citizen, answer is no, but the history of the devices unique ID, locations can help connect via remote desktop and collect political views, which was what Apple is really been questioned about by Congress,
Who ever claims they have nothing to hide is full of BS, its not that you have anything to hide, access to the Unique Device ID can also help the perpetrator remotely use the device, internet, access bank and other private information with out the users knowledge, and they paid allot for the device unlike some of the free Social networking services who took advantages of bugs in the past until it was proven intentional to fish info too,
So until you accomplices prove what exactly was the purpose behind this with hardware and transitional data readings no one can say Apple is innocent, as it is they are due in court over year now and just mentioned today that they will respond to this, Maybe Steve was not sick after all and had a ball listening to Gates or Microsoft, or wall street taking the hike along with them.
Tillybug
Mar 17, 12:56 PM
I been a browser of this forum for years, but never posted many threads, Picked up My black 16g wi-fi iPad 2 on launch day at Best Buy. The store was chaos, and it turned out to be a very lucky day. I told the stoner at the register I wanted to pay some of the balance in cash and the rest with my credit card. He counted the cash I gave him which was $230.00 looked dumbfounded for a moment, printed out a receipt and handed me my bag, followed by are we cool? I said yes, walked out and could not believe he never asked for the remaining balance. Walked out with a brand new ipad for 230.00 Wow!! Now normally I'm honest about things in that nature, but I have been screwed by Best Buy so many times I looked at it as being payback. Picked up a green smart cover incase sleeve and a STM micro ipad carry on sling pack, an excellent iPad combo. Yes, there are some minor issues with a little light bleed but no device is perfect, and it's not going to last 5 years. Instead of looking for imperfections and little micro scratches in the aluminum people should have fun and enjoy the device. Hope everyone is enjoying their iPad 2, I know I am
You're a thief.
You're a thief.
LightSpeed1
Apr 17, 02:04 AM
Google is finding out just how difficult it is to negotiate with record labels. :pMy thoughts exactly.
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
Black And Hot Pink. hot pink
Special Brendon Urie
ryan ross rendon urie
.jpg "brandon urie girlfriend")
brandon urie girlfriend
Brendon+urie+and+audrey+
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
JBaker122586
Oct 6, 07:27 PM
Getting back to the actual advertisement. What self-respecting advertising professional would use someone else's tagline like that.
I had a few friends watching the football game (where we saw the ad) and half of them thought it was an iphone commercial because they were only half paying attention and heard "there's a map for that".
Pretty shoddy work in my opinion.
As an advertising professional with no prior knowledge of this ad, I can tell you that this advertisement was almost certainly pushed by the client rather than the agency. Clients often obsess about responding to competitors' ads, even when it's not the best decision strategically or creatively.
I had a few friends watching the football game (where we saw the ad) and half of them thought it was an iphone commercial because they were only half paying attention and heard "there's a map for that".
Pretty shoddy work in my opinion.
As an advertising professional with no prior knowledge of this ad, I can tell you that this advertisement was almost certainly pushed by the client rather than the agency. Clients often obsess about responding to competitors' ads, even when it's not the best decision strategically or creatively.
darh
Sep 12, 08:30 AM
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/win.html
bottom left of page
ow plz everyone, read the thread!:(
bottom left of page
ow plz everyone, read the thread!:(
UTclassof89
Jul 21, 01:39 PM
1) What isn't factored into your calculations is that because of its more-sensitive antenna, the iP4 was able to make calls, in marginal signal areas, where the 3GS showed no signal and was not able to attempt or receive a call... dropping any of these "never-before-possible" calls would reflect poorly on the iP4, and be included in the "< 1 call per hundred" more dropped calls by the iP4.
True, but a dropped call is a dropped call.
2) <1 per 100 more dropped calls by the iP4 than the 3GS. "< 1" can mean anything from, say, .0000000001 to .9999999999. Without knowing the real delta fraction it is difficult to base calculations on it.
We both know that's a crock. If "<1" was anything less than 0.8, Apple would have said "barely over one half of one percent". But they didn't. That means it's more like .97 or .98 (bet me an iPhone!)
3) The 3GS came into being with a plethora of available cases-- the iP4 with 1 case, that was in so short supply as to be non-available. Apple stated that 80% of the 3GSs left their store with a case. So, many 3Gs had 2 layers of antenna shielding, the 3GS plastic housing and an external case. The bulk of iP4s had neither-- 0 levels of antenna shielding.
Wow. Mr. Jobs, I didn't realize it was you.
The point isn't whether a case mitigates the issue--I have no doubt that it does. But Apple is spinning facts and pretending the issue is the typical attenuation issue other phones has. It isn't (otherwise the iphone 4's that left the store without a case would be dropping fewer calls, not more)
True, but a dropped call is a dropped call.
2) <1 per 100 more dropped calls by the iP4 than the 3GS. "< 1" can mean anything from, say, .0000000001 to .9999999999. Without knowing the real delta fraction it is difficult to base calculations on it.
We both know that's a crock. If "<1" was anything less than 0.8, Apple would have said "barely over one half of one percent". But they didn't. That means it's more like .97 or .98 (bet me an iPhone!)
3) The 3GS came into being with a plethora of available cases-- the iP4 with 1 case, that was in so short supply as to be non-available. Apple stated that 80% of the 3GSs left their store with a case. So, many 3Gs had 2 layers of antenna shielding, the 3GS plastic housing and an external case. The bulk of iP4s had neither-- 0 levels of antenna shielding.
Wow. Mr. Jobs, I didn't realize it was you.
The point isn't whether a case mitigates the issue--I have no doubt that it does. But Apple is spinning facts and pretending the issue is the typical attenuation issue other phones has. It isn't (otherwise the iphone 4's that left the store without a case would be dropping fewer calls, not more)
maflynn
Apr 22, 11:58 AM
How do you feel about being tracked and information stored without your knowledge? Oh wait, it's ok, Uncle Stevie knows what's best.
From what I've read, the police have known about this little feature for sometime and use it. So in a worst case scenario, Big Brother was watching.
From what I've read, the police have known about this little feature for sometime and use it. So in a worst case scenario, Big Brother was watching.
saunders45
Sep 8, 08:33 AM
It's a bit deeper then that though, he says
******* the police that's how we treat 'em
we buy our way out of jail, but we can't buy freedom
He's not just saying F the police just because they're the police.
(Jesus Walks)
God show me the way because the Devil trying to break me down
(Jesus Walks with me)
The only thing that I pray is that me feet don't fail me now
(Jesus Walks)
And I don't think there is nothing I can do now to right my wrongs
(Jesus Walks with me)
I want to talk to God but I'm afraid because we ain't spoke in so long
Did i miss something? Sounds like someone doesn't pay attention to their own music.
******* the police that's how we treat 'em
we buy our way out of jail, but we can't buy freedom
He's not just saying F the police just because they're the police.
(Jesus Walks)
God show me the way because the Devil trying to break me down
(Jesus Walks with me)
The only thing that I pray is that me feet don't fail me now
(Jesus Walks)
And I don't think there is nothing I can do now to right my wrongs
(Jesus Walks with me)
I want to talk to God but I'm afraid because we ain't spoke in so long
Did i miss something? Sounds like someone doesn't pay attention to their own music.
toddybody
Apr 5, 03:45 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha! What a joke:D
Veri
Oct 1, 03:55 PM
[Humanity] has a very long history of common people being subject to the will & whim of the rich & powerful & connected.
FTFY.
The USA exists precisely because some of those common people got tired of such treatment and made it clear they would do with their land what they saw fit.
You're just making history up. There is no allodial title to land in US law. There is no allodial title to land in Californian law. Where Jobs is and where I am, all land belongs to the government. Independence was from the British Crown, and while the US and/or its states might have had the opportunity to create absolute property ownership, today you have no recognition by the US and only a couple of states even considering it.
How [the past] gets in the way of the present & future.
There's enough space. But the eloquence of your argument would have been improved if you'd just quoted policy straight from 1984 :D.
FTFY.
The USA exists precisely because some of those common people got tired of such treatment and made it clear they would do with their land what they saw fit.
You're just making history up. There is no allodial title to land in US law. There is no allodial title to land in Californian law. Where Jobs is and where I am, all land belongs to the government. Independence was from the British Crown, and while the US and/or its states might have had the opportunity to create absolute property ownership, today you have no recognition by the US and only a couple of states even considering it.
How [the past] gets in the way of the present & future.
There's enough space. But the eloquence of your argument would have been improved if you'd just quoted policy straight from 1984 :D.
jhedges3
Oct 3, 11:23 PM
I don�t care as much about the Mac Phone any more. We�ve been talking about it for years. And with the exceptions of some phones that can play a song or two or three there has been nothing of the sort. Are we really supposed be filled with glee about an ipod that gets signal?
The level of interest on MR about the Phone (and many other things, new wireless, video pods, etc.) is clearly a reflection of consumer want for advancements in function and form. But again and again Apple never fully addresses these wants.
People on MR were probably buying into the early generations of the ipod. And although there were other mobile media devices that preceded them the ipods seemed like something different. That was October 2001 though. What has happened since? We�ve purchased other ones, which had more storage and different colors, but were the same thing. Do any of you see an end to this any time soon? Do you think the 6G and 7G will be anything but a little bigger and a little brighter? I know you want it to be, but will it be?
And this pattern goes for most of their other devices. Are the current Mac Book Pros much different than say a PowerBook G4 from several years ago? What functionality does the current MBP have that a PB doesn�t or can�t?
That�s only the positive side. The old PBs got crazy hot on your thighs. The new ones do the same. The next will do the same. The old batteries got terrible life after a few months of use. The new ones will be the same way.
Perhaps they have to sell to a broader base now, perhaps their focus is in large part on getting new people, converts. If that�s as true as it has seemed for a while now I�m ready for an Apple 2 to come. The idea wouldn�t be to supplant them. Apple 1 would be better than they are now at selling to the former Compaq buyers of the world. Apple 2 would give everyone on MR everything they want as soon as they want it.
The level of interest on MR about the Phone (and many other things, new wireless, video pods, etc.) is clearly a reflection of consumer want for advancements in function and form. But again and again Apple never fully addresses these wants.
People on MR were probably buying into the early generations of the ipod. And although there were other mobile media devices that preceded them the ipods seemed like something different. That was October 2001 though. What has happened since? We�ve purchased other ones, which had more storage and different colors, but were the same thing. Do any of you see an end to this any time soon? Do you think the 6G and 7G will be anything but a little bigger and a little brighter? I know you want it to be, but will it be?
And this pattern goes for most of their other devices. Are the current Mac Book Pros much different than say a PowerBook G4 from several years ago? What functionality does the current MBP have that a PB doesn�t or can�t?
That�s only the positive side. The old PBs got crazy hot on your thighs. The new ones do the same. The next will do the same. The old batteries got terrible life after a few months of use. The new ones will be the same way.
Perhaps they have to sell to a broader base now, perhaps their focus is in large part on getting new people, converts. If that�s as true as it has seemed for a while now I�m ready for an Apple 2 to come. The idea wouldn�t be to supplant them. Apple 1 would be better than they are now at selling to the former Compaq buyers of the world. Apple 2 would give everyone on MR everything they want as soon as they want it.
VictoriaStudent
Mar 17, 02:32 AM
:rolleyes: Good luck getting anywhere with that.
not trying to go anywhere with it. I don't particularly care what happens to our "friend." I just find his arrogance horrendous.
not trying to go anywhere with it. I don't particularly care what happens to our "friend." I just find his arrogance horrendous.
illitrate23
Jan 12, 04:51 AM
MacBook:
No comments:
Post a Comment