Lord Blackadder
Aug 4, 11:41 AM
We should have had electric cars for short-haul 20 years ago.
Practical electric cars have been manufactured and sold for over 100 years. However, petroluem fueled cars have always offered longer range, more power, and generally lower cost. For short-haul runabouts the electric car has been available as an alternative almost as long as the car itself has existed.
EDIT: The price-gouging on the Volt is highly unproductive. The point of the Volt is to build and sell a practical, affordable series hybrid - the MSRP is already very high, so the gouging just makes the car unattainably expensive.
Practical electric cars have been manufactured and sold for over 100 years. However, petroluem fueled cars have always offered longer range, more power, and generally lower cost. For short-haul runabouts the electric car has been available as an alternative almost as long as the car itself has existed.
EDIT: The price-gouging on the Volt is highly unproductive. The point of the Volt is to build and sell a practical, affordable series hybrid - the MSRP is already very high, so the gouging just makes the car unattainably expensive.
saving107
Mar 17, 01:03 AM
Continue to justify yourself, don't worry, your not the bad guy here, Best Buy is.
And as much as you hate them, you continue to give them your business and use their Reward Zone service.
And as much as you hate them, you continue to give them your business and use their Reward Zone service.
TheWheelMan
Mar 17, 12:53 PM
Really VictoriaStudent, lol I agree with BForstal on what people would do in the same situation 100 percent, and I'm not trying to brag about anything, and I cant even believe this thread has reached 3 pages. Sec I have no reason to troll!!! I have been a member of this forum since and even though I have never really posted anything I have found wealth of knowledge over the years from people in these forums. Wow and you cannot judge a person's character by a mistake a cashier made in a store!!! Like I said everybody is entitled to there own opinion, If you were to make note of the mistake to the store if it happened to you and it makes you feel so highly above any one else, more power to you. As far as I'm concerned this is one time I actually got a break on a apple product.
You're probably right, but the difference is that most would either have enough of a guilty conscience, or at least enough fear of getting busted, to NOT go telling it in a public forum and then copping some sort of superior attitude over it when criticized about it.
By knowingly taking it you did in fact break the law, and now you've publicly incriminated yourself to boot. Your morality is unfair to question given how the majority of people may have done the same thing (Meaning, "Who are we to judge?"). Your stupidity, however, is quite evident, and those are the ones who usually end up paying for their crimes one way or another. Karma is, in fact, a b@tch. Especially when you paint a bullseye on your @ss and dare it to strike you down.
You're probably right, but the difference is that most would either have enough of a guilty conscience, or at least enough fear of getting busted, to NOT go telling it in a public forum and then copping some sort of superior attitude over it when criticized about it.
By knowingly taking it you did in fact break the law, and now you've publicly incriminated yourself to boot. Your morality is unfair to question given how the majority of people may have done the same thing (Meaning, "Who are we to judge?"). Your stupidity, however, is quite evident, and those are the ones who usually end up paying for their crimes one way or another. Karma is, in fact, a b@tch. Especially when you paint a bullseye on your @ss and dare it to strike you down.
Meanee
Mar 17, 12:28 PM
Nice. Too bad some kid is going to have $300 docked from his pay...
I believe labor laws say that this is illegal, he won't have to reimburse the store. Don't think they will flat out fire him, but it's a "one more time you are missing even a cent, your ass it outta here" type of deal. If he ever made a mistake in past, they can give him the boot as well. Best Buy is not corner drug store. The pinch of losing 300 bucks for them is not as bad. But the kid might easily be out of the job very soon.
I believe labor laws say that this is illegal, he won't have to reimburse the store. Don't think they will flat out fire him, but it's a "one more time you are missing even a cent, your ass it outta here" type of deal. If he ever made a mistake in past, they can give him the boot as well. Best Buy is not corner drug store. The pinch of losing 300 bucks for them is not as bad. But the kid might easily be out of the job very soon.
*LTD*
Mar 15, 09:45 PM
Apple products look unique from the outside, but in reality they are the same devices others have but in different packages.
Which makes all the difference. Night and day. As far as anyone is concerned, making tech usable and desirable to that degree is pretty innovative.
Which makes all the difference. Night and day. As far as anyone is concerned, making tech usable and desirable to that degree is pretty innovative.
AidenShaw
Nov 16, 08:50 PM
That would mean we'd have to pay more for intel machines. intel is giving apple big discounts for not using AMD at all.
This statement and variations, are repeated so often that they're taken for fact - but is there any corroboration of this from any source whatsoever?
I didn't think so....
Considering the anti-trust climate, the most that is likely is that there is an short term agreement that in return for the engineering help that Intel is giving Apple - Apple agrees to use only Intel chips.
Considering Apple's volume, their "discount" is probably very similar to what the other top 10 Intel OEMs are paying.
Intel can't afford to p#ss off their other OEMs by giving Apple preferential treatment for pricing and availability - but Intel can give Apple special help in the engineering area.
Apple could choose to give up the engineering support and use AMD chips whenever the agreement is up for renewal. But, as many have said, Intel's chips (and roadmap) are far better than AMD's roadmap right now....
This statement and variations, are repeated so often that they're taken for fact - but is there any corroboration of this from any source whatsoever?
I didn't think so....
Considering the anti-trust climate, the most that is likely is that there is an short term agreement that in return for the engineering help that Intel is giving Apple - Apple agrees to use only Intel chips.
Considering Apple's volume, their "discount" is probably very similar to what the other top 10 Intel OEMs are paying.
Intel can't afford to p#ss off their other OEMs by giving Apple preferential treatment for pricing and availability - but Intel can give Apple special help in the engineering area.
Apple could choose to give up the engineering support and use AMD chips whenever the agreement is up for renewal. But, as many have said, Intel's chips (and roadmap) are far better than AMD's roadmap right now....
kdarling
Oct 22, 07:06 AM
For all of you touting one carrier over another check these maps out.
Thanks. However, that site doesn't seem to update its information. Some of it dates back at least five years.
For example, I looked around my area, and most of the well known dead zones marked on the map were resolved a few years ago with new towers.
Thanks. However, that site doesn't seem to update its information. Some of it dates back at least five years.
For example, I looked around my area, and most of the well known dead zones marked on the map were resolved a few years ago with new towers.
princealfie
Nov 16, 02:35 PM
Perhaps we can choose between AMD and Intel? more options on the table.
skunk
Apr 27, 01:00 PM
I'll admit defeat on the following condition: Show me one quote of where I spoke ill of, demanded different rules for, or generally disparaged transgendered people.Post #70.
MacBoobsPro
Nov 16, 07:57 AM
I go on how good their logo is...
...they must be way off.
...they must be way off.
cmaier
Apr 5, 04:28 PM
I'm going to start a TV channel that only shows commercials.
mmcc
Mar 29, 08:46 AM
Yes, the App Store can give you exposure, but you still have to market and sell your solution for people to find you or want you. Plus, the AppStore is one outlet and your other outlets should never be abandoned.
Yes, but you can't have it both ways. A successful Mac App Store from your perspective means more Apple customers use it to find apps. In my experience to date, this means those other "outlets" become less and less profitable. Marketing is a numbers game and a major disruption like the Mac App Store can quickly shift those numbers to the negative. In my case it is no longer profitable to maintain some of those "other outlets".
Here's a specific example: Google AdWords. Before the Mac App Store opened, many customers gravitated first to Google search to find an app. I would pay for AdWords placement and if I got a click-through I could be assured that my website exclusively captured the attention. Yes, my app still had to be good enough to capture a sale but at least there were no other competitors there -- and no freebie alternatives (except for demos/trials).
The same strategy no longer works with the Mac App Store. First, the traffic in Google search is reduced as more Apple customers gravitate to the Mac App Store first. My conversions costs showed a clear trend upward as soon as the Mac App Store opened (other competitors in my app space have also dropped away from AdWords indicating similar escalating conversion costs). Furthermore, if I try to drive customers to the Mac App Store to buy, to increase my exposure therein, I incur the AdWord conversion costs, plus the 30% to Apple and a reduced price in the Mac App Store to compete in the race to the bottom. Clearly AdWords is a losing strategy in this case.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced.
That's fine if the volume was worthwhile. What I am saying is that impulse buy volume is NOT there at any price to even approach what I was making in my market space before. I've been in the #1 spot for my category and it was not a windfall.
I say again, the Mac App Store has depressed the sales volume and gross in my category for everyone. This is not a success in the sense of encouraging a vibrant and growing Mac software market. I felt that before the Mac App Store opened that the Mac software market was reaching a critical mass and that developers found it increasingly attractive. The Mac App Store has crushed that IMO and I am not sure it will return unless Apple makes huge percentage gains in the traditional PC market (and recent trends show it is leveling off).
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
How exactly would you suggest to market in the Mac App Store? I can't buy ad placement. Lowering my price to 99 cents hasn't given me exposure. I need some (ethical) ideas. :p
Yes, but you can't have it both ways. A successful Mac App Store from your perspective means more Apple customers use it to find apps. In my experience to date, this means those other "outlets" become less and less profitable. Marketing is a numbers game and a major disruption like the Mac App Store can quickly shift those numbers to the negative. In my case it is no longer profitable to maintain some of those "other outlets".
Here's a specific example: Google AdWords. Before the Mac App Store opened, many customers gravitated first to Google search to find an app. I would pay for AdWords placement and if I got a click-through I could be assured that my website exclusively captured the attention. Yes, my app still had to be good enough to capture a sale but at least there were no other competitors there -- and no freebie alternatives (except for demos/trials).
The same strategy no longer works with the Mac App Store. First, the traffic in Google search is reduced as more Apple customers gravitate to the Mac App Store first. My conversions costs showed a clear trend upward as soon as the Mac App Store opened (other competitors in my app space have also dropped away from AdWords indicating similar escalating conversion costs). Furthermore, if I try to drive customers to the Mac App Store to buy, to increase my exposure therein, I incur the AdWord conversion costs, plus the 30% to Apple and a reduced price in the Mac App Store to compete in the race to the bottom. Clearly AdWords is a losing strategy in this case.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced.
That's fine if the volume was worthwhile. What I am saying is that impulse buy volume is NOT there at any price to even approach what I was making in my market space before. I've been in the #1 spot for my category and it was not a windfall.
I say again, the Mac App Store has depressed the sales volume and gross in my category for everyone. This is not a success in the sense of encouraging a vibrant and growing Mac software market. I felt that before the Mac App Store opened that the Mac software market was reaching a critical mass and that developers found it increasingly attractive. The Mac App Store has crushed that IMO and I am not sure it will return unless Apple makes huge percentage gains in the traditional PC market (and recent trends show it is leveling off).
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
How exactly would you suggest to market in the Mac App Store? I can't buy ad placement. Lowering my price to 99 cents hasn't given me exposure. I need some (ethical) ideas. :p
dscuber9000
Apr 15, 04:45 PM
Google is finding out just how difficult it is to negotiate with record labels. :p
NebulaClash
May 4, 08:46 AM
That one thing that I don't see is Google sponsored Android commercials... they are not promoting their own product like MS did with Windows and are leaving each hardware manufacturer to make up their own image. All of this gives the average consumer a confusing, scattered message of the Android OS.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
Dr Kevorkian94
Sep 28, 06:00 PM
he can control everything from his ipad and his iphone, he will be so happy with the house we cant have. but in all seriousness that is awesome but i wonder if it will be technological, and everything will run on ios. lol
Eric5h5
Mar 24, 09:11 PM
Downhill since Tiger.
No, I'd say Snow Leopard is about 80% better than Tiger and 20% worse. I mostly skipped over Leopard, and went from 10.4 on a G5 to 10.6 on a Mac Pro. There are quite a number of improvements all over the place that show it's clearly the result of taking a look at earlier versions and saying "wouldn't it be better if...", and then acting on it. There are a few steps backwards though, the biggest one for me being the incomprehensible mutilating of Expos�. Fortunately there's a nice hack which restores the correct behavior (and makes the dock look better), but it's a little annoying to have to re-apply that after every update.
--Eric
No, I'd say Snow Leopard is about 80% better than Tiger and 20% worse. I mostly skipped over Leopard, and went from 10.4 on a G5 to 10.6 on a Mac Pro. There are quite a number of improvements all over the place that show it's clearly the result of taking a look at earlier versions and saying "wouldn't it be better if...", and then acting on it. There are a few steps backwards though, the biggest one for me being the incomprehensible mutilating of Expos�. Fortunately there's a nice hack which restores the correct behavior (and makes the dock look better), but it's a little annoying to have to re-apply that after every update.
--Eric
Th0ughtcrime
Apr 4, 08:31 AM
Ugh, good luck man...
tbrinkma
Oct 6, 03:02 PM
The 30% figure was for users in the NYC METRO area. People just don't read anything anymore except snippets and headlines.
Also, very recently another frequency spectrum was rolled out in certain markets, Including NYC which should improve performance.
Verizon has its own problems too. And iphone users actually surf the net lol.
More than that, the 30% figure was for *one* user in the NYC METRO area. The tech support response in question was from an *APPLE* tech, commenting that the hardware of the phone itself appeared to be operating within expected parameters. The user was complaining about a high level of dropped calls. There didn't appear to be anything from AT&T, much less a statement that 30% dropped calls is normal or expected.
Also, very recently another frequency spectrum was rolled out in certain markets, Including NYC which should improve performance.
Verizon has its own problems too. And iphone users actually surf the net lol.
More than that, the 30% figure was for *one* user in the NYC METRO area. The tech support response in question was from an *APPLE* tech, commenting that the hardware of the phone itself appeared to be operating within expected parameters. The user was complaining about a high level of dropped calls. There didn't appear to be anything from AT&T, much less a statement that 30% dropped calls is normal or expected.
tdhurst
Jan 12, 09:27 PM
So gizmodo is responsible for this how? Questioning what makes an online a journalist a journalist and not just a fan site has been going on for some time (aka: before gizmodo turned off a bunch of TVs). You're just scapegoating an easy target. If you have a problem with the conferences and expos limiting press to only a few big names go after that. Not after guys who like to prank people. You'll change nothing by attacking gizmodo.
I think what he is trying to say here is that we're all pissed at Gizmodo for possibly lending legitimacy to big media claims that online-only or blogger sites aren't real journalists, but rather fan sites. I'm not saying that everyone will think this, but the majority of the less-involved public could be swayed.
Pranks like this by Gizmodo just give them false credibility to their incorrect claims.
I would argue that many people lump all blogger sites into one group, neglecting to admit there are great differences from site to site. Right now, because these new players are not complete accepted yet, anything done by one has repercussions on everyone.
I think what he is trying to say here is that we're all pissed at Gizmodo for possibly lending legitimacy to big media claims that online-only or blogger sites aren't real journalists, but rather fan sites. I'm not saying that everyone will think this, but the majority of the less-involved public could be swayed.
Pranks like this by Gizmodo just give them false credibility to their incorrect claims.
I would argue that many people lump all blogger sites into one group, neglecting to admit there are great differences from site to site. Right now, because these new players are not complete accepted yet, anything done by one has repercussions on everyone.
lewis82
Apr 12, 08:22 PM
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/571/dtbinfinity.jpg
Great album from Devin Townsend :)
Great album from Devin Townsend :)
MacRumors
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/15/questionable-next-generation-iphone-rear-shell-images-surface/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/15/130851-iphone_shell_1_500.jpg
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/15/130851-iphone_shell_1_500.jpg
PinkyMacGodess
Oct 6, 09:23 PM
Well if Verizon hadn't been so crazy to try to corn hole Apple over the features of the iPhone and cause Apple to walk from the discussions, it would be a nearly bankrupt AT&T with their nose pressed against the glass saying that the iPhone sucks...
Sure, I have issues with AT&T's service. Sure there are times when I use AT&T's name in vain. I swore more when I found out that my Verizon phone with bluetooth would have more features on someone elses cell phone network and that the 'brain drain' at Verizon ordered certain features removed from the phone on their network! Yeah, Verizon has ZERO room to talk. They coulda had the iPhone... Hah!
Sure, I have issues with AT&T's service. Sure there are times when I use AT&T's name in vain. I swore more when I found out that my Verizon phone with bluetooth would have more features on someone elses cell phone network and that the 'brain drain' at Verizon ordered certain features removed from the phone on their network! Yeah, Verizon has ZERO room to talk. They coulda had the iPhone... Hah!
bluewire
Mar 23, 05:26 PM
bump...TELL US WHAT HAPPENED! CSI: Mac Rumors! :confused:
Eidorian
Sep 12, 08:27 AM
I hope we can get 10.4.8 too. :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment