b166er
Mar 25, 10:46 AM
I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see iOS 5 offering us too much at this point.
I wouldn't mind a new map app- yesterday I got lost, my car GPS sent me on a goose chase, and my iPhone didn't help much.
I wouldn't mind a new map app- yesterday I got lost, my car GPS sent me on a goose chase, and my iPhone didn't help much.
Micjose
Apr 17, 12:30 PM
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q283/zwodubber/desktop.jpg
Man! I really like this one... :D :cool:
Man! I really like this one... :D :cool:
Deefuzz
Mar 31, 10:23 AM
Wow. I like that a lot.
Hopefully it will be priced reasonably.
Hopefully it will be priced reasonably.
applemike
Jan 29, 03:42 PM
I would like to untethered jail break my iPod 4g, I've read somewhere that it can be done if your on v4.2.1 using 4.3B2 as the kennel if you have the shsh blobs.
Are you using a PC or a Mac?
Are you using a PC or a Mac?
more...
ichaddy
Apr 26, 07:32 AM
Just been to Vodafone UK store in Paddington. They had two white iPhones ready to be sold on PAYM contracts, boxes on display. Looks like launch day is today!
jav6454
Apr 7, 08:16 AM
It's a release to patch up Pwnage. Simplie.
more...
zildjansg
Dec 26, 07:31 PM
http://i.imgur.com/8mc57.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/districtlines/designs/21032/ANDREWbaseball_mock.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/fnzlR.jpg
Lots of awesome shirts, some plaids (not pictured), a great jacket and two shirts from DistrictLines as well.
Wow!where can I buy that "BINKS" shirt?:D
http://s3.amazonaws.com/districtlines/designs/21032/ANDREWbaseball_mock.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/fnzlR.jpg
Lots of awesome shirts, some plaids (not pictured), a great jacket and two shirts from DistrictLines as well.
Wow!where can I buy that "BINKS" shirt?:D
gigaguy
Mar 16, 08:35 PM
I'm on iTunes 10.1.2 now. I have an iPad1 on 4.2.1 fw and jailbroken.
Tomorrow! I'm getting an iPad 2 on 4.3 fw which I assume requires iTunes 10.2.1.
Will iTunes 10.2.1 mess up my jailbroken iPad1?
Tomorrow! I'm getting an iPad 2 on 4.3 fw which I assume requires iTunes 10.2.1.
Will iTunes 10.2.1 mess up my jailbroken iPad1?
more...
FX4568
Apr 4, 10:24 PM
Phew. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Until you explained it so well I was really worried.
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
Lola M
Oct 6, 10:57 PM
Nothing fancy...my kid.
more...
WildCowboy
Oct 17, 08:23 PM
They're all different submissions...nothing wrong with that.
nospeed411
Dec 2, 09:29 PM
262497
I need the original pwease:D
I need the original pwease:D
more...
Moyank24
Apr 24, 01:17 AM
It'd be more appropriate to say he's letting the book do the talking for him.
Either way, linking some overused passage lends absolutely nothing to this discussion or any like it. So what's the point of reviving the thread with it? All it does is show that this person can't speak for himself (or herself).
Either way, linking some overused passage lends absolutely nothing to this discussion or any like it. So what's the point of reviving the thread with it? All it does is show that this person can't speak for himself (or herself).
Thanatoast
Nov 20, 02:11 PM
I'd prefer a flip phone, but I don't think Apple could squeeze all the needed hardware into the design. Either that, or we'd have people start thread about how the fan noise drowns out the call and the phone burns their ear :p
If it's gonna be iChat mobile, then they're gonna have to do AV. That'll be their added value. you can get a music-playing phone from anywhere. But a mobile video phone? You have to go to Japan. And if people can just carry over their iChat/AIM accounts, it makes it that much easier.
I know they've got mobile wifi phones now, do they also have combo phones? Thought I saw one once... Anyway, if it's a normal cell untill you move into range of an open network and then automatically connects to iChat, heck, why not?
I'm still looking for the smartphone angle more than any other, though.
If it's gonna be iChat mobile, then they're gonna have to do AV. That'll be their added value. you can get a music-playing phone from anywhere. But a mobile video phone? You have to go to Japan. And if people can just carry over their iChat/AIM accounts, it makes it that much easier.
I know they've got mobile wifi phones now, do they also have combo phones? Thought I saw one once... Anyway, if it's a normal cell untill you move into range of an open network and then automatically connects to iChat, heck, why not?
I'm still looking for the smartphone angle more than any other, though.
more...
akswun
Apr 29, 08:26 AM
Don't think so.... you're going to need a mixer to cue it up.
ECUpirate44
May 6, 12:23 PM
Click store, then available downloads.
more...
cankid96
Feb 23, 02:23 PM
Really like those changes. Finally an on/off button and the other thing sounds like a nice feature. Can 't wait to update.
EDIT: nvm
EDIT: nvm
stewie1
Apr 4, 11:37 AM
Apple needs to learn to work with publishers.
I spend about a third of my daily iPad time reading the FT every morning. If the app gets pulled or no longer works (because Apple insists on getting their cut of my annual subscription), I will make the very easy decision to get an Android tablet next.
Same goes for my Economist and WSJ apps. Combined, I probably spend 75% of my time on my iPad reading these publications. Take them away, and I'm gone.
My loyalty is to the publisher and the quality of their material. It is NOT to Apple. And one less iPad owner also means one less App store and/or iTunes customer.
Apple should tread very lightly here.
I spend about a third of my daily iPad time reading the FT every morning. If the app gets pulled or no longer works (because Apple insists on getting their cut of my annual subscription), I will make the very easy decision to get an Android tablet next.
Same goes for my Economist and WSJ apps. Combined, I probably spend 75% of my time on my iPad reading these publications. Take them away, and I'm gone.
My loyalty is to the publisher and the quality of their material. It is NOT to Apple. And one less iPad owner also means one less App store and/or iTunes customer.
Apple should tread very lightly here.
Autopulated
Feb 7, 12:28 PM
This photo isn't uploaded anywhere, but I have another shot of the same scene (http://peehs.deviantart.com/art/Just-Another-City-180820883) over at DA. :)
MacRumors
Apr 20, 01:25 PM
<p style="float:right; padding-left:1em;"><img src="http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/20/142332-iphone_retina_display_top.jpg"></p><a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-picks-toshiba-as-iphone-lcd-supplier-report-2011-04-19"><i>Dow Jones Newswires</i> reports</a> on claims from Japanese newspaper <i>Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun</i> that Apple has committed to invest in a Toshiba factory for iPhone LCD production, a report that also claims that Apple has abandoned a similar deal with Sharp for the displays.<p class="quote">The Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun reported that Apple now plans to invest only in Toshiba's new LCD panel plant currently under construction in Ishikawa Prefecture, central Japan.<br />
<br />
The report said that Sharp was no longer a candidate for Apple's investment.</p>The article notes that Sharp has issued a statement refuting the claim, reporting that the statement "contradicts the facts". Sharp even went so far as to issue an <a href="http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/110420.html">official press release</a> denying the claim urging the newspaper to withdraw the report and issue an apology.<br />
<br />
Last December, reports appeared just days apart claiming that Apple was planning to invest alongside both <a href="http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/13/toshiba-and-apple-to-invest-12-billion-in-factory-to-produce-iphone-lcds/">Toshiba</a> and <a href="http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/17/apple-and-sharp-building-1-2-billion-facility-for-iphone-displays/">Sharp</a> for iPhone LCD plants, with each facility said to cost up to $1.2 billion.
<br />
The report said that Sharp was no longer a candidate for Apple's investment.</p>The article notes that Sharp has issued a statement refuting the claim, reporting that the statement "contradicts the facts". Sharp even went so far as to issue an <a href="http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/110420.html">official press release</a> denying the claim urging the newspaper to withdraw the report and issue an apology.<br />
<br />
Last December, reports appeared just days apart claiming that Apple was planning to invest alongside both <a href="http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/13/toshiba-and-apple-to-invest-12-billion-in-factory-to-produce-iphone-lcds/">Toshiba</a> and <a href="http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/17/apple-and-sharp-building-1-2-billion-facility-for-iphone-displays/">Sharp</a> for iPhone LCD plants, with each facility said to cost up to $1.2 billion.
TantalizedMind
Apr 4, 09:56 AM
I hate AT&T with a passion. Yet, I'd never switch to Verizon because I'm hooked on 3Mbps + speeds. They're the crack of carriers.
AT&T is the worst company I have ever had. We dropped them 6+ years ago for a reason. They always tried to get away with charging a little extra on the bill.. Your a bajillion dollar company and you have to scam people out of extra money? Rot in HELL!
AT&T is the worst company I have ever had. We dropped them 6+ years ago for a reason. They always tried to get away with charging a little extra on the bill.. Your a bajillion dollar company and you have to scam people out of extra money? Rot in HELL!
eternlgladiator
Mar 26, 08:56 PM
EPIC. I hope the winner does get a refund but after a long drawn out process for being so slow. You always read everything on an eBay auction.
StayingOccupied
Apr 28, 05:16 AM
I have a droid.(had iPhone on ATT but didnt get coverage at work/home) I payed an extra $100 to get the 1 year commitment in Nov 2009 just in case the CDMA iPhone came out a year later. Well it did come out a year later and my verizon contract was up. But I didnt get it because it was the same 8 month old phone and there is 0 chance I am going to get locked into a 2 year deal in january for a 8 month old phone that I wont be able to trade in until the June release 2.5 years later.
I'm surprised they are surprised.
I'm surprised they are surprised.
marksman
Apr 21, 04:45 AM
This is an illogical comparison and does not give us any real information to go on.
Why?
They are comparing iOS Devices.
I don't think RIM and all the rest should be compared to iPad and iPod touch devices.
This is playing with the numbers.
What?
Then Android numbers should be disallowed from any discussion, because the fact that 200 devices made by 25 different companies containing 10 different versions of Android are not the same thing or related in any relative way. Android phones from the same manufacturers are barely comparable to each other.
Why?
They are comparing iOS Devices.
I don't think RIM and all the rest should be compared to iPad and iPod touch devices.
This is playing with the numbers.
What?
Then Android numbers should be disallowed from any discussion, because the fact that 200 devices made by 25 different companies containing 10 different versions of Android are not the same thing or related in any relative way. Android phones from the same manufacturers are barely comparable to each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment