ugahairydawgs
Mar 18, 08:03 AM
How exactly are they able to tell if someone is tethering or not?
mgworek
Sep 12, 04:27 PM
wireless is useless for watching movies. I use my mac now to get videos from NAS servers and wireless doesn't cut it. I need to be going 100 or else it gets choppy. Unless they release a new wireless access point.
skunk
Apr 24, 05:05 AM
You all know that hockey has become important to me in the last few months since I started playing-it has changed me in ways I can't explain. It's made me a new person. It is that one thing I thought I could never do, and now at 44, I am playing with guys who are 21 years old and I freak them out. "Dude, no way, you are pretty damn good." I love that. :) I want to help other people do the same.Come on, Lee, you just enjoy spending your time surrounded by young, fit redheads guys. :)
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 10:55 PM
or vice versa for that matter.
Good point.
Good point.
shyataroo
Oct 12, 02:51 PM
I say screw the 8 core intel...lets get a dual-8 core G5 @ 4.2Ghz! with a seperate processor that dictates what operations goto what core to prevent the need for inter-processor communication! oh and make it a 128 bit processor with a built in Nvidia 7950 GX2 OC have it cooled by liquid nitrogen and have 1TB of DDR4 Quad-Channel Ram!
Alaerian
Apr 5, 06:00 PM
Don't read so much into it. Macs are perfectly capable of both copy/paste and Alt-Tab. However, Mac simply uses Command-Tab - Command is in the same place as the Alt key.
Under the Apple menu on the top toolbar, you can access both recently used programs and recently used files, just the same as in the Windows Start menu. It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Under the Apple menu on the top toolbar, you can access both recently used programs and recently used files, just the same as in the Windows Start menu. It's essentially the same thing, but better.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
takao
Mar 15, 06:46 AM
Factor in the Japanese culture where self-sacrifice for the good of their people is looked highly upon. I'd say there's a damn good chance they know their killing themselves, but will continue to work to their ends.
while the situation is very,very serious i think it's still on the level of a controllable risk to health if the operators are rotated enough/monitored and depending on exposure are protected with equipment
especially if radiation leaks are limited to very short time frames
it's still a far cry from the stuff what some firefighters/engineers did in 1986 to prevent worse
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
that is somehow baffling me as well: the heat should be dropping at a logrithmical rate after an emergency shutdown and thus within 24 hours the heat should have dropped very fast
yet today is tuesday and still cooling problems it just doesn't sound correct. might there some design deficits at work ? like control rods not really adequate sized? or is it simply because of partial meltdowns/damages inside the reactor ?
edit: getting really serious now: according to a japanese news outlet a reactor control room has been evacuated because of radiation
while the situation is very,very serious i think it's still on the level of a controllable risk to health if the operators are rotated enough/monitored and depending on exposure are protected with equipment
especially if radiation leaks are limited to very short time frames
it's still a far cry from the stuff what some firefighters/engineers did in 1986 to prevent worse
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
that is somehow baffling me as well: the heat should be dropping at a logrithmical rate after an emergency shutdown and thus within 24 hours the heat should have dropped very fast
yet today is tuesday and still cooling problems it just doesn't sound correct. might there some design deficits at work ? like control rods not really adequate sized? or is it simply because of partial meltdowns/damages inside the reactor ?
edit: getting really serious now: according to a japanese news outlet a reactor control room has been evacuated because of radiation
firestarter
Mar 13, 07:27 PM
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
Peace
Sep 12, 06:26 PM
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
I may be wrong but it has "composite out" not "component"
I may be wrong but it has "composite out" not "component"
firestarter
Mar 13, 08:37 PM
With cooperation it may not be as difficult as many think:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower
Superb. Replace one fuel reliance on the Middle East with another. Genius idea.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower
Superb. Replace one fuel reliance on the Middle East with another. Genius idea.
backinblack875
Apr 8, 11:03 PM
I hope they poach someone that likes BUTTONS.
WHAT?! the best thing about the iphone IS TOUCH!!!! NO MORE BUTTONS!!!
WHAT?! the best thing about the iphone IS TOUCH!!!! NO MORE BUTTONS!!!
iCole
Apr 6, 10:54 AM
I've switched in 2007 just because i was curious. No regrets but these are the things that I still think are annoying:
- Viewing/deleting files in/modifying/... zipfiles without having to extract them first. In windows, I could just mess around in zipfiles or rars with files. If someone has a good app for that, let me know ;-)
- Dragging a folder with the same name in a location with a folder with the same name overwrites it. Windows merges. I prefer merge.
- Making screenshots. Altho i prefer to have more options to make a screenshot on mac, I just can't freaking memorize the keyboard shortcuts to make one. I always have to google them.
- I also prefer the tree structure of windows explorer. I want to be able to drag something from one folder to another one without having to open either 2 finder windows or waiting for the folders to open by themselves. Drag and drop in MacOS is awesome btw but I would've loved the tree structure.
- resizing windows on only one side. (gets fixed in Lion, so yippie) What were they thinking? Maximize i don't mind. Its silly anyway to maximize a window on a 27 Incher ;-)
- If you install a program in the programs folder, and want to try and find it again: What I do is just sort them by date. But that doesn't always work. Also, the programs folder is a mess.
- Viewing/deleting files in/modifying/... zipfiles without having to extract them first. In windows, I could just mess around in zipfiles or rars with files. If someone has a good app for that, let me know ;-)
- Dragging a folder with the same name in a location with a folder with the same name overwrites it. Windows merges. I prefer merge.
- Making screenshots. Altho i prefer to have more options to make a screenshot on mac, I just can't freaking memorize the keyboard shortcuts to make one. I always have to google them.
- I also prefer the tree structure of windows explorer. I want to be able to drag something from one folder to another one without having to open either 2 finder windows or waiting for the folders to open by themselves. Drag and drop in MacOS is awesome btw but I would've loved the tree structure.
- resizing windows on only one side. (gets fixed in Lion, so yippie) What were they thinking? Maximize i don't mind. Its silly anyway to maximize a window on a 27 Incher ;-)
- If you install a program in the programs folder, and want to try and find it again: What I do is just sort them by date. But that doesn't always work. Also, the programs folder is a mess.
AppliedVisual
Oct 24, 04:38 PM
In three years they will have something much better, might as well wait!:p
Yeah, I'm not buying until the 32" 4K resolution monitors hit $1599. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I'm not buying until the 32" 4K resolution monitors hit $1599. :rolleyes:
mdntcallr
Sep 20, 12:36 AM
Sounds like a very cool device.
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:21 PM
Reading the comments about $299 being a pretty good deal truly makes me laugh. Ten years ago a system of such capacity would be > $50K and you're downplaying $299.
Grow some perspective.
This is the problem with low-low pricing. If Apple charged $40k, maybe all the "professionals" would be onboard!
I think it is great to see the simplification of the product line. FCE always seemed an odd product out.
This is the internet. People are more invested in their egos than in understanding each other, and since several people have chosen to put words in my mouth to attack me, there's no point in really trying to advocate for the product here. Let the haters have the thread, I'm out.
Grow some perspective.
This is the problem with low-low pricing. If Apple charged $40k, maybe all the "professionals" would be onboard!
I think it is great to see the simplification of the product line. FCE always seemed an odd product out.
This is the internet. People are more invested in their egos than in understanding each other, and since several people have chosen to put words in my mouth to attack me, there's no point in really trying to advocate for the product here. Let the haters have the thread, I'm out.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 01:53 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
You have nothing with no wind.
Even if wind farms were 100% efficient, they don't hold a candle to nuclear output.
Besides, we don't have room here in Japan for wind farms so it makes no difference.
Alternative energy is not a viable source everywhere in the world, plain and simple. That's all I'm saying.
I was trying to explain that then 30% number is you can count on 30% of the total out put nation wide at any movement in time.
I am not talking about some random wind turbine giving 30% of their out put all the time but when you have lot of turbines spread all over the country you can count on 30% of them.
As for a problem with nuclear power is water. They require a LOT and I mean a LOT of water per MW compared to lets say Coal. One of our current largest problem is having enough water to cooling and producing power.
You have nothing with no wind.
Even if wind farms were 100% efficient, they don't hold a candle to nuclear output.
Besides, we don't have room here in Japan for wind farms so it makes no difference.
Alternative energy is not a viable source everywhere in the world, plain and simple. That's all I'm saying.
I was trying to explain that then 30% number is you can count on 30% of the total out put nation wide at any movement in time.
I am not talking about some random wind turbine giving 30% of their out put all the time but when you have lot of turbines spread all over the country you can count on 30% of them.
As for a problem with nuclear power is water. They require a LOT and I mean a LOT of water per MW compared to lets say Coal. One of our current largest problem is having enough water to cooling and producing power.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 03:40 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
Sydde
Apr 25, 12:51 AM
At another website, other posters kept arguing that there were different kinds of theism and that agnosticism. My philosophy professors taught me that that atheism is the belief that there's no God, and that an agnostic would say, "I don't know whether there's a God. "
You can say that, although you don't believe that God exists, you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You can do that because you can suspend judgment judgment about theism.
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
You can say that, although you don't believe that God exists, you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You can do that because you can suspend judgment judgment about theism.
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
C N Reilly
Mar 18, 12:59 PM
I'm not worried about this. There's only two possibilities:
1) AT&T is just assuming anyone who uses more than X amount of data must be tethering, and shooting out threats. In such a case, all you have to do is call them and tell them you stream a radio station all day. They take you off the "evil tetherer" list; end of problem. (I've already seen two people post elsewhere that this has worked for them.)
2) There actually is something in the software/firmware that's enabling AT&T to tell who's tethering. In this case, the jailbreakers will just add some code to the next release to block or fool that bit of code. End of problem.
All signs thus far point to (1) being the truth, btw.
1) AT&T is just assuming anyone who uses more than X amount of data must be tethering, and shooting out threats. In such a case, all you have to do is call them and tell them you stream a radio station all day. They take you off the "evil tetherer" list; end of problem. (I've already seen two people post elsewhere that this has worked for them.)
2) There actually is something in the software/firmware that's enabling AT&T to tell who's tethering. In this case, the jailbreakers will just add some code to the next release to block or fool that bit of code. End of problem.
All signs thus far point to (1) being the truth, btw.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 07:20 PM
Oh it's a competitor for sure, but doesn't measure up in terms of market and mind share. Can you do all of the above without interfacing with your computer? That's what I thought...
No I cannot. I currently need the computer.
My bet is on the USB dongle which is sure to follow just like those for the xBox.
No I cannot. I currently need the computer.
My bet is on the USB dongle which is sure to follow just like those for the xBox.
PittAir
Apr 20, 11:11 PM
Ask yourself what you do with your phone.
Not the occasional "I've got to reprogram my companies IT network on the fly" (yeah right), but what you really do day in and day out. Think of the ease of getting apps that you need when you need and think of them, and think of the stability of those apps.
Now think of your parents and what they do with their phone. What they really need, and how many times they call you with tech questions.
Apple has thought these issues through pretty hard. Has Google with Android? Has Microsoft with WM7?
For the advanced techie 0.05% of the population (the kind of guys who post on this board), it probably doesn't make a difference, and the ability to customize and probe the system may be more important.
By focusing on controlling and optimizing the user experience of the individual for the average person over focusing on "spec wars," Apple is cleaning their competitor's clocks. They will continue to do so, since this is a corporate ethos of Apple from the very beginning.
MS was great for the era of the centralized IT professional, which is now ending, as is MS dominance. Google is the world's greatest information aggregator, for which they will reap trillions into the future.
Apple, however, will continue to dominate as it gets better and better at Steve Jobs 30 year old vision of optimizing the user experience of computing to the maximum extent.
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
Not the occasional "I've got to reprogram my companies IT network on the fly" (yeah right), but what you really do day in and day out. Think of the ease of getting apps that you need when you need and think of them, and think of the stability of those apps.
Now think of your parents and what they do with their phone. What they really need, and how many times they call you with tech questions.
Apple has thought these issues through pretty hard. Has Google with Android? Has Microsoft with WM7?
For the advanced techie 0.05% of the population (the kind of guys who post on this board), it probably doesn't make a difference, and the ability to customize and probe the system may be more important.
By focusing on controlling and optimizing the user experience of the individual for the average person over focusing on "spec wars," Apple is cleaning their competitor's clocks. They will continue to do so, since this is a corporate ethos of Apple from the very beginning.
MS was great for the era of the centralized IT professional, which is now ending, as is MS dominance. Google is the world's greatest information aggregator, for which they will reap trillions into the future.
Apple, however, will continue to dominate as it gets better and better at Steve Jobs 30 year old vision of optimizing the user experience of computing to the maximum extent.
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
IgnatiusTheKing
Aug 25, 01:25 PM
:d
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:31 AM
By that definition, the internal combustion engine is nothing but a fad. I think maybe you're just not familiar with what the word "fad" actually means Check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fad
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
–noun
a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
–noun
a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
No comments:
Post a Comment