KnightWRX
Mar 6, 01:55 PM
I think this is the key point for this argument. Apple, true, did not introduce the first touch screen phone. However, they blew the lid off the touchscreen phone market when introducing the iPhone.
One problem I see with Apple though is once they have their successful recipe, they tend to stagnate on it. That's when the competition gets the jump, starts innovating themselves and pushes ahead.
Android OS has gone through many changes and many people are now starting to feel iOS is getting dated. Android was first with true multi-tasking (iOS still lacks it even though it doesn't kill batteries on Android phones), copy/paste, augmented reality apps and they've implemented a much better notification system than Apple's near useless "block everything you're doing to answer this question".
Look at the MacBook Air, Rev A. They launched it, then basically forgot about it until the Rev D model which is now one of their top sellers. Will they stagnate there too ? A lot of people thought that "the future of Macbooks!" would actually translate in a few changes to other Macbook lines. It didn't. Look at the Mac Mini.
With the iPod, they were lucky that devices like PMPs were already very limited. As long as they played music, who cares what else they do. In computers, smartphones and now tablets, there is much more room for competitors to leap frog Apple and we're already seeing it as far as smartphones go. The once mighty iPhone is now finding its spot in the industry, comfortably sitting at #3 or #4.
One problem I see with Apple though is once they have their successful recipe, they tend to stagnate on it. That's when the competition gets the jump, starts innovating themselves and pushes ahead.
Android OS has gone through many changes and many people are now starting to feel iOS is getting dated. Android was first with true multi-tasking (iOS still lacks it even though it doesn't kill batteries on Android phones), copy/paste, augmented reality apps and they've implemented a much better notification system than Apple's near useless "block everything you're doing to answer this question".
Look at the MacBook Air, Rev A. They launched it, then basically forgot about it until the Rev D model which is now one of their top sellers. Will they stagnate there too ? A lot of people thought that "the future of Macbooks!" would actually translate in a few changes to other Macbook lines. It didn't. Look at the Mac Mini.
With the iPod, they were lucky that devices like PMPs were already very limited. As long as they played music, who cares what else they do. In computers, smartphones and now tablets, there is much more room for competitors to leap frog Apple and we're already seeing it as far as smartphones go. The once mighty iPhone is now finding its spot in the industry, comfortably sitting at #3 or #4.
Chundles
Sep 12, 12:53 AM
That's no industry setting price point. For that price you can buy the DVD. watch it, load it on your ipod and the sell it on e-bay.
G'Day Tangles, welcome to the boards. You're right though, US$20 is a lot of money compared to DVD prices.
Oh I hope you get the Tangles reference, otherwise I've just made a goose of myself.
G'Day Tangles, welcome to the boards. You're right though, US$20 is a lot of money compared to DVD prices.
Oh I hope you get the Tangles reference, otherwise I've just made a goose of myself.
Eidorian
Nov 16, 02:50 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86#Manufacturers
Hopefully Apple will stick with the best for now. (Intel) I've seen the promises AMD has but it's leaning toward 4x4 to compete with Intel. What's on the lower end for the average user when a Core 2 beats the pants off of what AMD has out.
Hopefully Apple will stick with the best for now. (Intel) I've seen the promises AMD has but it's leaning toward 4x4 to compete with Intel. What's on the lower end for the average user when a Core 2 beats the pants off of what AMD has out.
miles01110
Apr 22, 07:12 AM
That is because those who oppose will find themselves without the right to vote. :p :D
I will turn this thread into a PRSI faster than you can say "Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Kenyan!"
;););)
I will turn this thread into a PRSI faster than you can say "Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Kenyan!"
;););)
tinman0
Apr 16, 02:35 AM
Is the difference that Apple is more willing to talk to and play ball with the content providers? Is it that Google has "changing its demands"? Is it about technical concerns? Are the content provides trying to guess who the winning horse will be?
Haha, got to laugh when Google get a set back. As an executive a few months ago said about Google, "it's like negotiating with someone who is autistic".
At the end of the day, Google have tramped over the copyright of all the companies it's trying to get a deal from (think YouTube), chances are that it's also trying to negotiate better terms than Apple with little things like giving everyone else worse terms than them (think the books deal), and so forth.
And frankly, what do Google have to offer the record companies that Apple and Amazon don't?
So think about the autistic comment, think about the terms they will be looking for, and you have to conclude that there is no reason that to think the record companies want or need Google as a partner.
Google aren't bringing new subscribers so the chances are, Google are trying to bring prices down, which will ultimately cost the record companies money.
Haha, got to laugh when Google get a set back. As an executive a few months ago said about Google, "it's like negotiating with someone who is autistic".
At the end of the day, Google have tramped over the copyright of all the companies it's trying to get a deal from (think YouTube), chances are that it's also trying to negotiate better terms than Apple with little things like giving everyone else worse terms than them (think the books deal), and so forth.
And frankly, what do Google have to offer the record companies that Apple and Amazon don't?
So think about the autistic comment, think about the terms they will be looking for, and you have to conclude that there is no reason that to think the record companies want or need Google as a partner.
Google aren't bringing new subscribers so the chances are, Google are trying to bring prices down, which will ultimately cost the record companies money.
BRLawyer
Jan 6, 05:09 PM
Tks, MR...that's just what I wanted, after leaving work on Tuesday...NO SPOILERS!!! ;)
Les Kern
Apr 25, 02:20 PM
Pbbbt... Looks fake.
ozred
Mar 17, 06:18 PM
iPhone 4's are everywhere here in CA. They used to be unique, now the only comment is... "oh you have the one with a bad antenna."
Steve's denial might work for him and his lemmings, but the general public is more aware than any Apple enthusiast would care to admit. Me? I simply reach into my other pocket and show them my new HTC Inspire, those are the popular phones where I live.
Public perception overrides how the phone actually performs every time. It's human nature.
Steve's denial might work for him and his lemmings, but the general public is more aware than any Apple enthusiast would care to admit. Me? I simply reach into my other pocket and show them my new HTC Inspire, those are the popular phones where I live.
Public perception overrides how the phone actually performs every time. It's human nature.
Hankster
Apr 25, 12:18 PM
To better clarify what the arrows indicate, it may be beneficial to change the image into a thumbs up and thumbs down.
Ommid
Apr 25, 12:29 PM
Still edge to edge glass like the ip4 = more cracked & shattered screens.
The 3G(s) were better designed with that metal ring to take the pain of a fall
instead of hitting the glass on edge
Not an issue for most users.
The 3G(s) were better designed with that metal ring to take the pain of a fall
instead of hitting the glass on edge
Not an issue for most users.
aristobrat
Oct 6, 12:24 PM
So no, the upgrade to 4G will not cause spotty coverage.
True, but it's not like they're going to flip a switch, and suddenly all of the "red" on the Verizon coverage map (3G) is going to light up "purple" (or whatever color they use for 4G).
Verizon is going to be in the same boat AT&T is -- having to go out and touch each one of those towers... installing new equipment, upgrading backhaul circuits, etc.
Any new "G" coverage is going to start out spotty, and then roll out/fill in. If it's like prior rollouts, major population centers first, rural areas later.
True, but it's not like they're going to flip a switch, and suddenly all of the "red" on the Verizon coverage map (3G) is going to light up "purple" (or whatever color they use for 4G).
Verizon is going to be in the same boat AT&T is -- having to go out and touch each one of those towers... installing new equipment, upgrading backhaul circuits, etc.
Any new "G" coverage is going to start out spotty, and then roll out/fill in. If it's like prior rollouts, major population centers first, rural areas later.
VenusianSky
Oct 6, 12:47 PM
Before you pick a phone, pick a network.
This was the funniest part of the fine print. Too bad for Verizon that the customers they lost to AT&T didn't pick the network over the phone. Instead of fine print, they should make that their slogan. Too bad it won't matter. iPhone trumps call quality.
This was the funniest part of the fine print. Too bad for Verizon that the customers they lost to AT&T didn't pick the network over the phone. Instead of fine print, they should make that their slogan. Too bad it won't matter. iPhone trumps call quality.
glocke12
May 4, 07:53 PM
I, on the other hand, am very anti-gun.
However, even I got a chuckle out of the bumper that read, Guns kill people, like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
But then I thought about it ... spoons are eating utensils ... perhaps we should call guns killing utensils.
Are you truly anti-gun or have you just not been exposed to them so that you understand how fun it is:
1) Use a shotgun to shoot clay targets;
2) Shoot a rifle, pistol or revolver and realize how much fun it is to shoot a gun and hit your paper target, bowling pin or tin can;
There has been a person or two that when I met them claimed they were very anti-gun, yet I was eventually able to get them out to shoot some of mine and they not only enjoyed themselves, but one of them actually took up skeet shooting as a hobby.
However, even I got a chuckle out of the bumper that read, Guns kill people, like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
But then I thought about it ... spoons are eating utensils ... perhaps we should call guns killing utensils.
Are you truly anti-gun or have you just not been exposed to them so that you understand how fun it is:
1) Use a shotgun to shoot clay targets;
2) Shoot a rifle, pistol or revolver and realize how much fun it is to shoot a gun and hit your paper target, bowling pin or tin can;
There has been a person or two that when I met them claimed they were very anti-gun, yet I was eventually able to get them out to shoot some of mine and they not only enjoyed themselves, but one of them actually took up skeet shooting as a hobby.
Highland
Aug 2, 08:04 PM
Stop being such asses and realise that proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing for consumers and society. I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use.
Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame. We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time.That's just wrong on so many levels. I wish I had more time...
I dare you to try and argue against those points. Trust me, I've spent long enough in the music industry and observed all the DRM and copy protection stuff that's been happening since... well... a very long time (since DAT days etc).
#1 "proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing" -- So you don't want to have free interchange on products you own with content you've bought a license to play? I'm not saying we have a legal right to play the content where we like, I'm saying we SHOULD.
#2 "I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use." -- I think it'd be much better to have one DRM model for all. The idea of heaps of different online stores all selling music that only works with one or two devices is just insane. And if you think that wouldn't work because it'd be cracked... well, every DRM model can and will be cracked in time. They all suffer that flaw.
#3 "Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame." -- The DRM is there because labels want it, not because Apple does. Period. Don't even bother arguing about that one.
#4 "We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time." -- CDs won't be around forever. So what are we going to do when DRMed files are the ONLY choice? That's not an option I like to think about. We need to fight this right now or be in a whole lot of trouble.
Honestly, there's really not really a sane way to argue that proprietary DRM is good for consumers. There's quite a few ways to argue that it's morally not a good thing for society. There's also a few ways to argue that it breaches fair trading practices.
Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame. We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time.That's just wrong on so many levels. I wish I had more time...
I dare you to try and argue against those points. Trust me, I've spent long enough in the music industry and observed all the DRM and copy protection stuff that's been happening since... well... a very long time (since DAT days etc).
#1 "proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing" -- So you don't want to have free interchange on products you own with content you've bought a license to play? I'm not saying we have a legal right to play the content where we like, I'm saying we SHOULD.
#2 "I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use." -- I think it'd be much better to have one DRM model for all. The idea of heaps of different online stores all selling music that only works with one or two devices is just insane. And if you think that wouldn't work because it'd be cracked... well, every DRM model can and will be cracked in time. They all suffer that flaw.
#3 "Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame." -- The DRM is there because labels want it, not because Apple does. Period. Don't even bother arguing about that one.
#4 "We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time." -- CDs won't be around forever. So what are we going to do when DRMed files are the ONLY choice? That's not an option I like to think about. We need to fight this right now or be in a whole lot of trouble.
Honestly, there's really not really a sane way to argue that proprietary DRM is good for consumers. There's quite a few ways to argue that it's morally not a good thing for society. There's also a few ways to argue that it breaches fair trading practices.
Play Ultimate
Oct 3, 01:46 PM
This is a little disappointing that Steve is confirming to keynote MWSF 2007 when it's just October, which means he probably wants us to wait (I hope not). :(
Besides, hasn't Steve keynoted MWSF every year?
MWSF needs confirmation for thier marketing materials.
I still believe that there will be some type of announcement, on something, before Thanksgiving.
Besides, hasn't Steve keynoted MWSF every year?
MWSF needs confirmation for thier marketing materials.
I still believe that there will be some type of announcement, on something, before Thanksgiving.
mkrishnan
Sep 8, 06:29 PM
It was the french.
hate the french.
Sweeeeeeet! Thanks for clarifying! :eek: ;) :D
hate the french.
Sweeeeeeet! Thanks for clarifying! :eek: ;) :D
penter
Dec 14, 02:17 AM
EDIT: In other news, rumor has it that Apple and NASA are launching a series of iPhone satellites on December 26th that will support the iPhone-SAT which will have 100MBps speeds with worldwide coverage using a series of Apple-owned satellites and taking the carrier completely out of the equation. There will be no more carrier exclusivity, because there will be no carrier. Apple will sell the phone for $700 unlocked with no monthly service charge, but will require you purchase an annual subscription to MobileMe for $99 for service.
Sounds like an awesome business plan to me :cool:
Sounds like an awesome business plan to me :cool:
WeegieMac
Sep 28, 12:24 PM
Nice one, Steve ... he's worked for it.
We're here for a good time, not for a long time.
We're here for a good time, not for a long time.
anotherarunan
Jan 16, 05:43 AM
The Macbook Air will be like a one night stand with a hot looking chickie.
Once you get to know her better you'll dump her because of what's missing! :D
LOL :p
On a side note, was it me or did SJ seem different, almost duller yday? Something just didnt seem right, or are we all just feeling the effects of a MASSIVELY overhyped keynote.
Almost like when you hype up a big football (soccer for you yanks) game between two massive teams only to see a 1-0 scrappy win. You get a result, but its just not as exciting as you wished it to be, even though it was the most likely result.
Once you get to know her better you'll dump her because of what's missing! :D
LOL :p
On a side note, was it me or did SJ seem different, almost duller yday? Something just didnt seem right, or are we all just feeling the effects of a MASSIVELY overhyped keynote.
Almost like when you hype up a big football (soccer for you yanks) game between two massive teams only to see a 1-0 scrappy win. You get a result, but its just not as exciting as you wished it to be, even though it was the most likely result.
Bistroengine
Apr 5, 05:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
and I'm surprised at the angry people like yourself being so angry at another grown ups choice of words!who are you to tell me what i can and can't say?do yourself a favor and don't reply i don't suffer fools. think il quit this forum to many ignorant people
Well then, I'll do brogers a favor and reply on his behalf. I think you've again misinterpreted another persons emotions. I don't see that brogers is angry, he's simply disappointed at the number of forum members who resort to name calling and labeling when they don't agree with another's opinion. (Something I've been vehemently opposed to as well my entire life) Also, he is not trying to tell you what you can and can't say. The beginning of his post clearly states you can say whatever you want. Again, he's simply disappointed that ones right to freedom of speech on this forum usually ends with name calling. I find it highly ironic that YOU want to leave this forum because of too many ignorant people.
and I'm surprised at the angry people like yourself being so angry at another grown ups choice of words!who are you to tell me what i can and can't say?do yourself a favor and don't reply i don't suffer fools. think il quit this forum to many ignorant people
Well then, I'll do brogers a favor and reply on his behalf. I think you've again misinterpreted another persons emotions. I don't see that brogers is angry, he's simply disappointed at the number of forum members who resort to name calling and labeling when they don't agree with another's opinion. (Something I've been vehemently opposed to as well my entire life) Also, he is not trying to tell you what you can and can't say. The beginning of his post clearly states you can say whatever you want. Again, he's simply disappointed that ones right to freedom of speech on this forum usually ends with name calling. I find it highly ironic that YOU want to leave this forum because of too many ignorant people.
belvdr
Mar 11, 01:17 PM
Milestone 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0FtgZNOD44
Milestone 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftf4riVJyqw
Milestone 3 (the most recent):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBhYxj2SvRI
Any questions?
Links to Steve's presentations and nothing else, eh? If computing has changed, then why do we still have laptops and desktops? Even better, why does Apple still sell them?
At least you are following this statement perfectly :
I just look to Steve to see the trends in posting on Macrumors. Whatever the guy says, it means it will become defacto opinion on this site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0FtgZNOD44
Milestone 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftf4riVJyqw
Milestone 3 (the most recent):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBhYxj2SvRI
Any questions?
Links to Steve's presentations and nothing else, eh? If computing has changed, then why do we still have laptops and desktops? Even better, why does Apple still sell them?
At least you are following this statement perfectly :
I just look to Steve to see the trends in posting on Macrumors. Whatever the guy says, it means it will become defacto opinion on this site.
sanford
Jan 11, 06:31 PM
I have a problem with tv-b-gone users in general.
That said, I was laughing at the video.
Some people have screamed "sue!"
You have to be able to PROVE damages.
Not true, Marks. You have to prove damages to be awarded damages -- well, for the most part. But not merely to sue. To get a suit filed and avoid a summary dismissal, the civil standard is very easy to meet. To use a suit, or suits, to bankrupt Gawker Media in defending the suits, without ever being awarded actual damages, very possible, and an excellent corporate legal strategy.
That said, I was laughing at the video.
Some people have screamed "sue!"
You have to be able to PROVE damages.
Not true, Marks. You have to prove damages to be awarded damages -- well, for the most part. But not merely to sue. To get a suit filed and avoid a summary dismissal, the civil standard is very easy to meet. To use a suit, or suits, to bankrupt Gawker Media in defending the suits, without ever being awarded actual damages, very possible, and an excellent corporate legal strategy.
Detlev
Mar 28, 02:44 PM
When was the last time a standards setting, headline grabbing, everyone's gotta have it Mac application created?
tveric
Oct 9, 08:32 AM
But if iTunes' DRM was annoying to users, it never would have made it to 70%. Users absolutely care about DRM. But they're not aware of it unless it's too restrictive or inconvenient - if you give them *bad* DRM they will totally notice it and hate it.
Again - 70% of the DRM market, not 70% of all music obtained online. And that number doesn't figure in (obviously) any music obtained from a site like allofmp3. The legality of allofmp3 may be dubious, but there's an example of DRM-free music, that people are paying for (at a rate of .10 on the dollar, I'll grant you) - and it's trouncing any other pay service. I would continue to shop there even if they made the prices comparable to the itms, simply because I can be confident that once I purchase an album, I'll be able to play that album on any computer, any mp3 player, anytime, far into the future. Not so with the itms; you need an ipod and itunes, and while those are my current items of choice, who's to say they will continue to be my software and/or player of choice 5, 10, 15 years from now? I still have CDs I bought 15 years ago - I should be able to buy music now with the same confidence, that I can play it forever if I want to.
And by the way, before I hear the same wrongful accusations about how people are breaking the law by going to allofmp3 - guess what, they're not. Distributing copyrighted material is against the law - every single RIAA lawsuit was brought against someone for THAT offense, being that people were running Kazaa, or other p2p software, and naturally everyone is distributing while downloading. They haven't sued anyone for using allofmp3 simply because technically, it's not illegal to download music from them. Are the operators of the site in violation of the law? Yes - US copyright law, and they're not inside the US. I know it's a shock to some of you, but people not living in the US aren't subject to our laws.
Support your artists, not the record companies. Buy from DRM-free sites online and see the bands when they tour - that's where 90% of the bands make 90% of their money anyway.
Again - 70% of the DRM market, not 70% of all music obtained online. And that number doesn't figure in (obviously) any music obtained from a site like allofmp3. The legality of allofmp3 may be dubious, but there's an example of DRM-free music, that people are paying for (at a rate of .10 on the dollar, I'll grant you) - and it's trouncing any other pay service. I would continue to shop there even if they made the prices comparable to the itms, simply because I can be confident that once I purchase an album, I'll be able to play that album on any computer, any mp3 player, anytime, far into the future. Not so with the itms; you need an ipod and itunes, and while those are my current items of choice, who's to say they will continue to be my software and/or player of choice 5, 10, 15 years from now? I still have CDs I bought 15 years ago - I should be able to buy music now with the same confidence, that I can play it forever if I want to.
And by the way, before I hear the same wrongful accusations about how people are breaking the law by going to allofmp3 - guess what, they're not. Distributing copyrighted material is against the law - every single RIAA lawsuit was brought against someone for THAT offense, being that people were running Kazaa, or other p2p software, and naturally everyone is distributing while downloading. They haven't sued anyone for using allofmp3 simply because technically, it's not illegal to download music from them. Are the operators of the site in violation of the law? Yes - US copyright law, and they're not inside the US. I know it's a shock to some of you, but people not living in the US aren't subject to our laws.
Support your artists, not the record companies. Buy from DRM-free sites online and see the bands when they tour - that's where 90% of the bands make 90% of their money anyway.
