LagunaSol
Apr 16, 01:43 AM
Next up, Google gives away songs for free. Inserts targeted ads every 30 seconds of music. Fandroids flood the Web to tell us all how awesome Android and "free" Google music are and what a greedy jerk Steve Jobs is for selling songs.
You know it's coming.
You know it's coming.
justflie
Sep 12, 08:14 AM
Italian iTunes (Music) Store is down too, with the black screen.
and...i've found this http://www.apple.com/movies
Good catch, but someone found that yesterday or last night also. Apple must be getting SO much traffic right now...:p
and...i've found this http://www.apple.com/movies
Good catch, but someone found that yesterday or last night also. Apple must be getting SO much traffic right now...:p
Benjy91
May 3, 01:55 PM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Because now they're doing this, it's only a matter of time before they turn their heads to iOS?
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Because now they're doing this, it's only a matter of time before they turn their heads to iOS?
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:41 PM
Any one that proposes using diesel or gas because of the impact it "might" have on our national grid (which by the way depends on where you live, i.e. Nuclear power plants for California, renewable hydro-electric for Las Vegas, etc...) pales in comparison to incidents like... oh say... the GULF OIL SPILL!!! What did that cost so far? Tens of billions. Not to mention the amount of lives it has ruined! Wonder how many electric cars could have been made and powered over the course of a year on that bill?
I only propose using diesel or gasoline engine until they can be replaced or heavily augmented - and more particularly, I was advocating more efficent diesel cars because the fact is we are stuck with internal combustion cars for the near/medium-term. Some people seem eager to ignore the internal combustion engine entirely and jump straight to electrics, when in the meantime we could be drastically reducing fuel consumption. In reality we need to do both.
There is nothing renewable about Las Vegas, lol. ;)
Internal combustion engines should have died off over 50 years ago.
What would power container ships then? Or military vehicles used in the field? Or generators used in remote locations or as backups for hospitals? No, I think internal combustion engines will be with us forever, because they are very useful in many areas.
I only propose using diesel or gasoline engine until they can be replaced or heavily augmented - and more particularly, I was advocating more efficent diesel cars because the fact is we are stuck with internal combustion cars for the near/medium-term. Some people seem eager to ignore the internal combustion engine entirely and jump straight to electrics, when in the meantime we could be drastically reducing fuel consumption. In reality we need to do both.
There is nothing renewable about Las Vegas, lol. ;)
Internal combustion engines should have died off over 50 years ago.
What would power container ships then? Or military vehicles used in the field? Or generators used in remote locations or as backups for hospitals? No, I think internal combustion engines will be with us forever, because they are very useful in many areas.
eXoticon
Apr 15, 06:08 PM
i think it's ugly. i would not want my iphone to look like that.
asxtb
Sep 12, 07:34 AM
You'd have thought Apple could upload the new stuff to different servers then just switch them at the right time, are they trying to hype this up further!:p
Yeah. Steve, using is Powerbook G5, is here reading all these messages having a good laugh at all of our excitement.
Yeah. Steve, using is Powerbook G5, is here reading all these messages having a good laugh at all of our excitement.
Full of Fail
May 3, 04:14 PM
I'd still argue that communism isn't really open because it's a top down government, but in theory it is more open than it is in reality.
In Texas, people are so ignorant about different forms of government, I forget that other people are more educated.
I am still referring to pure communism, with no top down government. You are referring to the Leninist theory that has become what we commonly think of communism as, which has a vanguard party lead the proletariat. Unfortunately this is not the right thread to continue this discussion.
Back on topic... the bottom line is, does it suck to be charged twice for data? Yes, it does. Is it legal? Yes, you agreed to it, and if you were in the carriers shoes, you would do the same. As cited previously, it does make economic sense as the price for all of us would go up if they allowed it at no additional cost. Are you stealing when you circumvent paying? Yes, and whether or not that matters is up to you.
In Texas, people are so ignorant about different forms of government, I forget that other people are more educated.
I am still referring to pure communism, with no top down government. You are referring to the Leninist theory that has become what we commonly think of communism as, which has a vanguard party lead the proletariat. Unfortunately this is not the right thread to continue this discussion.
Back on topic... the bottom line is, does it suck to be charged twice for data? Yes, it does. Is it legal? Yes, you agreed to it, and if you were in the carriers shoes, you would do the same. As cited previously, it does make economic sense as the price for all of us would go up if they allowed it at no additional cost. Are you stealing when you circumvent paying? Yes, and whether or not that matters is up to you.
paradox00
May 3, 04:14 PM
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you. You aren't legally obligated to pay twice for that same 2 GB of consideration if you want to use a tethering app.
Any concerns carriers have with bandwidth use can be addressed through their data plans, which they have full control of. They are not within their rights to start dictating what apps can or can't access data on your phone. Even if tethering apps generate a lot of data use, charging specifically for tethering is just a stopgap for a larger problem with their data plan pricing structure. Tethering apps are just one type of many high bandwidth apps. Are they going to start charging for all of them? Do you think that's reasonable?
Today your wireless ISP charges extra for tethering, tomorrow it will charge extra to access Netflix, and perhaps later on, your local ISP will want in on the action and start charge per device connected to your router. This segmented path of internet service is not a path I want to go down. The moment data becomes more than just data, and becomes data by application or use, is the day that consumers lose.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you. You aren't legally obligated to pay twice for that same 2 GB of consideration if you want to use a tethering app.
Any concerns carriers have with bandwidth use can be addressed through their data plans, which they have full control of. They are not within their rights to start dictating what apps can or can't access data on your phone. Even if tethering apps generate a lot of data use, charging specifically for tethering is just a stopgap for a larger problem with their data plan pricing structure. Tethering apps are just one type of many high bandwidth apps. Are they going to start charging for all of them? Do you think that's reasonable?
Today your wireless ISP charges extra for tethering, tomorrow it will charge extra to access Netflix, and perhaps later on, your local ISP will want in on the action and start charge per device connected to your router. This segmented path of internet service is not a path I want to go down. The moment data becomes more than just data, and becomes data by application or use, is the day that consumers lose.
Mac-Mariachi
Apr 5, 04:22 PM
Apple I love you, and I love your products. I�ve been pro Apple since 1992
But I wouldn�t download this "app" even if you paid me.
But I wouldn�t download this "app" even if you paid me.
Lesser Evets
Mar 24, 03:17 PM
I used that "shaky public beta" and it was so bizarre at first. By Christmas I was hooked and ditched 9 from all my Macs as the prime-start up OS. iTunes was instantly brilliant to me, and I spent 4 days straight ripping all 600 cds in my library.
That was 10 years ago? Good God.
That was 10 years ago? Good God.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 6, 05:10 PM
If GM had listed the Volt for a good price they'd have a major hit on their hands. This way, it's just gonna die quietly, and then they'll complain about the world not being ready for hybrids. :rolleyes:
I doubt GM could have made the Volt much cheaper. Hybrids are as yet nowhere near as cheap as regular autos, and never will be, since they are inherently more complex. I hybrid requires between 1 and 4 electric motors plus the internal combustion engine. It requires both a fuel tank and a battery pack. It also requires a transmission that connects the electric motors to the wheels as well as the internal combustion engine (except in series hybrids of course). A regular ol' gas or diesel engined car needs only engine, transmission and fuel tank.
I doubt GM could have made the Volt much cheaper. Hybrids are as yet nowhere near as cheap as regular autos, and never will be, since they are inherently more complex. I hybrid requires between 1 and 4 electric motors plus the internal combustion engine. It requires both a fuel tank and a battery pack. It also requires a transmission that connects the electric motors to the wheels as well as the internal combustion engine (except in series hybrids of course). A regular ol' gas or diesel engined car needs only engine, transmission and fuel tank.
Angelo95210
Sep 13, 06:07 PM
I am looking for a friendly team, but I can't join F@H because I am using Boinc...
wmmk
Nov 16, 04:50 PM
Apple store updates turns out to be "HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE."
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=7B2A6F69&nclm=HolidayMain2006
i believe that was already up.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=7B2A6F69&nclm=HolidayMain2006
i believe that was already up.
mikelegacy
Dec 13, 12:25 PM
Haha, nope.
This is the company that released an EDGE phone as it's first model. No way they're jumping to LTE this early in the game.
Okay? But what 3G competition was out there at the time? There was no Android at that time. The iPhone was competing with Blackberry, and it was a MAJORLY different device. Now they HAVE to compete, so they HAVE to advance. Look for LTE in the next iPhone.
This is the company that released an EDGE phone as it's first model. No way they're jumping to LTE this early in the game.
Okay? But what 3G competition was out there at the time? There was no Android at that time. The iPhone was competing with Blackberry, and it was a MAJORLY different device. Now they HAVE to compete, so they HAVE to advance. Look for LTE in the next iPhone.
troop231
Apr 15, 08:09 PM
Heh, just because it looks fake doesn't mean we should rule out the fact that it COULD be a prototype. :D
Macky-Mac
May 4, 03:46 PM
No, we've had similar discussions before regarding a physician's willingness to treat someone due to their own personal religious beliefs, etc. and their response was quite different... the vast majority in that case believed that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not allow doctors to ask such questions or refuse to perform procedures they found philosophically reprehensible such as abortions... as if each physician in the country is some sort of robot working at the service of the government no longer allowed to think or reason on their own. But, now that it's about guns, they take a different approach. It's a very distinct hypocrisy.
nope; you've simply mixed up the issues and the responses
nope; you've simply mixed up the issues and the responses
rdowns
Mar 4, 01:12 PM
Okay, I've long suspected it, but this confirms it. You're just a very dedicated troll. No one, no one would take a poll that's seven-months out-of-date and try and pass it off as an accurate representation of current public opinion.
Wow.
Wow.
jayducharme
Oct 6, 10:32 AM
The only drawback for Verizon is that they still don't have the iPhone ... yet.
I like how the commercial gives a little taste of the coming augmented reality craze.
I like how the commercial gives a little taste of the coming augmented reality craze.
citizenzen
May 5, 12:25 PM
Oh wait, you may not even have the chance to ask, because now you're dead. He shot you because he felt like it, and there was nothing you could do to stop him.
Thanks for making my point.
The proliferation of guns in America makes it easier for people to end my life with a simple pull of the trigger.
Fewer guns would mean that fewer people would have that capability.
Thanks for making my point.
The proliferation of guns in America makes it easier for people to end my life with a simple pull of the trigger.
Fewer guns would mean that fewer people would have that capability.
goobot
Dec 13, 10:58 AM
ha!, no.
Geckotek
Jan 1, 03:34 PM
Forgive me if these two points have been mentioned as I didn't read the whole thread, but;
From what I'm hearing, the cell chip in the iPhone is capable of working on upgraded networks. Now, I don't know what that means as far as LTE goes because I haven't bothered to research it, but I do that it's based off of 3g (long term evolution). This may render the iPhone capable of using that network with no hardware specific changes. If anything, Apple may have to offer different firmwares per carrier.
No, the chip in the iPhone will not handle LTE. LTE, while being developed by the same group the developed HSPA, is NOT the same tech and requires all new hardware.
Also, the iPhone 4 is not capable of working on upgraded networks. It does not support anything higher than HSPA (does not support HSPA+)
The other point though, which is the most interesting to me in that it's so important and no one ever really mentions it, is that Verizon's network doesn't multitask. How ironic that the phone which was continuously bashed for not having multitasking in the OS was one of the only phones on the market that could multitask on the network. I'm gonna go out on a hunch here and say that Apple will NOT release an iPhone on a network that doesn't allow for calling and web browsing at the same time. Especially after they've worked so hard on getting application multitasking to work the way they wanted to. Apparently, the LTE network is supposed to take care of this, but we'll have to wait and see.
Lastly, Happy New Year everyone!
Verizon and Apple have at least 2 solutions they could implement to enable simultaneous voice and data on CDMA.
From what I'm hearing, the cell chip in the iPhone is capable of working on upgraded networks. Now, I don't know what that means as far as LTE goes because I haven't bothered to research it, but I do that it's based off of 3g (long term evolution). This may render the iPhone capable of using that network with no hardware specific changes. If anything, Apple may have to offer different firmwares per carrier.
No, the chip in the iPhone will not handle LTE. LTE, while being developed by the same group the developed HSPA, is NOT the same tech and requires all new hardware.
Also, the iPhone 4 is not capable of working on upgraded networks. It does not support anything higher than HSPA (does not support HSPA+)
The other point though, which is the most interesting to me in that it's so important and no one ever really mentions it, is that Verizon's network doesn't multitask. How ironic that the phone which was continuously bashed for not having multitasking in the OS was one of the only phones on the market that could multitask on the network. I'm gonna go out on a hunch here and say that Apple will NOT release an iPhone on a network that doesn't allow for calling and web browsing at the same time. Especially after they've worked so hard on getting application multitasking to work the way they wanted to. Apparently, the LTE network is supposed to take care of this, but we'll have to wait and see.
Lastly, Happy New Year everyone!
Verizon and Apple have at least 2 solutions they could implement to enable simultaneous voice and data on CDMA.
longofest
Oct 28, 04:50 PM
Folks, I think you are misinterpreting what the OSx86 project is doing (at least in this case)...
The OSx86 project is taking the Darwin and XNU source that Apple releases and making them so they can run on any x86 hardware. Basically, they are bringing back the functionality that Darwin and XNU had BEFORE Apple ported OSX to Intel, as the x86 versions of Darwin used to run on any x86 hardware until Apple started including a lot of EFI-specific commands (as well as some other things). If you download and compile the OSx86 source, you won't be able to get a full-fledged OSX user experience, because they have not circumvented Apple's TPM protections for the GUI. In order to get Aqua, you need to have the Aqua resource files (which you'd have to get from a OSX install CD), and you'd have to get the TPM keys, which would be illegal.
Also remember, Darwin and XNU does NOT EQUAL the full OSX user experience. Darwin/XNU is just a command-line operating system, as that is the only part that is open-source.
The OSx86 project is taking the Darwin and XNU source that Apple releases and making them so they can run on any x86 hardware. Basically, they are bringing back the functionality that Darwin and XNU had BEFORE Apple ported OSX to Intel, as the x86 versions of Darwin used to run on any x86 hardware until Apple started including a lot of EFI-specific commands (as well as some other things). If you download and compile the OSx86 source, you won't be able to get a full-fledged OSX user experience, because they have not circumvented Apple's TPM protections for the GUI. In order to get Aqua, you need to have the Aqua resource files (which you'd have to get from a OSX install CD), and you'd have to get the TPM keys, which would be illegal.
Also remember, Darwin and XNU does NOT EQUAL the full OSX user experience. Darwin/XNU is just a command-line operating system, as that is the only part that is open-source.
rwilliams
Mar 28, 02:36 PM
If you don't want the free publicity, then don't submit your app to the Mac App Store.
Of course, all the haters will cry foul.
What exactly is a 'hater'? Someone that disagrees with the company line? Someone with a dissenting opinion?
Of course, all the haters will cry foul.
What exactly is a 'hater'? Someone that disagrees with the company line? Someone with a dissenting opinion?
shadowbird423
Apr 8, 12:57 PM
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/funny-pictures-cats-see-what-you-did.jpg
Yeah because before Apple came to Best Buy, Best Buy was in a lot of trouble.
Give me a break dude.
Roasted.
Glad to see not everyones an Apple sheep..
Yeah because before Apple came to Best Buy, Best Buy was in a lot of trouble.
Give me a break dude.
Roasted.
Glad to see not everyones an Apple sheep..
