abhimat.gautam
Mar 31, 12:04 AM
Urgh, new iCal really is horrible.
Does the realistic texture show up only in full screen mode, or is it that way all the time? In a window, I think it might be distracting, but in full screen, I don't think I would mind it.
Does the realistic texture show up only in full screen mode, or is it that way all the time? In a window, I think it might be distracting, but in full screen, I don't think I would mind it.
Will_reed
Jul 18, 02:21 AM
Rental is such a dumb idea Maybe purchase but I've seen the quality of the video on the music store and personally I don't think it's worth the money.
iEvolution
Apr 26, 05:11 PM
The term app has been used LONG before it became a popular term, all the way back in Windows 95 I remember the term app being used for applications on Windows.
Ridiculous lawsuit is ridiculous. This kind of stuff makes Apple look petty, just like the youtube videos of antenna problems they had.
Ridiculous lawsuit is ridiculous. This kind of stuff makes Apple look petty, just like the youtube videos of antenna problems they had.
lordonuthin
Apr 20, 07:22 PM
so i hit 6 million on 17 mar, and today (20 apr) i hit 7 million! that's about 34 days. much better than my last million, but still not as good as it could be. hopefully i'll get everything worked out and going smoothly
7 mil; I remember those days, not so long ago... Grats!
7 mil; I remember those days, not so long ago... Grats!
Skika
Mar 23, 05:53 AM
I hope all the whinning stops now.
guez
Sep 7, 03:37 PM
Actually the move to Intel has opened Apple to fast depreciation - and that isnt going away.
Many here seem to 'bitch' that Mac is now in competition with the PC in the hardware stakes and sadly that damages your resale value however the benefits are immense, I am sure Apple will be able to secure lower unit costs aswell as faster processors and newer technology. Its great for apple and for us buying, just bad if you sell hardware before it looses all value completely. It also means we will see these refreshes more often and so we will be buying more up to date hardware which as a PC user is great...
This raises an interesting question. I'm not so much interested in depreciation as obsolescence. My experience has been that if you buy the right Mac (this is key), it can last 4 years, or more, and system updates/upgrades will not seriously degrade performance (sometimes there can even be an improvement, as with Panther). This is NOT my experience with Wintel. Is this going to change with Intel? Perhaps the readership of this blog does not fall in this category, but Macs have historically appealed to those who want to spend a little more money for more value (including a longer useful life)-the same people who drive a Honda Civic into the ground rather than buying a Chevy Malibu every three years (sorry, I couldn't think of another example).
Are we entering the age of the Walmart-ifation of Macs: less value, but cheaper?
Many here seem to 'bitch' that Mac is now in competition with the PC in the hardware stakes and sadly that damages your resale value however the benefits are immense, I am sure Apple will be able to secure lower unit costs aswell as faster processors and newer technology. Its great for apple and for us buying, just bad if you sell hardware before it looses all value completely. It also means we will see these refreshes more often and so we will be buying more up to date hardware which as a PC user is great...
This raises an interesting question. I'm not so much interested in depreciation as obsolescence. My experience has been that if you buy the right Mac (this is key), it can last 4 years, or more, and system updates/upgrades will not seriously degrade performance (sometimes there can even be an improvement, as with Panther). This is NOT my experience with Wintel. Is this going to change with Intel? Perhaps the readership of this blog does not fall in this category, but Macs have historically appealed to those who want to spend a little more money for more value (including a longer useful life)-the same people who drive a Honda Civic into the ground rather than buying a Chevy Malibu every three years (sorry, I couldn't think of another example).
Are we entering the age of the Walmart-ifation of Macs: less value, but cheaper?
milo
Aug 29, 09:02 AM
Incredibly underwhelming.
If they're going to stay yonah, at least bump the clock speed more than that.
The only upside to this is that it leaves a HUGE gap between the mini and Pro, could mean that apple really is planning a conroe minitower/pizzabox/mediacenter.
That, and the fact that ThinkSecret is NEVER right. EVER.
If they're going to stay yonah, at least bump the clock speed more than that.
The only upside to this is that it leaves a HUGE gap between the mini and Pro, could mean that apple really is planning a conroe minitower/pizzabox/mediacenter.
That, and the fact that ThinkSecret is NEVER right. EVER.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 12:49 PM
I'm ambivalent on this issue. I think its just one of those things the experts at trademark law will have to iron out in or out of court. It certainly isn't as big an issue as Samsung's dishonorable blatant copy of the overall ipad design and experience.
As for Amazons names, I find the Kindle to be a strange name for an Amazon product. Burn the rain forest? That said, I opted for the kindle wifi for my tablet. I have an iphone and the kindle gives me the better reading experience for less cost. The iphone/kindle wifi combination is perfect for me. The ipad would have just been a duplication of the iphone on a larger scale for just about everything. Not that I'm knocking the ipad. I like it a lot.
The kindle app on the iphone is nice for night reading too. Another benefit of the iphone/kindle combination for me: night and day reading between the two devices.
As for Amazons names, I find the Kindle to be a strange name for an Amazon product. Burn the rain forest? That said, I opted for the kindle wifi for my tablet. I have an iphone and the kindle gives me the better reading experience for less cost. The iphone/kindle wifi combination is perfect for me. The ipad would have just been a duplication of the iphone on a larger scale for just about everything. Not that I'm knocking the ipad. I like it a lot.
The kindle app on the iphone is nice for night reading too. Another benefit of the iphone/kindle combination for me: night and day reading between the two devices.
RebootD
Apr 12, 10:01 PM
Well they just announced it's on the App Store and in June. Only $299!
motulist
Aug 7, 03:29 AM
An image of the new iPhone just came out! I can't reveal the source I got it from, but you have to trust me, this is the real deal!
mingspace
Oct 23, 09:10 PM
yes on the 31 we shall have a trick and a treat... ...MACBOO
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/macboo2-1.jpg
Anyone have a hunch on the price the new macbooks and MBPs?
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/macboo2-1.jpg
Anyone have a hunch on the price the new macbooks and MBPs?
Mydel
Jan 1, 06:56 PM
I'm not expecting too much but some update to MBP would be welcome. Like new magneting latches as MB has, and maybe better screen and graphic card.....everyone can dream...
lyzardking
Feb 8, 07:51 AM
congrats to lyzardking for 6 million points!
Thanx!
Never thought I'd ever get to this point when I started folding (almost) 4 years ago
;)
Thanx!
Never thought I'd ever get to this point when I started folding (almost) 4 years ago
;)
MattDell
Sep 6, 08:46 PM
It is already far to easy for me to get the $9.99 per month Netflix account and burn every disk that I get in the mail. Also, it is very easy for me to download HD quality movies from Bit Torrent any old time I please. I don't do it because I am honest but I don't think it is right for the movie industry to not offer a viable alternative for electronic downloads as well. (and no I don't think that "Movielink" is a viable alternative) The ability to pirate things from the iTMS is no greater than any other form of distribution IMO.
I agree with you that it's very easy to pirate movies from Netflix, but by already having the movie file on your computer makes it that much more likely that you will pirate it.
Rented movies in a digital form just take away some of the steps required to pirate a movie, it makes it that much easier, and will invite more people to do it. (this is from the view of the movie executives, of course)
I just do not see it happening.
-Matt
I agree with you that it's very easy to pirate movies from Netflix, but by already having the movie file on your computer makes it that much more likely that you will pirate it.
Rented movies in a digital form just take away some of the steps required to pirate a movie, it makes it that much easier, and will invite more people to do it. (this is from the view of the movie executives, of course)
I just do not see it happening.
-Matt
mac1984user
Mar 22, 04:08 PM
Not that I'd want this, BUT why doesn't Apple make the iPod Classic a multi-touch device? The Mac proves that you don't need to have flash memory in order for multi-touch to work. Is the HDD in the Classic too slow or unresponsive to work with iOS? The could call it the iPod Touch Classic or something. Then you could have the best of both worlds, large capacity and a touch screen. If they did that, though, there's no way I'd buy an iPod Touch (not that I have a desire for one as I've go the iPhone4).
apb3
Aug 31, 10:12 AM
Blue sky on wireless? Think a device which works out presence of others, and can connect safely.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
GFLPraxis
Aug 29, 01:57 PM
I've got hard facts to back up my claim. Do you have any for yours? :)
Intel is expected to drop the price in September/October by almost everyone (including most analysts and media outlets), it's extremely likely they will.
Intel is expected to drop the price in September/October by almost everyone (including most analysts and media outlets), it's extremely likely they will.
serafin
Feb 8, 04:50 PM
Oh dear chaps, mine looks almost feeble compared to your big American monster cars!
I have exactly the same. Same rims, also 2doors, and same color. Just dont tell me that your one is 2.0 TDI
:D
I have exactly the same. Same rims, also 2doors, and same color. Just dont tell me that your one is 2.0 TDI
:D
jazzbo
Feb 24, 09:42 AM
One small con for diesel is that in cold climates, at the very least you pay a slight premium for winterized diesel, and often you may need to add a de-gelling agent even with "winterized" fuel, or if a cold snap happens before the local dealers switch to winterized. I used to have a VW TDI Beetle and it just shut off one very cold morning in Maine, and had to be hauled to a garage so the fuel line could thaw out. The dealer claimed they made it very clear to me (and everyone) who bought a TDI that they needed to put in the conditioner; this was after commenting on why my engine stopped, "fuel probably gelled, we had 2 others already today." I suggested maybe they needed to emphasize the point a little better to new buyers.
Granted there is a deal of regular maintenance that car owners should expect, but in speaking with other TDI owners, several in my area had this 'surprise' in their first winter.
I don't know if the cleaner diesel is winterized better or not and/or what the premium for winterized fuel is these days during the colder months.
Granted there is a deal of regular maintenance that car owners should expect, but in speaking with other TDI owners, several in my area had this 'surprise' in their first winter.
I don't know if the cleaner diesel is winterized better or not and/or what the premium for winterized fuel is these days during the colder months.
twoodcc
Jan 30, 11:23 PM
My last electric bill was $299 and change! A lot of that was because its been so damned cold (and my little old house has no insulation in the walls), colder and more snow than in many years. Folding uses power but helps with the heating :p now if I could just get those gpu's to glow a little brighter red I could turn off the furnace...
And congrats to everyone for keeping up and making points!
Hey, mc68k I might catch up... soon :D
I wonder if some people have moved to other teams? Maybe they start out with us but find another team that that appeals more to them?? I've thought about jumping to Dawkins team but it would take awhile to get where I am here so I will stay, for now at least :eek:
dang, that's a big bill! but my $190 is for a 2 room apartment!
i think some people started to leave or just quit, and then so people thought why stay with this dead team, and then leave also. i'll probably stay with this group, but we'll see
And congrats to everyone for keeping up and making points!
Hey, mc68k I might catch up... soon :D
I wonder if some people have moved to other teams? Maybe they start out with us but find another team that that appeals more to them?? I've thought about jumping to Dawkins team but it would take awhile to get where I am here so I will stay, for now at least :eek:
dang, that's a big bill! but my $190 is for a 2 room apartment!
i think some people started to leave or just quit, and then so people thought why stay with this dead team, and then leave also. i'll probably stay with this group, but we'll see
CalBoy
Apr 26, 03:17 PM
I doubt any legal battle between titans is a simple case, even if it appears so to us laypersons.
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
AppliedVisual
Nov 17, 12:37 PM
It's not the future... these kind of over-architected solutions never win. I predict CPUs, memory and memory controllers will become more tightly integrated over time, not less. FB-DIMM will be gone is a few years.
FB-DIMMs aren't going to disappear anytime soon -- not in the next few years anyway. There currently is nothing better or more reliable for installing 16GB or more in a system without dividing up RAM into multiple, independent banks and controllers, often on a per-CPU base (as is done on current NUMA, AMD Opteron and other offerings from Sun, IBM, etc..).
Probably won't see FB-DIMM style RAM on systems like the iMac anytime soon, no need for it. But for now, it's what makes the most sense for Mac Pro and Xserve.
IMO, what Apple really needs is a system between the Mac Pro and iMac. A smaller tower or cube style system with a single Kentsfield or Clovertown CPU with 2 or 3 PCI-E slots, two HDD bays, optical bay and using cheaper, more conventional RAM - like up to 8GB DDR2. Apple is ignoring an entire segment of the market and it seems like they're trying to use the small difference in price between a maxed-out 24" iMac and a relatively low-end Mac Pro as justification for nothing in the middle.
FB-DIMMs aren't going to disappear anytime soon -- not in the next few years anyway. There currently is nothing better or more reliable for installing 16GB or more in a system without dividing up RAM into multiple, independent banks and controllers, often on a per-CPU base (as is done on current NUMA, AMD Opteron and other offerings from Sun, IBM, etc..).
Probably won't see FB-DIMM style RAM on systems like the iMac anytime soon, no need for it. But for now, it's what makes the most sense for Mac Pro and Xserve.
IMO, what Apple really needs is a system between the Mac Pro and iMac. A smaller tower or cube style system with a single Kentsfield or Clovertown CPU with 2 or 3 PCI-E slots, two HDD bays, optical bay and using cheaper, more conventional RAM - like up to 8GB DDR2. Apple is ignoring an entire segment of the market and it seems like they're trying to use the small difference in price between a maxed-out 24" iMac and a relatively low-end Mac Pro as justification for nothing in the middle.
iTeen
Jan 13, 02:25 AM
Why does the banner have to reference only one product or service? Perhaps it refers to a theme shared by all introductions at MacWorld.
i don't see how this would relate to something like itunes, but it is referring to the major release...the macbook ________
i don't see how this would relate to something like itunes, but it is referring to the major release...the macbook ________
Built
Apr 2, 11:58 PM
Ummm - the reason probably is shown on the 1400 post "light bleed" thread. People WANT the thing bad so they don't "return" it... they get it "swapped". Quite a few people over there are on their 4th to 5th swap
(which boggles my mind frankly) in a search to get one with no bleed.
They all seem to have it to varying degrees but I have to hand it to Apple for (so far) not claiming this is "in spec" to shut down all these
"swaps".
Apple probably lists all these as "exchanges" and therefore they don't count as "returns". Makes the customer happy and makes them look good in the press. Everybody wins.
Towards the end of the huge thread over at Apple.com people are being told the same thing from the reps when they call... that Apple "is looking into the qc issue on this batch of iPads and hopes to resolve the issue". That's good news for everybody.
...but all the Apple apologists...so quick to jump to Apple's defense...say that there is no such problem. :D
You are dead on correct. Many people do not want to endure the wait for a new one if they return it...Many are waiting to see if Apple can resolve the issue in a future production batch. What good is exchanging if the new one is going to have the same, or worse, problem
I love Apple products but I am always entertained by the rabid zeal of the delusional Apple apologists who insist the company can do no wrong...OR...they simply ignore the common, and obvious, flaws in the Apple product they buy, trying to convince themselves that they have the only "good" one...which on some subconscious level they need to tell themselves so they can believe they are "special" somehow.
(which boggles my mind frankly) in a search to get one with no bleed.
They all seem to have it to varying degrees but I have to hand it to Apple for (so far) not claiming this is "in spec" to shut down all these
"swaps".
Apple probably lists all these as "exchanges" and therefore they don't count as "returns". Makes the customer happy and makes them look good in the press. Everybody wins.
Towards the end of the huge thread over at Apple.com people are being told the same thing from the reps when they call... that Apple "is looking into the qc issue on this batch of iPads and hopes to resolve the issue". That's good news for everybody.
...but all the Apple apologists...so quick to jump to Apple's defense...say that there is no such problem. :D
You are dead on correct. Many people do not want to endure the wait for a new one if they return it...Many are waiting to see if Apple can resolve the issue in a future production batch. What good is exchanging if the new one is going to have the same, or worse, problem
I love Apple products but I am always entertained by the rabid zeal of the delusional Apple apologists who insist the company can do no wrong...OR...they simply ignore the common, and obvious, flaws in the Apple product they buy, trying to convince themselves that they have the only "good" one...which on some subconscious level they need to tell themselves so they can believe they are "special" somehow.
No comments:
Post a Comment