Brand name computer stores are the outlet for those too weak to resist the urge to make impulse purchases in excess of a month's income. The fact Apple has been able to capitalize on this trend...
There is no reason to buy from the non-Apple stores because you can get a better price and better service elsewhere. Well, Apple stuff is the same price everywhere, so you might as well buy it from them where you actually have well trained staff and get to play around with everything.
TN screens suck in general. I got a 24" Samsung one which was supposed to be one of the better ones, but I took it back. The fact that the bottom of my screen always seemed dark and the top always seemed light bothered me to no end. I couldn't afford a nice S-IPS 24" so I got a S-PVA panel and am much happier. Pretty lame of Apple to swap in the TN to do this because they used to have some nice panels.
Exactly. The article saying that it "will only save you 10 watts" mirrors the selfish opinion of many. There will not be some magical devices that perform well and run on bird feces and spit. Sure it will only save one person with one drive 10 watts, but it can save a lot of watts if a lot of people do it. And like the parent said, there are other components just in your computer where you can reduce power consumption.
We are only going to work out this energy crisis by chipping away at it.
I've often thought about how slick my Windows Mobile phone would be if MS designed the hardware (and the software specifically for the hardware) and controlled the OS to the point of only one program running at a time, all programs optimized for my hardware, only programs that meet minimum standards are available, etc. It would probably be pretty snazzy. Apple did choose to go that route and what they have is pretty snazzy. I'm just saying that Apple's success is because of their strict control over every aspect, not in spite of it.
Oops, replying to my own comment: The obfuscating letter was to play it off to HP, not Intel. It was obfuscating the fact that they were making "capable" less capable because they were bending over for Intel.
Here is a summary for those that don't want to read the PDF:
Early 2006: Microsoft got cozy with HP to make sure that HP invested in a better graphical experience for Vista. Intel had to make its quarterly earnings and convinced Microsoft to call their chipset "capable" even though it couldn't meat the graphic standards. Microsoft had explicitly told HP that they wouldn't do this, but they, led by some dude named Will Poole, decided to bone HP to make Intel (specifically some SVP chick named Renee-most likely Renee James) happy. Then MS discussed how they are going to try to play it off to intel with some fancy obfuscating letter. They got this guy at MS named Jim Allchin to sign off on it, which he reluctantly did, but chastised them for pulling this crap. Some dude named Mike Ybarra pointed out to Jim that they are boning HP and their customers just to get cuddly wuddly with Intel and Jim seemed to agree, but figured the wheels were in motion and could not be stopped. Mike specifically said, "We are caving to Intel... We are really burning HP... We are allowing Intel to drive our consumer experience..."
Fast forward a year later and some board member John Shirley sends some borderline literate guy named Steve Balmer an email about how his shit won't work with Vista and that some of the stuff may never get Vista drivers. They surmise that vendors didn't trust them to deliver Vista (gee, wonder why) so they didn't make drivers. Balmer sends an email to some guy named Steven Sinofsky asking about the driver situation. Sinofsky agrees that vendors didn't expect them to ship and also says that changes to Vista made it so XP drivers wouldn't work, he questions how smart it was to call the Intel chipset "capable" when it wasn't, and says that they need to be clearer with the industry. Then some exec named Mike Nash points out how his company boned him because he bought a $2100 "Vista capable" laptop that is only good as an email machine.
In the end, some exec John Kalman says that lowering their standard for Intel screwed them and they won't make such a stupid mistake with Windows 7.
In short, Will Poole is a weasel who is just trying to make some Intel chick happy. Mike Ybarra is too thoughtful and has too much foresight to work at MS. Jim Allchin needs to go with his gut and remind Will Poole which side of the desk he sits on. Steve Ballmer is missing some keys on his keyboard. Steven Sinofsky and Kohn Kalman have 20/20 hindsight. HP deserves to kick somebody's ass at MS. They should probably kick Intel's ass too, but MS is too busy licking it.
While I think this comment is insightful in that it points out the legislative repercussions, I don't think that the ruling is making the law impossible to enforce. It seems to shift the focus to the people that obtain the copyrighted material or distribute it, not the people that "make it available" but don't actively distribute it. Like the analogy of the library having copyrighted books and a copy machine available, if you photocopy the whole book, the library doesn't get into trouble, you do.
My thoughts as well. I survived just fine on a 40GB hard disk until it died. Sure, I couldn't store mass amounts of mp3 and movies but I'm not looking to do that with a laptop. And I definitely wouldn't be willing to downgrade the performance by forgoing the SSD in order to get more storage for a bunch of crap.
Typically, an EGD is done with a sedative to supress the gag reflex. I'm guessing that will still be required in this case. It would be nice if one didn't have to be released to the custody of an adult after a simple 5 minute procedure of looking around in there.
I think charity should firmly be in the hands of a government, they are not the best but at least they can be voted out. If I want to donate a million dollars I shouldn't really be able to attach any restrictions to it.
Not to be harsh here, but that is the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time. Even without considering the logistic nightmare and the large portion of a donation would be lost due to government overhead. I totally disagree with you on a fundamental level.
If it is my money, why shouldn't I distribute it in the way that I, not some elected official + government bureaucracy wants. Because I am helping in a way that I think is best and not how you think is best? And I don't think that my intended charity should have to wade through the shit to maybe get a piece of what I donated. If I donate it to a specific charity, I can see exactly where the money, MY money, is going. And maybe I don't think the government bureaucracy is distributing funds the right way.
If I am religious (I'm not), why the hell should it be required that my donation be able to be used for something contrary to my faith and vice versa? In fact, there would be no more religious contributions due to the separation of church and state. Fine, I don't donate to churches, but my parents do and I think that any arrogant fuck who criticizes them because they do is closed minded and ignorant.
If my charity money is required to go to the government, I am essentially voluntarily taxing myself. Having the charity in the hands of the government is a sure way to cut down on individual charitable contributions. That being said, they should restrict the hell out of corporate charity...
I was stoked on the rumors but not so when I found out how big it would be. They essentially took a decent laptop and made it really really thin. Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I have found that with the fairly thin modern laptops, the thickness wasn't the limiting factor as far as portability. I'd much rather had them keep the same thickness and knock it down to around a 10". Really, 13.3" is still pretty big to stow and go. And, I'd be scared about its durability.
Just yesterday, I bought a piece of OEM software on Ebay. I paid via PayPal and, soon after, received the shipping confirmation and tracking number. Then, three hours after that, I received an email from Ebay saying that they had removed the listing and would not explain why. Good job pulling the listing of a completed auction, Fraud Department.
Actually, it isn't that easy because the RIAA are liars. Look at the member list on the website and you will see Fat Wreck Chords. Look at Fat's FAQ http://www.fatwreck.com/community/faq and you will see this:
Are we a member? Not only no, but FUCK NO! We spent three years having our label's name (which was mispelled) removed from their members list. A year went by, then our name showed up again on their fucking list!
Kindle won't burn my retinas from staring at it for long periods of time as is done when I, ya know, read. The iphone does....but it still costs too much.
...once you have a normal thumb keyboard, you won't want to go back to tapping the screen.
I agree. Basically, you know what key you are pressing by sight or by feel. If you can't feel it and you can't see it because your finger is in the way, it either slows you down or makes you hit the wrong keys.
I own the Sprint version of the HTC touch. It has the Suretype style software keypad which I like better than the iphone full keyboard. They buttons are nice and large so its easy to hit the correct one. But it's still no hardware keyboard. I was messing around with the Tilt and typing fast and accurately was a breeze from the get-go. Being able to feel when you move from one button to the next is something that I miss more than I thought I would.
Is this article and invite for everyone to say why they hate their cell phone company?
I have many reasons, but I'll throw out the most current situation. I'm a customer of the old AT&T. My contract expired but I have an old TDMA phone and they are shutting down the network. Fine, technological progress, I support that part. But, do they have to send me a text message at least once every day to tell me this? I was given an AT&T GSM phone from a friend, but they won't let me use it unless I sign up for a new 2 year contract. I have tried calling customer service and going into the store, but they still won't let me do it. The guy in the store actually said I could, but then he went to do it, asked the manager a question, and the manager shut him down. One of the guys on the phone asked me why I didn't want to sign up for a contract and I told him that I'm getting anything out of it. He said I could get a free phone and I told him that I don't want any of their phones. He asked incredulously if there was no phone they had that I wanted. I said that I kind of liked the Tilt, but part of the reason that I would want it is for the internet and I don't want to pay the $80 bucks a month for the cheapest plan and data. He said that I could get the internet on any phone. I told him that it is hardly usable on a regular phone and he grudgingly agreed.
I told him that if they allowed me to get the $60 iphone plan for a different phone, I would consider it. He said that the iphone is apple's deal. I told him I wasn't talking about the iphone, I was talking about the plan. I told him that I wanted him to note that I suggested it with the hope that if enough people do the same, they can make some f-ing graph to show the decision makers who don't get the pleasure of hearing real customers. I don't think he actually noted it, though.
Anyway, all this because I WAS TRYING TO STAY ON THEIR SERVICE AND NOT GET A FREE PHONE OUT OF THEM!
I tend to disagree. First off, it's not merely kickbacks, Apple gets a portion of the monthly fees during the contract. That is revenue for years after the initial product sale. Compare this to an ipod in which they only get their money for the initial sale. You can't think that Apple wasn't drooling over this. And, in fact, they took the same deal to the carriers in Europe. To the people that say they don't want to sign up for a contract for an unsubsidized phone, its actually kind of the reverse. Instead of the carrier using a portion of your fees to make the phone cheaper for you, they are using a portion of your fees to pay off Apple. I don't think the parent is right when he says that Apple's actions are going to our benefit.
There absolutely was specific demand for it. People were clamoring for it well before it was announced. You can even look at it as an evolution of the ipod and forecast the demand. There is no way that a company like Apple can't do the proper market research and figure that out. And, as mentioned, they are pulling the same tricks in Europe after they have tons of forecasting data to build upon.
Apple doesn't need carrier lock in for market penetration. Again, this is APPLE, not HTC or something like that. They have etablished marketing and distribution channels for consumer electronics.
For Apple, this is only about maximizing profit. They know the end user will pay and they know that AT&T will pay, so they're milking it. I think that AT&T only signed up as a defensive move.
Apple's locking is to benefit their bottom line and nothing else. They could have released it unlocked with no carrier tie in and they would have sold a lot more than they have now, but they wouldn't still be reaping the benefit for two years. I think the iPhone is a cool device and am still considering getting it, but I don't for a moment think that Apple cares about wireless freedom; they care about what's in my wallet.
Now, if you want to talk about the price cut tactic with regard to market penetration/share, I'm all with you.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no reason to buy from the non-Apple stores because you can get a better price and better service elsewhere. Well, Apple stuff is the same price everywhere, so you might as well buy it from them where you actually have well trained staff and get to play around with everything.
And you don't have a right to bring whatever you want into the country.
Yay, they put the home button back next to the URL.
TN screens suck in general. I got a 24" Samsung one which was supposed to be one of the better ones, but I took it back. The fact that the bottom of my screen always seemed dark and the top always seemed light bothered me to no end. I couldn't afford a nice S-IPS 24" so I got a S-PVA panel and am much happier. Pretty lame of Apple to swap in the TN to do this because they used to have some nice panels.
Exactly. The article saying that it "will only save you 10 watts" mirrors the selfish opinion of many. There will not be some magical devices that perform well and run on bird feces and spit. Sure it will only save one person with one drive 10 watts, but it can save a lot of watts if a lot of people do it. And like the parent said, there are other components just in your computer where you can reduce power consumption. We are only going to work out this energy crisis by chipping away at it.
Because you are in an area where no wi-fi is available and you don't want to use your voice minutes, but your data plan is unlimited.
I've often thought about how slick my Windows Mobile phone would be if MS designed the hardware (and the software specifically for the hardware) and controlled the OS to the point of only one program running at a time, all programs optimized for my hardware, only programs that meet minimum standards are available, etc. It would probably be pretty snazzy. Apple did choose to go that route and what they have is pretty snazzy. I'm just saying that Apple's success is because of their strict control over every aspect, not in spite of it.
Oops, replying to my own comment: The obfuscating letter was to play it off to HP, not Intel. It was obfuscating the fact that they were making "capable" less capable because they were bending over for Intel.
Here is a summary for those that don't want to read the PDF:
Early 2006: Microsoft got cozy with HP to make sure that HP invested in a better graphical experience for Vista. Intel had to make its quarterly earnings and convinced Microsoft to call their chipset "capable" even though it couldn't meat the graphic standards. Microsoft had explicitly told HP that they wouldn't do this, but they, led by some dude named Will Poole, decided to bone HP to make Intel (specifically some SVP chick named Renee-most likely Renee James) happy. Then MS discussed how they are going to try to play it off to intel with some fancy obfuscating letter. They got this guy at MS named Jim Allchin to sign off on it, which he reluctantly did, but chastised them for pulling this crap. Some dude named Mike Ybarra pointed out to Jim that they are boning HP and their customers just to get cuddly wuddly with Intel and Jim seemed to agree, but figured the wheels were in motion and could not be stopped. Mike specifically said, "We are caving to Intel... We are really burning HP... We are allowing Intel to drive our consumer experience..."
Fast forward a year later and some board member John Shirley sends some borderline literate guy named Steve Balmer an email about how his shit won't work with Vista and that some of the stuff may never get Vista drivers. They surmise that vendors didn't trust them to deliver Vista (gee, wonder why) so they didn't make drivers. Balmer sends an email to some guy named Steven Sinofsky asking about the driver situation. Sinofsky agrees that vendors didn't expect them to ship and also says that changes to Vista made it so XP drivers wouldn't work, he questions how smart it was to call the Intel chipset "capable" when it wasn't, and says that they need to be clearer with the industry. Then some exec named Mike Nash points out how his company boned him because he bought a $2100 "Vista capable" laptop that is only good as an email machine.
In the end, some exec John Kalman says that lowering their standard for Intel screwed them and they won't make such a stupid mistake with Windows 7.
In short, Will Poole is a weasel who is just trying to make some Intel chick happy. Mike Ybarra is too thoughtful and has too much foresight to work at MS. Jim Allchin needs to go with his gut and remind Will Poole which side of the desk he sits on. Steve Ballmer is missing some keys on his keyboard. Steven Sinofsky and Kohn Kalman have 20/20 hindsight. HP deserves to kick somebody's ass at MS. They should probably kick Intel's ass too, but MS is too busy licking it.
While I think this comment is insightful in that it points out the legislative repercussions, I don't think that the ruling is making the law impossible to enforce. It seems to shift the focus to the people that obtain the copyrighted material or distribute it, not the people that "make it available" but don't actively distribute it. Like the analogy of the library having copyrighted books and a copy machine available, if you photocopy the whole book, the library doesn't get into trouble, you do.
My thoughts as well. I survived just fine on a 40GB hard disk until it died. Sure, I couldn't store mass amounts of mp3 and movies but I'm not looking to do that with a laptop. And I definitely wouldn't be willing to downgrade the performance by forgoing the SSD in order to get more storage for a bunch of crap.
Typically, an EGD is done with a sedative to supress the gag reflex. I'm guessing that will still be required in this case. It would be nice if one didn't have to be released to the custody of an adult after a simple 5 minute procedure of looking around in there.
Not to be harsh here, but that is the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time. Even without considering the logistic nightmare and the large portion of a donation would be lost due to government overhead. I totally disagree with you on a fundamental level.
If it is my money, why shouldn't I distribute it in the way that I, not some elected official + government bureaucracy wants. Because I am helping in a way that I think is best and not how you think is best? And I don't think that my intended charity should have to wade through the shit to maybe get a piece of what I donated. If I donate it to a specific charity, I can see exactly where the money, MY money, is going. And maybe I don't think the government bureaucracy is distributing funds the right way.
If I am religious (I'm not), why the hell should it be required that my donation be able to be used for something contrary to my faith and vice versa? In fact, there would be no more religious contributions due to the separation of church and state. Fine, I don't donate to churches, but my parents do and I think that any arrogant fuck who criticizes them because they do is closed minded and ignorant.
If my charity money is required to go to the government, I am essentially voluntarily taxing myself. Having the charity in the hands of the government is a sure way to cut down on individual charitable contributions. That being said, they should restrict the hell out of corporate charity...
I think that the biggest problem with Apple is that they are so impatient to change America.
I was stoked on the rumors but not so when I found out how big it would be. They essentially took a decent laptop and made it really really thin. Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I have found that with the fairly thin modern laptops, the thickness wasn't the limiting factor as far as portability. I'd much rather had them keep the same thickness and knock it down to around a 10". Really, 13.3" is still pretty big to stow and go. And, I'd be scared about its durability.
Yet another site that won't work on my mobile phone (even with pocket IE - the worst browser in history) or my N800...
I can't wait to see a fight break out because someone has been waiting in line for 15 minutes and Mr. iphone walks in and gets served.
That being said, how about they get this to work for fastpass and other services at Disneyland.
Just yesterday, I bought a piece of OEM software on Ebay. I paid via PayPal and, soon after, received the shipping confirmation and tracking number. Then, three hours after that, I received an email from Ebay saying that they had removed the listing and would not explain why. Good job pulling the listing of a completed auction, Fraud Department.
Instead of making appliances that are smart, how about this novel idea: BUILD SH*T THAT DOESN'T BREAK EASIER THAN THE PREVIOUS GENERATION
Actually, it isn't that easy because the RIAA are liars. Look at the member list on the website and you will see Fat Wreck Chords. Look at Fat's FAQ http://www.fatwreck.com/community/faq and you will see this:
Are we a member? Not only no, but FUCK NO! We spent three years having our label's name (which was mispelled) removed from their members list. A year went by, then our name showed up again on their fucking list!
Kindle won't burn my retinas from staring at it for long periods of time as is done when I, ya know, read. The iphone does. ...but it still costs too much.
...once you have a normal thumb keyboard, you won't want to go back to tapping the screen.I agree. Basically, you know what key you are pressing by sight or by feel. If you can't feel it and you can't see it because your finger is in the way, it either slows you down or makes you hit the wrong keys.
I own the Sprint version of the HTC touch. It has the Suretype style software keypad which I like better than the iphone full keyboard. They buttons are nice and large so its easy to hit the correct one. But it's still no hardware keyboard. I was messing around with the Tilt and typing fast and accurately was a breeze from the get-go. Being able to feel when you move from one button to the next is something that I miss more than I thought I would.
Is this article and invite for everyone to say why they hate their cell phone company?
I have many reasons, but I'll throw out the most current situation. I'm a customer of the old AT&T. My contract expired but I have an old TDMA phone and they are shutting down the network. Fine, technological progress, I support that part. But, do they have to send me a text message at least once every day to tell me this? I was given an AT&T GSM phone from a friend, but they won't let me use it unless I sign up for a new 2 year contract. I have tried calling customer service and going into the store, but they still won't let me do it. The guy in the store actually said I could, but then he went to do it, asked the manager a question, and the manager shut him down. One of the guys on the phone asked me why I didn't want to sign up for a contract and I told him that I'm getting anything out of it. He said I could get a free phone and I told him that I don't want any of their phones. He asked incredulously if there was no phone they had that I wanted. I said that I kind of liked the Tilt, but part of the reason that I would want it is for the internet and I don't want to pay the $80 bucks a month for the cheapest plan and data. He said that I could get the internet on any phone. I told him that it is hardly usable on a regular phone and he grudgingly agreed.
I told him that if they allowed me to get the $60 iphone plan for a different phone, I would consider it. He said that the iphone is apple's deal. I told him I wasn't talking about the iphone, I was talking about the plan. I told him that I wanted him to note that I suggested it with the hope that if enough people do the same, they can make some f-ing graph to show the decision makers who don't get the pleasure of hearing real customers. I don't think he actually noted it, though.
Anyway, all this because I WAS TRYING TO STAY ON THEIR SERVICE AND NOT GET A FREE PHONE OUT OF THEM!
I tend to disagree. First off, it's not merely kickbacks, Apple gets a portion of the monthly fees during the contract. That is revenue for years after the initial product sale. Compare this to an ipod in which they only get their money for the initial sale. You can't think that Apple wasn't drooling over this. And, in fact, they took the same deal to the carriers in Europe. To the people that say they don't want to sign up for a contract for an unsubsidized phone, its actually kind of the reverse. Instead of the carrier using a portion of your fees to make the phone cheaper for you, they are using a portion of your fees to pay off Apple. I don't think the parent is right when he says that Apple's actions are going to our benefit.
There absolutely was specific demand for it. People were clamoring for it well before it was announced. You can even look at it as an evolution of the ipod and forecast the demand. There is no way that a company like Apple can't do the proper market research and figure that out. And, as mentioned, they are pulling the same tricks in Europe after they have tons of forecasting data to build upon.
Apple doesn't need carrier lock in for market penetration. Again, this is APPLE, not HTC or something like that. They have etablished marketing and distribution channels for consumer electronics.
For Apple, this is only about maximizing profit. They know the end user will pay and they know that AT&T will pay, so they're milking it. I think that AT&T only signed up as a defensive move.
Apple's locking is to benefit their bottom line and nothing else. They could have released it unlocked with no carrier tie in and they would have sold a lot more than they have now, but they wouldn't still be reaping the benefit for two years. I think the iPhone is a cool device and am still considering getting it, but I don't for a moment think that Apple cares about wireless freedom; they care about what's in my wallet.
Now, if you want to talk about the price cut tactic with regard to market penetration/share, I'm all with you.