So, let's look at this from a different perspective. I have a Samsung Mythic that failed while under warranty. AT&T told me to return my phone to their warranty department not Samsung's.
As you may or may not have noticed, this discussion is about the iphone, you'll notice AT&T handles the iphone differently to other phones. I don't know about the terms of the contract(s) you signed with AT&T regarding your samsung phone, perhaps it included some service contract with the above clause. With the iphone the warranty is serviced by Apple, not AT&T.
The clause you quoted above is completely without citation and it seems has absolutely no bearing on a wireless contract for the iphone with AT&T. Show me some evidence that - when you sign a wireless contract for the iphone with AT&T - a service contract is also put in place. Because your claims seem like bullshit to me.
Assuming you buy your iPhone through AT&T... your warranty will not be provided through Apple
However this is incorrect, what it should have been is: Assuming you buy your iPhone through AT&T and purchase their PhoneProtect product... your warranty will not be provided through Apple
PhoneProtect - which is where this quote comes from:
We receive and a customer hereby assigns all rights and benefits of any manufacturer's warranty or other ancillary coverage relating to any Registered item.
Is a service contract, however it is not part of your wireless contract with AT&T, nor is it a pre-requisite for that contract. Which is precisely why - unless you have PhoneProtect or a similar service contract - iPhones purchased from AT&T have their warranty provided by Apple.
So, in other words, your warranty is part of a service contract and exempted from Magnuson-Moss.
Bullshit! You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between a service contract in the context of the Magnuson-Moss act and in the context of your telephone service. Just because they are both called a 'service contract' don't assume they are the same thing.
In terms of the Magnuson-Moss act a service contract, is an optional feature offered in addition to a warranty. It goes a step further than the warranty in that it details what service you are entitled to in the event of product failure or breakdown. Obviously NOT the same as your telephone service contract with AT&T.
No, 2D. Not everyone wants a flashy, glitzy, heavyweight desktop.
there's no 3D nvidia alternative driver. Only the binary blob. The only alternative is for 2D. And people want compiz & friends, if not 3D gaming or other things. (there's a 3D branch for the driver but its NOT ready)
there's *no* alternative.
Oh ok so you only consider it an alternative if they both have all the same features. In any case users could choose ATi cards with their open source drivers but it still seems as though nvidia is the manufacturer of choice since it's binary drivers perform better than ATi's open source ones.
Also why would you suggest that open Vs closed is the motivation behind driver choice, in my experience it's all about performance.
Well yeah, considering that, for most of them (judging by the iPhone users and other macfans), that consists of "it's shiny and makes me look hip."
My mother has an iPad and she fits your gross generalization in no way whatsoever. In fact, she fits into a completely different category I would just call 'convenience based end user.'
She cares almost nothing for what others think of her aside from how good her casserole was at the pot luck or if she was a good hostess for Thanksgiving. I'm really tired of the/. mentality on what an Apple product user is.
Exactly the same as my mother. I bought her an ipad because it is limited in what it can do - so it's not easy to break - and it fits her needs. I wouldn't say she's a 'selfish elitist'.
No they didn't, they supported IA-64, in fact they only very recently discontinued it.
Only server OSes, and only a subset of them. x64 has enjoyed broad support.
Obviously, you wouldn't put out a consumer OS for a chip that has no consumer version. Point is that MS supported IA-64 in its target market, and supported x86-64 in its target market - as did Intel.
Windows is not fit for "life-critical safety systems" read that EULA again, Windows should not have been running this system (if it was)
RTFA! They didn't even specify it was Windows, they just said a blue screen with no data coming through - which doesn't sound like a Windows BSOD to me.
Sure, there is some overlap, but that does not mean that Apple computers overlap into all the markets other PC vendors enter.
It isn't a case of Apple vs all the other PC vendors, not all vendors compete in all the different markets which is why we look at desktop pcs as a whole.
For instance, in industry, I see a lot of PC systems controlling machinery. They are often HP or Dell systems, for example.
So? You can't just use stats that compare the numbers for markets in which Apple is successful, particularly when they sell significantly to business and enterprise and those numbers are lumped into the 'consumer' category even though they don't belong there.
You will never see a Mac here. It is the wrong tool for the job.
Wrong! The Mac mini in particular is used quite extensively because of it's form-factor and unix-like OS. Don't presume to know such things about an industry if you aren't in that industry. They are also used extensively in the entertainment and education industries.
And yet, those computers still are included in your "whole market" numbers. Why?
They aren't my numbers. It's the PC statistics, Apple are no different from any other vendor.
I welcome more accurate consumer market numbers. Like I said, Apple does not compete in the corporate space. To determine where Apple stands, you must look at the consumer market exclusively.
That's funny because i could have sworn that if you call this number (877) 412-7753, you'll get the Apple Enterprise Sales team and that you can visit their Business Solutions page on their website. They most certainly do compete in the enterprise market.
So from 2008 - estimated 21% of the US consumer market (which makes quite a few assumptions to even get that number) - until now you're saying they have experienced a ~50% growth in their marketshare? Or a 9% increase in US consumer marketshare? That doesn't sound likely.
Apple had [url=http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/01/analyst-apples-us-consumer-market-share-now-21-percent/]21% share in 2008[/url]. Plus the increases that have been reported since equals to about 30%. It is some estimation on my part because the real numbers have not been released since 2008, unfortunately. Either way, it is significantly more than 8% in the consumer market.
There doesn't seem to be much actual info in that article and it only relates to the consumer market, which has been vaguely estimated without citation. It also assumes that no sales of apple computers were to enterprise. Better to look at more solid statistics that relate to the whole market.
iAds is about allowing developers to give the option of paying for the app via watching ads
That's just a use for it, there are many other uses for iAds too.
It is not about the OS randomly bombarding users with ads.
Of course the marketing department would never spin it that way, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this couldn't be the case - assuming of course that you know what iAds is.
Specifically what packages gave this error? I only ask because i've never encountered this and if you followed the guide correctly there should be no reason for such an issue to occur.
It's absolutely not a question of stability at all, and it won't link to 32bit libs if it's building a 64bit binary anyway. So if it can't find the 64bit libraries because the 32bit libraries are installed it seems a lot more like you haven't installed them correctly. What was the actual error, because this doesn't sound likely at all.
What happens is that, when installing new 64-bit programs, the linker would sometimes want to link with the 32-bit versions of the libraries instead of the 64-bit ones.
Installing? You mean compiling. If your linker is picking up the 32bit libraries when you're building 64bit binaries your linker arguments are wrong.
Again, where's Windows' equivalent of Apparmor or SELinux?
Perhaps there is one that I'm not aware of, but if it exists I'm rather surprised that no-one's ever used it to block the huge security holes in Windows.
The windows equivalent of SELinux would be a combination of UAC and Group Policy.
Slashdot Mirror
Because i dont subscribe to upgrading just because there is new and shiny available.
Unless it's KDE.
So, let's look at this from a different perspective. I have a Samsung Mythic that failed while under warranty. AT&T told me to return my phone to their warranty department not Samsung's.
As you may or may not have noticed, this discussion is about the iphone, you'll notice AT&T handles the iphone differently to other phones. I don't know about the terms of the contract(s) you signed with AT&T regarding your samsung phone, perhaps it included some service contract with the above clause. With the iphone the warranty is serviced by Apple, not AT&T.
The clause you quoted above is completely without citation and it seems has absolutely no bearing on a wireless contract for the iphone with AT&T. Show me some evidence that - when you sign a wireless contract for the iphone with AT&T - a service contract is also put in place. Because your claims seem like bullshit to me.
Assuming you buy your iPhone through AT&T... your warranty will not be provided through Apple
However this is incorrect, what it should have been is: Assuming you buy your iPhone through AT&T and purchase their PhoneProtect product... your warranty will not be provided through Apple
PhoneProtect - which is where this quote comes from:
We receive and a customer hereby assigns all rights and benefits of any manufacturer's warranty or other ancillary coverage relating to any Registered item.
Is a service contract, however it is not part of your wireless contract with AT&T, nor is it a pre-requisite for that contract. Which is precisely why - unless you have PhoneProtect or a similar service contract - iPhones purchased from AT&T have their warranty provided by Apple.
So, in other words, your warranty is part of a service contract and exempted from Magnuson-Moss.
Bullshit! You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between a service contract in the context of the Magnuson-Moss act and in the context of your telephone service. Just because they are both called a 'service contract' don't assume they are the same thing.
In terms of the Magnuson-Moss act a service contract, is an optional feature offered in addition to a warranty. It goes a step further than the warranty in that it details what service you are entitled to in the event of product failure or breakdown. Obviously NOT the same as your telephone service contract with AT&T.
The reason that they are not obligated is because you agreed to this constraint with your service contract.
What service contract? You mean the contract for the telephone service? That is not the same thing as a device service contract.
the open source alternative 3D driver ?
No, 2D. Not everyone wants a flashy, glitzy, heavyweight desktop.
there's no 3D nvidia alternative driver. Only the binary blob. The only alternative is for 2D. And people want compiz & friends, if not 3D gaming or other things. (there's a 3D branch for the driver but its NOT ready)
there's *no* alternative.
Oh ok so you only consider it an alternative if they both have all the same features. In any case users could choose ATi cards with their open source drivers but it still seems as though nvidia is the manufacturer of choice since it's binary drivers perform better than ATi's open source ones.
Also why would you suggest that open Vs closed is the motivation behind driver choice, in my experience it's all about performance.
Some drivers are closed source blobs and they are successful why? Cause there's no alternative.
I wouldn't say that, for example the nVidia graphics driver is a successful closed-source driver that has open-source alternatives.
Well yeah, considering that, for most of them (judging by the iPhone users and other macfans), that consists of "it's shiny and makes me look hip."
My mother has an iPad and she fits your gross generalization in no way whatsoever. In fact, she fits into a completely different category I would just call 'convenience based end user.' She cares almost nothing for what others think of her aside from how good her casserole was at the pot luck or if she was a good hostess for Thanksgiving. I'm really tired of the /. mentality on what an Apple product user is.
Exactly the same as my mother. I bought her an ipad because it is limited in what it can do - so it's not easy to break - and it fits her needs. I wouldn't say she's a 'selfish elitist'.
I can only get an EVO by signing up with Sprint... what was your point again?
You can't buy it outright?
...When it gets unbricked.
Bricked is the new "literally".
Probably the most informative post in this discussion.
No they didn't, they supported IA-64, in fact they only very recently discontinued it.
Only server OSes, and only a subset of them. x64 has enjoyed broad support.
Obviously, you wouldn't put out a consumer OS for a chip that has no consumer version. Point is that MS supported IA-64 in its target market, and supported x86-64 in its target market - as did Intel.
Honestly, Microsoft seems to be relatively CPU-agnostic anyway. For example, they picked AMD's 64-bit instruction set over Intel's.
No they didn't, they supported IA-64, in fact they only very recently discontinued it.
Windows is not fit for "life-critical safety systems" read that EULA again, Windows should not have been running this system (if it was)
RTFA! They didn't even specify it was Windows, they just said a blue screen with no data coming through - which doesn't sound like a Windows BSOD to me.
There is no "whole market."
Of course there is, the PC market.
Sure, there is some overlap, but that does not mean that Apple computers overlap into all the markets other PC vendors enter.
It isn't a case of Apple vs all the other PC vendors, not all vendors compete in all the different markets which is why we look at desktop pcs as a whole.
For instance, in industry, I see a lot of PC systems controlling machinery. They are often HP or Dell systems, for example.
So? You can't just use stats that compare the numbers for markets in which Apple is successful, particularly when they sell significantly to business and enterprise and those numbers are lumped into the 'consumer' category even though they don't belong there.
You will never see a Mac here. It is the wrong tool for the job.
Wrong! The Mac mini in particular is used quite extensively because of it's form-factor and unix-like OS. Don't presume to know such things about an industry if you aren't in that industry. They are also used extensively in the entertainment and education industries.
And yet, those computers still are included in your "whole market" numbers. Why?
They aren't my numbers. It's the PC statistics, Apple are no different from any other vendor.
I welcome more accurate consumer market numbers. Like I said, Apple does not compete in the corporate space. To determine where Apple stands, you must look at the consumer market exclusively.
That's funny because i could have sworn that if you call this number (877) 412-7753, you'll get the Apple Enterprise Sales team and that you can visit their Business Solutions page on their website. They most certainly do compete in the enterprise market.
So from 2008 - estimated 21% of the US consumer market (which makes quite a few assumptions to even get that number) - until now you're saying they have experienced a ~50% growth in their marketshare? Or a 9% increase in US consumer marketshare? That doesn't sound likely.
Apple had [url=http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/01/analyst-apples-us-consumer-market-share-now-21-percent/]21% share in 2008[/url]. Plus the increases that have been reported since equals to about 30%. It is some estimation on my part because the real numbers have not been released since 2008, unfortunately. Either way, it is significantly more than 8% in the consumer market.
There doesn't seem to be much actual info in that article and it only relates to the consumer market, which has been vaguely estimated without citation. It also assumes that no sales of apple computers were to enterprise. Better to look at more solid statistics that relate to the whole market.
4. Apple's profit on phone sales is higher than many other vendors COMBINED
That's a very dubious statement.
iAds is about allowing developers to give the option of paying for the app via watching ads
That's just a use for it, there are many other uses for iAds too.
It is not about the OS randomly bombarding users with ads.
Of course the marketing department would never spin it that way, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this couldn't be the case - assuming of course that you know what iAds is.
But it's "Magical!"
eughh... I cringe every time Ives or Jobs uses that word... They are so full of themselves its sick. -Taylor
Guess they ran out of pixie-dust for the iphone4.
Specifically what packages gave this error? I only ask because i've never encountered this and if you followed the guide correctly there should be no reason for such an issue to occur.
It's absolutely not a question of stability at all, and it won't link to 32bit libs if it's building a 64bit binary anyway. So if it can't find the 64bit libraries because the 32bit libraries are installed it seems a lot more like you haven't installed them correctly. What was the actual error, because this doesn't sound likely at all.
What happens is that, when installing new 64-bit programs, the linker would sometimes want to link with the 32-bit versions of the libraries instead of the 64-bit ones.
Installing? You mean compiling. If your linker is picking up the 32bit libraries when you're building 64bit binaries your linker arguments are wrong.
And you can't do it on Windows because...?
Again, where's Windows' equivalent of Apparmor or SELinux?
Perhaps there is one that I'm not aware of, but if it exists I'm rather surprised that no-one's ever used it to block the huge security holes in Windows.
The windows equivalent of SELinux would be a combination of UAC and Group Policy.