He likely got a threat of "fess up and retract statements or we charge you with fraud." I'm inclined to believe that if that's the only repercussion for his stupidity the dude got off light.
69 is not free. it's buying an expensive cable service and expensive internet bundled into one package, idiot.
$69 internet service.
$69 same Internet Service + Limited Basic cable.
Expensive internet service...Yes.
But if you pay the same amount with or without the service, that makes the service....You guessed it....FREE!
I just haven't figured out who I need to call--the FCC or Comcast.
When I purchased this house new, it had existing cable hookups but had never had them activated. I called Comcast and asked to have internet service activated. No problem, except that lady I spoke to automatically added cable service in the price--$69.00 a month. When I corrected her and stated that I did not want cable she stated that it was the same price anyway, with or without cable service.
So, in effect, the stand-alone internet service was never offered. In it's place, I was offered their bundle and was forced to pay a premium to have the cable access removed if I really desired to. Obviously, since the price was the same I now have both cable and internet service when all I wanted was the broadband.
...so you're complaining that you were given limited basic service for free with your internet? I'm not understanding, it doesn't cost anything to get rid of Comcast service, so if you really don't want it they will just take it off your bill and remove your bundle rate saving you...nothing. Personally I find it difficult to believe when people try to complain because someone did them a favor.
A large number of Apple's tech support advisers make 10.00 an hour, and are contracted through temp services so that apple doesn't have to pay insurance. They also can be released from there employment without reason simply because Apple chooses to. I've heard horror stories from friends that work at the local apple care call center and they have mentioned people being fired and given no warning, having never received any corrective action.
I find it difficult to imagine the average joe requiring 2880 x 1800 displays anyways
That's not the point of this display. It's to provide extremely high-quality images and text at roughly the same size (in e.g. inches) as on the 1440x900 display.
Go to Best Buy and look at the difference between the iPad2 and the iPad3 (or New iPad or whatever.) Go to a webpage and look at the text. If you see a difference, that's what they're talking about. If you don't see a difference, then the "Retina" display probably isn't for you.
Look at the pictures on that web page, see any difference, if you do your kidding yourself because they are at 72 dpi, the images will be not better quality with a retina display that with any other display. Retina display will only make a difference with photo editing and some graphics work, and then not substantually because you are still dealing with a 15 in display, so things can just get smaller. Mac pro with a cinema display is really about the only place you are going to see the benefits of a display that large.
To all the naysayers, duh, Mac's have always been more expensive "then the rest", but then they are not marketed to people like you so get over it.
This is impressive, a lot of tech in a very small package and you can't even find that tech in ANY of the competition yet. While I know there is significantly better values out there if you just want a new computer, when you start building a Dell or HP laptop with any where close to the same tech in something no where near as well engineered as the new Macbook, you are paying close to $2000 anyways.
Someone said they can build 3 desktops for that money, then what? Have 3 unused boxes of crap lying around?
Same as always, Macs are never going to be the average joe's computer, I find it difficult to imagine the average joe requiring 2880 x 1800 displays anyways. This is squarely marketed to video editors, graphic designers, developers where the added screen real-estate will be welcomed. The fact that this thing isn't $3000+ because of the Retina display (which is not a commonly stocked component ANYWHERE), it is surprising they are selling it for so cheap.
So, don't worry you can't afford or don't want to buy this new MacBook Pro. Your comments are useless. This product is not marketed towards you and if you don't get it, then no worries. Wait for Dell's cloned version of this and while it might be cheaper, it won't be the same, but you will feel happy for 1-up'ing a Mac fanboy.
Except for the retina display, samsungs series7 laptop beats this in every way at 1000 dollars cheaper. And for portability, I'll take.about.2 inches of extra width and 1/2 pound of weight for an extra usb port, a built in optical drive, and a gb ethernet port. Oh and I got my laptop 6 months ago, so yes, you are paying 1000 dollars for a retina display that's largely unnecessary (your display size is not any larger, so your just shrinking the information on your screen to get more on it.) and an apple logo that makes you feel special for being a trend whore.
Then buy a Dell or Thinkpad. Oops, except since those are 2-3x as thick as this new laptop, you'd have to carry 15 Ethernet dongles to match their thickness and weight.
It's not for everybody, but don't pretend that it's a "joke"
Sansung series 7 Chronos, Similar size as a Macbook pro, has an ethernet port.
A laptop does not need to be thick to have an ethernet port. Someone's cutting corners to make their laptop cheaper and charge just as much as they ever did for the overpriced pos.
The people who are going to be at most risk are the people affording beach front property. A large number of these people are republicans who are supporting businesses, who are supporting these types of laws. Talk about stupidly screwing yourself...
Ummmm doesn't all of u-verses set top boxes work through their gateway. If so then you're saying they should all be adding to a u-verse customers bandwidth cap to just watch them or they are breaking net neutrality? Yeah, doesn't work that way...
Nice story, way wrong on assumptions though, ISPs didn't impose data caps to prevent users from using netflix. As a matter of fact netflix users are not routinely blowing there caps. The less than 1% that are blowing data caps are people who are hosting bots, people who have there whole neighborhood stealing their unprotected network, people who are seeding multiple torrents 24/7, or people who are hosting web servers (which is against your terms of service as a residential customer. So guess what, if the cable companies imposing data caps to stop netflix, they did it way wrong.
Saddly comcasts boxes are addressable, so its really no different. The same bandwidth is used on their hybrid fiber network, the only difference is that you own the equipment (just like if you owned a tivo). I'm so completely confused why people insist on it counting towards their data cap for a service you are already paying comcast for. Really people, keep bitching so that comcast will add it to your data cap and then you can bitch about being charged twice for something you already pay for.
Comcast on demand on your xbox or cablebox = not a streaming service
http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/ = streaming service
Guess what, comcasts streaming service, yeah it uses your bandwidth cap.
No, Comcasts network traffic is the same whether you watch on demand on your TV or your Xbox. Ultimately what you are looking at on the customer end of things. do you want to pay them for a DCT or pay less for a DTA and use your Xbox for on demand. Customer owned equipment is cheaper for comcast to maintain, so it benefits them and you save money, so its cheaper for you. They provide the on demand to you either way with your service. People seem to think this is a streaming service in the traditional sense and its not. http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/ is a streaming service, and it counts towards your data cap as well.
Then by your terms they should require that all services they offer count towards your bandwidth cap. That episode of Battlestar Galactica on syfy, yeah we have to count that even though its part of the video service you pay for.
Sorry man, doesn't work that way. Your on demand service is provided as part of your video package. Your Xbox is acting as a customer owned cable box, not as a streaming video service. Want a streaming video service, they have that, http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/ and guess what, it counts towards your data cap just like other services do.
I think you misunderstand, they are giving you a service that is already provided to you without bandwidth cap via a box already in your home (your main cable box) without charging you for additional equipment charges for additional boxes. You cannot access VOD content without a video package, so they are simply providing an alternate means to view this content. If this was something that could ave been litigated then Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu would have done so years ago when on demand content became available.
Slashdot Mirror
He likely got a threat of "fess up and retract statements or we charge you with fraud." I'm inclined to believe that if that's the only repercussion for his stupidity the dude got off light.
97 million documents, 10 cents a page, thats what they get for copying everything at kinkos...
69 is not free. it's buying an expensive cable service and expensive internet bundled into one package, idiot.
$69 internet service. $69 same Internet Service + Limited Basic cable. Expensive internet service...Yes. But if you pay the same amount with or without the service, that makes the service....You guessed it....FREE!
I need to make a call.
I just haven't figured out who I need to call--the FCC or Comcast.
When I purchased this house new, it had existing cable hookups but had never had them activated. I called Comcast and asked to have internet service activated. No problem, except that lady I spoke to automatically added cable service in the price--$69.00 a month. When I corrected her and stated that I did not want cable she stated that it was the same price anyway, with or without cable service.
So, in effect, the stand-alone internet service was never offered. In it's place, I was offered their bundle and was forced to pay a premium to have the cable access removed if I really desired to. Obviously, since the price was the same I now have both cable and internet service when all I wanted was the broadband.
...so you're complaining that you were given limited basic service for free with your internet? I'm not understanding, it doesn't cost anything to get rid of Comcast service, so if you really don't want it they will just take it off your bill and remove your bundle rate saving you...nothing. Personally I find it difficult to believe when people try to complain because someone did them a favor.
A large number of Apple's tech support advisers make 10.00 an hour, and are contracted through temp services so that apple doesn't have to pay insurance. They also can be released from there employment without reason simply because Apple chooses to. I've heard horror stories from friends that work at the local apple care call center and they have mentioned people being fired and given no warning, having never received any corrective action.
Or does this phone look like a Galaxy S2 and an iPhone had a baby?
I find it difficult to imagine the average joe requiring 2880 x 1800 displays anyways
That's not the point of this display. It's to provide extremely high-quality images and text at roughly the same size (in e.g. inches) as on the 1440x900 display.
Go to Best Buy and look at the difference between the iPad2 and the iPad3 (or New iPad or whatever.) Go to a webpage and look at the text. If you see a difference, that's what they're talking about. If you don't see a difference, then the "Retina" display probably isn't for you.
Look at the pictures on that web page, see any difference, if you do your kidding yourself because they are at 72 dpi, the images will be not better quality with a retina display that with any other display. Retina display will only make a difference with photo editing and some graphics work, and then not substantually because you are still dealing with a 15 in display, so things can just get smaller. Mac pro with a cinema display is really about the only place you are going to see the benefits of a display that large.
To all the naysayers, duh, Mac's have always been more expensive "then the rest", but then they are not marketed to people like you so get over it.
This is impressive, a lot of tech in a very small package and you can't even find that tech in ANY of the competition yet. While I know there is significantly better values out there if you just want a new computer, when you start building a Dell or HP laptop with any where close to the same tech in something no where near as well engineered as the new Macbook, you are paying close to $2000 anyways.
Someone said they can build 3 desktops for that money, then what? Have 3 unused boxes of crap lying around?
Same as always, Macs are never going to be the average joe's computer, I find it difficult to imagine the average joe requiring 2880 x 1800 displays anyways. This is squarely marketed to video editors, graphic designers, developers where the added screen real-estate will be welcomed. The fact that this thing isn't $3000+ because of the Retina display (which is not a commonly stocked component ANYWHERE), it is surprising they are selling it for so cheap.
So, don't worry you can't afford or don't want to buy this new MacBook Pro. Your comments are useless. This product is not marketed towards you and if you don't get it, then no worries. Wait for Dell's cloned version of this and while it might be cheaper, it won't be the same, but you will feel happy for 1-up'ing a Mac fanboy.
Except for the retina display, samsungs series7 laptop beats this in every way at 1000 dollars cheaper. And for portability, I'll take .about .2 inches of extra width and 1/2 pound of weight for an extra usb port, a built in optical drive, and a gb ethernet port. Oh and I got my laptop 6 months ago, so yes, you are paying 1000 dollars for a retina display that's largely unnecessary (your display size is not any larger, so your just shrinking the information on your screen to get more on it.) and an apple logo that makes you feel special for being a trend whore.
Then buy a Dell or Thinkpad. Oops, except since those are 2-3x as thick as this new laptop, you'd have to carry 15 Ethernet dongles to match their thickness and weight.
It's not for everybody, but don't pretend that it's a "joke"
Sansung series 7 Chronos, Similar size as a Macbook pro, has an ethernet port. A laptop does not need to be thick to have an ethernet port. Someone's cutting corners to make their laptop cheaper and charge just as much as they ever did for the overpriced pos.
The people who are going to be at most risk are the people affording beach front property. A large number of these people are republicans who are supporting businesses, who are supporting these types of laws. Talk about stupidly screwing yourself...
Ummmm doesn't all of u-verses set top boxes work through their gateway. If so then you're saying they should all be adding to a u-verse customers bandwidth cap to just watch them or they are breaking net neutrality? Yeah, doesn't work that way...
http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/ You are wrong, it is imposed on Comcast's actual streaming site.
Nice story, way wrong on assumptions though, ISPs didn't impose data caps to prevent users from using netflix. As a matter of fact netflix users are not routinely blowing there caps. The less than 1% that are blowing data caps are people who are hosting bots, people who have there whole neighborhood stealing their unprotected network, people who are seeding multiple torrents 24/7, or people who are hosting web servers (which is against your terms of service as a residential customer. So guess what, if the cable companies imposing data caps to stop netflix, they did it way wrong.
Saddly comcasts boxes are addressable, so its really no different. The same bandwidth is used on their hybrid fiber network, the only difference is that you own the equipment (just like if you owned a tivo). I'm so completely confused why people insist on it counting towards their data cap for a service you are already paying comcast for. Really people, keep bitching so that comcast will add it to your data cap and then you can bitch about being charged twice for something you already pay for.
Comcast on demand on your xbox or cablebox = not a streaming service http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/ = streaming service Guess what, comcasts streaming service, yeah it uses your bandwidth cap.
No, Comcasts network traffic is the same whether you watch on demand on your TV or your Xbox. Ultimately what you are looking at on the customer end of things. do you want to pay them for a DCT or pay less for a DTA and use your Xbox for on demand. Customer owned equipment is cheaper for comcast to maintain, so it benefits them and you save money, so its cheaper for you. They provide the on demand to you either way with your service. People seem to think this is a streaming service in the traditional sense and its not. http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/ is a streaming service, and it counts towards your data cap as well.
Then by your terms they should require that all services they offer count towards your bandwidth cap. That episode of Battlestar Galactica on syfy, yeah we have to count that even though its part of the video service you pay for. Sorry man, doesn't work that way. Your on demand service is provided as part of your video package. Your Xbox is acting as a customer owned cable box, not as a streaming video service. Want a streaming video service, they have that, http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/ and guess what, it counts towards your data cap just like other services do.
I think you misunderstand, they are giving you a service that is already provided to you without bandwidth cap via a box already in your home (your main cable box) without charging you for additional equipment charges for additional boxes. You cannot access VOD content without a video package, so they are simply providing an alternate means to view this content. If this was something that could ave been litigated then Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu would have done so years ago when on demand content became available.