I have a PC in my room but I use a mac in the office. If I had the money right now I'd buy a powerbook. It doesn't mean I'm switching from PC to Mac, I'm merely complimenting both machines. I want the best features of both at my disposal.
I agree that Apple seems to be unfairly gauging the situation as "everyone who buys a new Mac was a disgruntled PC user"...it's certainly still very cool to have more than one computer.
These days, buying a TV and a DVD player still costs more than buying a portable DVD player (at the lowest price, it's roughly 150 dollars, less than a decent sized TV), especially if you have children. Giving children the ability to watch a movie on a portable DVD player means that parents aren't pressured to put a DVD player and a TV in their kids' rooms. They can take the portable DVD away from the room, but they can't just take the TV every time kids misbehave. Plus, you can take it with you, on car trips and flights.
What I'm seeing as a possibility is not watching TV shows on an ipod screen, it's streaming news. Imagine bytes of news streaming to an ipod or a cell phone. It allows for remote connectivity to news organizations like CNN and Fox News. It gives us the ability to listen to the news and watch video that correspond to it. It saves time since we can do it on the subway ride or on a plane. I know that I can't carry a laptop everywhere and have a wi-fi connection everywhere. An ipod capable of streaming news would help me when I can't get my news online.
I'm not sure why spending the money is important...for roughly the same price or less, I could have a home theater with a gigantic screen. The light from that bounces off the walls and creates the same effect!
I believe in stocking up...one for the DVD in my room, one set for the computer, another two sets in case those two happen to fail at the same time...one set to save on the shelf for emergencies because my air conditioning unit is leaking and i don't want anything to accidentally fall off and get wet...can't have a wrinkly case now.
a sixth set for the public library and a seventh set to donate to a needy child.:)
Actually, i only have one set. I did just spend $30.86 on the Serenity comic books. I wish I had gotten them when they were in their first printing but I didn't have the resources at the time. That and I procrastinated.
There seem to be three questions that have risen from this.
1) Can Google afford this? The answer is Yes.
2) Who gets paid? Only first time users, apparently and only once. So that means that all of us Firefox users aren't going to get "up to" $1.
3) How is this going to benefit Google or Firefox?
I like the idea of Google and Mozilla teaming up. The Google search bar already appears on Firefox by default and the Google toolbar is helpful for certain people. It all depends on whether you really use it or not. I find it useful for translation and searches. Making my searching more efficient is the goal. It benefits Firefox because most people who have never heard of Firefox use IE withought realizing the problems it has. They have heard of Google and think of it as a reputable company -- therefore, if a reputable company such as Google would partner with a company like Firefox, they would be more willing to switch to Firefox.
Are there people who try Firefox and end up switching back to IE?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it only makes you a convert if you go out and shell out money to buy a new mac of your very own.
I have a PC in my room but I use a mac in the office. If I had the money right now I'd buy a powerbook. It doesn't mean I'm switching from PC to Mac, I'm merely complimenting both machines. I want the best features of both at my disposal. I agree that Apple seems to be unfairly gauging the situation as "everyone who buys a new Mac was a disgruntled PC user"...it's certainly still very cool to have more than one computer.
These days, buying a TV and a DVD player still costs more than buying a portable DVD player (at the lowest price, it's roughly 150 dollars, less than a decent sized TV), especially if you have children. Giving children the ability to watch a movie on a portable DVD player means that parents aren't pressured to put a DVD player and a TV in their kids' rooms. They can take the portable DVD away from the room, but they can't just take the TV every time kids misbehave. Plus, you can take it with you, on car trips and flights.
What I'm seeing as a possibility is not watching TV shows on an ipod screen, it's streaming news. Imagine bytes of news streaming to an ipod or a cell phone. It allows for remote connectivity to news organizations like CNN and Fox News. It gives us the ability to listen to the news and watch video that correspond to it. It saves time since we can do it on the subway ride or on a plane. I know that I can't carry a laptop everywhere and have a wi-fi connection everywhere. An ipod capable of streaming news would help me when I can't get my news online.
I'm not sure why spending the money is important...for roughly the same price or less, I could have a home theater with a gigantic screen. The light from that bounces off the walls and creates the same effect!
I believe in stocking up...one for the DVD in my room, one set for the computer, another two sets in case those two happen to fail at the same time...one set to save on the shelf for emergencies because my air conditioning unit is leaking and i don't want anything to accidentally fall off and get wet...can't have a wrinkly case now.
:)
a sixth set for the public library and a seventh set to donate to a needy child.
Actually, i only have one set. I did just spend $30.86 on the Serenity comic books. I wish I had gotten them when they were in their first printing but I didn't have the resources at the time. That and I procrastinated.
Over the summer there was a massive sale at Best Buy, where all FOX DVD sets were discounted to 49.99. I bought 7 seasons of X-Files.
1) Can Google afford this? The answer is Yes.
2) Who gets paid? Only first time users, apparently and only once. So that means that all of us Firefox users aren't going to get "up to" $1.
3) How is this going to benefit Google or Firefox?
I like the idea of Google and Mozilla teaming up. The Google search bar already appears on Firefox by default and the Google toolbar is helpful for certain people. It all depends on whether you really use it or not. I find it useful for translation and searches. Making my searching more efficient is the goal. It benefits Firefox because most people who have never heard of Firefox use IE withought realizing the problems it has. They have heard of Google and think of it as a reputable company -- therefore, if a reputable company such as Google would partner with a company like Firefox, they would be more willing to switch to Firefox.
Are there people who try Firefox and end up switching back to IE?