Laird Knox
Mar 18, 05:49 PM
:pReception to the original iPod launch was mixed. Our own forum responses (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=500) are interesting to look back on, 10 years later.[/url]
On that day Steve introduced ten years of fail. :D
On that day Steve introduced ten years of fail. :D
AlmightyG5
Aug 24, 01:18 PM
What are the serials that are affected? The Apple link is down....
Edge100
Dec 1, 09:51 AM
---
gulp.
thats a LOTTA cash.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9071-2477279,00.html
Well, it's not MS or Apple, so this probably doesn't change anything.
gulp.
thats a LOTTA cash.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9071-2477279,00.html
Well, it's not MS or Apple, so this probably doesn't change anything.
sp3ctre
Mar 12, 05:36 AM
oops:
http://www.9to5mac.com/new-macbook-pros-5464563
"Update: We've received multiple tips that there would be Pro updates in the coming days. This latest one about the MacBook Pros may have been fake. Shame on us."
http://www.9to5mac.com/new-macbook-pros-5464563
"Update: We've received multiple tips that there would be Pro updates in the coming days. This latest one about the MacBook Pros may have been fake. Shame on us."
Squire
Aug 10, 07:10 PM
But these new machines just make the hole in Apple's product line that much more obvious. No headless machine between $799 and about $2199? No machine between yonah dual 1.6 and xeon quad 2.0? No machine with swappable video card for under two grand??? You'll be able to get a smoking dual core conroe PC for probably half that.
I just hope this isn't the last of the line (hopefully apple is just saying that to brag on the transition speed) and there's a cheap midrange tower running conroe on the way.
Well, with the downgraded specs (Quad 2.0 GHz and 160 GB hard drive) and educational discount, I believe it comes out to $1924. You're right-- there's still room for another machine between that and the top-end iMac but I think the gap price-wise is less than some realize.
-Squire
I just hope this isn't the last of the line (hopefully apple is just saying that to brag on the transition speed) and there's a cheap midrange tower running conroe on the way.
Well, with the downgraded specs (Quad 2.0 GHz and 160 GB hard drive) and educational discount, I believe it comes out to $1924. You're right-- there's still room for another machine between that and the top-end iMac but I think the gap price-wise is less than some realize.
-Squire
iTim314
Jan 11, 11:32 AM
Hmm. Something wireless. :rolleyes:
fivepoint
Mar 10, 06:22 PM
While Democrats and Republicans bicker back and forth about whether to 'cut' 6 billion or 60 billion, there are a few lone voices in the legislature that actually realize the problem, and are actually willing to talk about it. Rand Paul is one of these voices and he gave a great speech yesterday which I think addresses the problems far more clearly than you'll get from any Elephant or Donkey on the hill. Take a moment and read it through. Many of you don't realize just how bad the problem is, but it's not necessarily your fault. There aren't many leaders out there that are willing to be so blunt and honest about the situation and to openly admit that neither side is trying hard enough to fix it.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
filmguy
Aug 8, 08:34 PM
I find it weird that you get a remote control and front row...Many people buying Mac Pros are getting them as their home computer, and it's pretty lame that you drop extra money on the high end and can't do some of the really cool things that can be done on a lower end model.
Hi,
You've raised some good points.
However, many of the people buying Mac Pros are in the creative services industry (film, graphic design, audio engineering). I don't know how processor hungry remote control and front row are, but I do know these users require the most power out of their machines.
Having said that, with ever faster machines, I see no reason for them not to include these two programs in the "complete Leopard package" in 2007 for all Macs sold.
My 2 cents worth. ;)
Regards, filmguy
Hi,
You've raised some good points.
However, many of the people buying Mac Pros are in the creative services industry (film, graphic design, audio engineering). I don't know how processor hungry remote control and front row are, but I do know these users require the most power out of their machines.
Having said that, with ever faster machines, I see no reason for them not to include these two programs in the "complete Leopard package" in 2007 for all Macs sold.
My 2 cents worth. ;)
Regards, filmguy
bsn
Sep 23, 03:17 PM
I have already stopped giving the evil empire any of my money. This is just one more piece of validation that my decision was 100% correct.
Shrivel up and wilt away Wal*Mart. People don't need your greed or abuse! Start paying your workers a fair wage and benefits.
Shrivel up and wilt away Wal*Mart. People don't need your greed or abuse! Start paying your workers a fair wage and benefits.
yellow
Aug 3, 12:16 PM
So...
The statements by the "Mac"
"I'll be fine" &
"PCs, not Macs"
Constitutes a "challenge to the hacker community"??!
:rolleyes:
Whatever.
The statements by the "Mac"
"I'll be fine" &
"PCs, not Macs"
Constitutes a "challenge to the hacker community"??!
:rolleyes:
Whatever.
brepublican
Oct 16, 01:35 PM
Everyone who read the MS press release knows when.
November 14th.
Yeah, but who the hell knows when thats gonna be? :D
November 14th.
Yeah, but who the hell knows when thats gonna be? :D
filmguy
Aug 8, 08:34 PM
I find it weird that you get a remote control and front row...Many people buying Mac Pros are getting them as their home computer, and it's pretty lame that you drop extra money on the high end and can't do some of the really cool things that can be done on a lower end model.
Hi,
You've raised some good points.
However, many of the people buying Mac Pros are in the creative services industry (film, graphic design, audio engineering). I don't know how processor hungry remote control and front row are, but I do know these users require the most power out of their machines.
Having said that, with ever faster machines, I see no reason for them not to include these two programs in the "complete Leopard package" in 2007 for all Macs sold.
My 2 cents worth. ;)
Regards, filmguy
Hi,
You've raised some good points.
However, many of the people buying Mac Pros are in the creative services industry (film, graphic design, audio engineering). I don't know how processor hungry remote control and front row are, but I do know these users require the most power out of their machines.
Having said that, with ever faster machines, I see no reason for them not to include these two programs in the "complete Leopard package" in 2007 for all Macs sold.
My 2 cents worth. ;)
Regards, filmguy
runninmac
Oct 26, 05:33 PM
Oh dang, these firmware updates make me nervous... so im going to wait and let others be the guinea pig.
PS: This should save apple a ton of cash
PS: This should save apple a ton of cash
MatthewConnelly
Nov 8, 06:20 AM
MatthewConnelly did you refresh your browser every second back then,.. Hehehhee.. Yeah, it just downnn!!
I guess I checked the UK and US stores just at the right times!
I guess I checked the UK and US stores just at the right times!
TVsac.com
Aug 4, 01:48 AM
thanks :)
iDutchman
Oct 17, 02:53 PM
Very nice with the Cinema Display on the wall. Great family photo as well; my family pictures are always awful. :)
Thx! Yeah, it was taken in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) this year. We had a desert safari that day.:cool:
Thx! Yeah, it was taken in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) this year. We had a desert safari that day.:cool:
cait-sith
Aug 3, 04:21 PM
I'm so lucky.. they announce all their new goodies on monday, and then on tuesday it's my birthday. :D
spicyapple
Nov 6, 10:54 PM
Now that Apple has consolidated the portable line on Intel C2D processors, the line between the pro and consumer models are diminished. Perhaps Apple should combine the two lines into one with 4 models across the line, employing an updated MB enclosure.
octoberdeath
Sep 12, 02:14 PM
I have Final Cut Pro and it comes with quicktime pro... my system is telling me all my software is up to date yet iTunes says i need to download the new quicktime. if i download the new quicktime and it isn't pro will it automatically give me pro features?
louis Fashion
Mar 28, 08:20 PM
Everything has to start some where. I was nearly t-boned by a SUV today that thought they were better than the rest of us... they were running very much running a red light. Get your head out of the sand as to the new world order...
Here in America bigger does not mean better in the end...
In Germany it is "Mercedes hat vorfart" (I think that is spelled correctly)
Translation: Mercedes has the right of way.
- Just as God intended it.
Here in America bigger does not mean better in the end...
In Germany it is "Mercedes hat vorfart" (I think that is spelled correctly)
Translation: Mercedes has the right of way.
- Just as God intended it.
KnightWRX
Apr 17, 08:21 AM
Toys R Us? Seriously? What a bizzarre place to buy a tablet PC. I guess we'll be seeing them with the Fisher Price laptops.
I think it's more odd that Toys R Us wants it. It's so far off their normal product type, but it could be that Toys R Us is looking for new segments to open
You're right, it is, they usually stick to HP, ASUS and Toshiba Laptops :
http://www.toysrus.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=3634444
Did you even bother to look up what Toys r' Us sells before making that comment ? This isn't a "new segment to open".
in order to try and save their business????
Why is every business but Apple struggling and looking to save themselves ? :rolleyes: Why is it everytime a company other than Apple is mentionned around this forum, it has to be close to bankruptcy and desperate to generate revenue and relevency ?
News flash, a lot of businesses aren't struggling at all, even if they aren't associated with Apple.
I think it's more odd that Toys R Us wants it. It's so far off their normal product type, but it could be that Toys R Us is looking for new segments to open
You're right, it is, they usually stick to HP, ASUS and Toshiba Laptops :
http://www.toysrus.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=3634444
Did you even bother to look up what Toys r' Us sells before making that comment ? This isn't a "new segment to open".
in order to try and save their business????
Why is every business but Apple struggling and looking to save themselves ? :rolleyes: Why is it everytime a company other than Apple is mentionned around this forum, it has to be close to bankruptcy and desperate to generate revenue and relevency ?
News flash, a lot of businesses aren't struggling at all, even if they aren't associated with Apple.
ericinboston
Apr 12, 11:52 AM
... then sit back and watch everyone complain about the high priced products! Yeah, sounds like a winner.
And not complain about Apple's margins?
Gimme a break...just because something is manufactured in the USA does not instantly mean it's pricier to the end consumer. There are a LOT of reasons why businesses invest outside the US and typically at the end of the day it's the COMPANY that wants to SAVE money and KEEP THOSE SAVINGS.
Do you really think the company passes 100% of the savings on to the consumer? How about 50% of those savings. Keep going....
And not complain about Apple's margins?
Gimme a break...just because something is manufactured in the USA does not instantly mean it's pricier to the end consumer. There are a LOT of reasons why businesses invest outside the US and typically at the end of the day it's the COMPANY that wants to SAVE money and KEEP THOSE SAVINGS.
Do you really think the company passes 100% of the savings on to the consumer? How about 50% of those savings. Keep going....
OdduWon
Oct 17, 12:29 AM
Way back when, I asked my mother to buy me the first Beatles album, Meet the Beatles. I remember being home, sick in bed, home from school and she came home with the bag. I was so excited. I ripped it open (ripped meant something very different in 1964) and out I pulled : The Buggs: The Beetle Beat (note spelling)........my friends laughed at me
that sux :( my friend found out her brother liked the beatles so she thought she would buy some for him. she went on itunes about 3 mo ago and bought an album. brother see's it and says thats not the beatles....heart break :(
that sux :( my friend found out her brother liked the beatles so she thought she would buy some for him. she went on itunes about 3 mo ago and bought an album. brother see's it and says thats not the beatles....heart break :(
sparky672
Sep 12, 10:15 PM
Did nobody not notice that the Nano ad shows the clickwheel glowing along with the screen? Looking at photos of the new Nano kind of kicks down that prospect, but it's a little of a let down when you realize the click wheel does not glow like in the ad.
It would be sweet though. :rolleyes:
I noticed. I too was hoping that it glowed like in the ad.
Nothing indicates that it would.
I'm glad I waited. Eye-ballin' a silver one myself.
It would be sweet though. :rolleyes:
I noticed. I too was hoping that it glowed like in the ad.
Nothing indicates that it would.
I'm glad I waited. Eye-ballin' a silver one myself.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire