iMikeT
Aug 29, 09:31 AM
I don't know if I should give this a postive or negative. Either way, I hate Microsoft.
colearnek
Mar 29, 11:30 AM
Something tells me that one still using a 3GS isn't likely a must have "latest and greatest" kind of consumer. I had a 3GS which I bought on Day One. ATT let nearly everyone upgrade early to the 4 so I did. It was a no brainer. Why you stuck it out w/ the 3GS I can't say but to be bitching and moaning Apple doesn't upgrade fast enough like you are is silly. If you only upgrade every 3 years what difference would more frequent upgrades possibly make in your life? I think you protesteth too much.
I am still on a 3GS and no ATT did NOT offer me any kind of early upgrade deal so I chose to spend what money I had on an iPad. I am not complaining - I'm just saying. My contract just came up and I was really looking forward to getting a new iPhone this year but now I am worried about upgrading to a small time iPhone4 refresh and being trapped into another two year contract when everyone upgrades to a fancy new iPhone5 next year.
No I do not blame Apple for this at all but that doesn't mean it's not frustrating for me. If they need to change their timeline of course they should but i am not sure i can stomach another 6mo to a year on a 3GS.
I am still on a 3GS and no ATT did NOT offer me any kind of early upgrade deal so I chose to spend what money I had on an iPad. I am not complaining - I'm just saying. My contract just came up and I was really looking forward to getting a new iPhone this year but now I am worried about upgrading to a small time iPhone4 refresh and being trapped into another two year contract when everyone upgrades to a fancy new iPhone5 next year.
No I do not blame Apple for this at all but that doesn't mean it's not frustrating for me. If they need to change their timeline of course they should but i am not sure i can stomach another 6mo to a year on a 3GS.
Lord Blackadder
Apr 26, 03:40 PM
I'm sure this is correct. AFAIK, this thread is about the UK, though.
I don't want to drag this too far OT, but my arguments are germane for two reasons. First, the history of the black population in London will be just as critical in understanding the relationship between race and crime there as it is in the US (where I am more familiar with the issue). Power relationships, socioeconomic status, prejudice, media slant - these are all major factors in the way people percieve issues and the way they go about trying to understand and solve them. We need more data on the London situation before any judgments can be made.
Second, likemyorbs's OP demonstrates his bias: [emphasis mine]
Just read an article that says black men in London commit more than half of street crimes and gun crimes. They make up only 12% of londons population. These statistics are even higher than in the US and they can't blame slavery and Jim crow laws in London like they love to do here. What is the possible reasoning behind this? Very interesting.
He is approaching the issue from the perspective that xeonophobia, racism and/or prejudice have little or no effect on a minority population in terms of their self identity, educational/economic/professional opportunities, or the nature of their relationship with the majority group. This could not be further from the truth.
So again with the boohoo sob stories of past discrimination that young blacks today have never felt
Why do rural whites in the south fly confederate flags, reenact battles and develop spurious revisionist theories about the Civil War? Why do they care? They never felt any of its effect, right?
They are put at an advantage over whites today and have been for the last 40 years.
Funny, the numbers don't bear that out. I have never seen a single piece of data that would indicate that blacks have any sort of advantage over whites, or even parity for that matter, in terms of education, income, or any other metric.
And once again, you say nothing about other countries that have the same issue and no racial history like the US has, i've already asked you twice to acknowledge this and look at it in a more global way, and you keep mentioning slavery and jim crow laws which affected a tiny percentage of africans worldwide a long time ago. stop thinking only within the borders of the US.
Whereas you'd prefer to prattle on about trailer parks...in the US. Fine, let's talk other countries - but what on earth is a racial history? I challenge you to find a single country with a significant black population that has no history of prejudice.
Not only do they commit a disproportionate amount of the crime in mostly white countries
Moving the goalposts again once you're proven wrong...you aren't fooling anyone.
they can't even seem to run their own countries in Africa without violence. WHY????
In a word, colonialism. Again, read some history. It has nothing to do with them being black.
Quit it with the politically correct "the white man is bringing the black race down" BS and look at it realistically.
My primary basis for debate is fact. Yours is uncited assertion, accusation and "common knowledge" without any basis in fact. You are hiding behind weasel-words. This is not political correctness, it's reality. I am not trying to assert that any population carries no responsibility for its own behavior - but your apparent ignoroance or dismissal of absolutely critical contextual information makes your opinion fairly worthless in my eyes. How can you hope to understand anything in today's world if you dismiss the events and mechanisms that created it, or selectively ignore facts that disprove your baseless assertions?
I don't want to drag this too far OT, but my arguments are germane for two reasons. First, the history of the black population in London will be just as critical in understanding the relationship between race and crime there as it is in the US (where I am more familiar with the issue). Power relationships, socioeconomic status, prejudice, media slant - these are all major factors in the way people percieve issues and the way they go about trying to understand and solve them. We need more data on the London situation before any judgments can be made.
Second, likemyorbs's OP demonstrates his bias: [emphasis mine]
Just read an article that says black men in London commit more than half of street crimes and gun crimes. They make up only 12% of londons population. These statistics are even higher than in the US and they can't blame slavery and Jim crow laws in London like they love to do here. What is the possible reasoning behind this? Very interesting.
He is approaching the issue from the perspective that xeonophobia, racism and/or prejudice have little or no effect on a minority population in terms of their self identity, educational/economic/professional opportunities, or the nature of their relationship with the majority group. This could not be further from the truth.
So again with the boohoo sob stories of past discrimination that young blacks today have never felt
Why do rural whites in the south fly confederate flags, reenact battles and develop spurious revisionist theories about the Civil War? Why do they care? They never felt any of its effect, right?
They are put at an advantage over whites today and have been for the last 40 years.
Funny, the numbers don't bear that out. I have never seen a single piece of data that would indicate that blacks have any sort of advantage over whites, or even parity for that matter, in terms of education, income, or any other metric.
And once again, you say nothing about other countries that have the same issue and no racial history like the US has, i've already asked you twice to acknowledge this and look at it in a more global way, and you keep mentioning slavery and jim crow laws which affected a tiny percentage of africans worldwide a long time ago. stop thinking only within the borders of the US.
Whereas you'd prefer to prattle on about trailer parks...in the US. Fine, let's talk other countries - but what on earth is a racial history? I challenge you to find a single country with a significant black population that has no history of prejudice.
Not only do they commit a disproportionate amount of the crime in mostly white countries
Moving the goalposts again once you're proven wrong...you aren't fooling anyone.
they can't even seem to run their own countries in Africa without violence. WHY????
In a word, colonialism. Again, read some history. It has nothing to do with them being black.
Quit it with the politically correct "the white man is bringing the black race down" BS and look at it realistically.
My primary basis for debate is fact. Yours is uncited assertion, accusation and "common knowledge" without any basis in fact. You are hiding behind weasel-words. This is not political correctness, it's reality. I am not trying to assert that any population carries no responsibility for its own behavior - but your apparent ignoroance or dismissal of absolutely critical contextual information makes your opinion fairly worthless in my eyes. How can you hope to understand anything in today's world if you dismiss the events and mechanisms that created it, or selectively ignore facts that disprove your baseless assertions?
Yamcha
May 4, 09:45 PM
Why are you guys all against 3D? I think its great, BUT I think its a given that you will be able to turn off the 3D.. And if that is the case then there is no problem really :P
Sydde
Mar 31, 12:51 AM
Here's a few quick ones.
"U.S. wants other nations to pitch in on Libya"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-wants-other-nations-to-pitch-in-on-libya/2011/03/30/AFh2IY6B_story.html
"European countries downsize military, increase social programs"
http://www.theeagleonline.com/news/story/european-countries-downsize-military-increase-social-programs/
"In an effort to decrease European government spending ... They are planning on reducing billions from their military budgets due to budget deficits."
http://propaganda-buster.blogspot.com/2011/02/european-military-hd.html
Quick, yes, but not very substantive. That third one, wtf is that? Sheesh.
"U.S. wants other nations to pitch in on Libya"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-wants-other-nations-to-pitch-in-on-libya/2011/03/30/AFh2IY6B_story.html
"European countries downsize military, increase social programs"
http://www.theeagleonline.com/news/story/european-countries-downsize-military-increase-social-programs/
"In an effort to decrease European government spending ... They are planning on reducing billions from their military budgets due to budget deficits."
http://propaganda-buster.blogspot.com/2011/02/european-military-hd.html
Quick, yes, but not very substantive. That third one, wtf is that? Sheesh.
RebootD
Nov 23, 07:26 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)
The Beatles are up there with the likes if Bach as far as helping to shape the future of musical style and sound. If you don't know who Bach is then I feel sorry for you.
The Beatles are up there with the likes if Bach as far as helping to shape the future of musical style and sound. If you don't know who Bach is then I feel sorry for you.
Peace
Jan 11, 12:22 PM
Actually all kidding aside..
MacBook Light.Or MacBook Lite.;)
MacBook Light.Or MacBook Lite.;)
Lord Blackadder
Apr 26, 05:40 PM
No one is moving the goal posts, you're not answering my questions. I'm just comparing to prove a point. No one else is whining about past discrimination except blacks. Everyone was discriminated at some point. They've all moved past it.
More falsehoods. There is absolutely no equivalence in terms of discrimination between whites and blacks within the scope of western history. None. Since when were whites discriminated against on a scale even within several orders of magnitude of that inflicted on black people? Not to mention that it's insulting to describe reactions to discrimination as "whining". You have a very large chip on your shoulder against perceived excesses of what you call "political correctness", but you appear to be either dismissive or completely ignorant of some basic facts that I have cited - facts that have a fundamental bearing on the issue.
Nein. What uncited assertion? I provided you with facts and statistics. You just don't seem to like them and don't want to face the facts. But that's ok.
That's completely untrue. You haven't provided a single fact or statistic to back up your statements.
Which is BS. Why should i find a country without a history of racial prejudice? Again, all the other races have moved past it except blacks.
Why? Because you suggested they exist - but you won't find one, because once again you are simply making things up. Your arguments are informed by emotion, not fact. Unless you can find some real evidence to back up these statements, they are nothing but bigotry.
Beside the fact, many blacks in the UK are immigrants and their ancestors didn't even deal with racial prejudice in the UK. So figure that one out.
Racial prejudice exists everywhere -yes, even in Africa amongst different nationalities and ethnic groups, all of whome are "black" - and it is not limited to Africans either. Look at the way Irish immigrants have been treated in the UK and US in the past. They are as white as any "white", and yet they suffered many of the exact same types prejudice as any other minority, barring slavery only.
The stated purpose of your "pondering" was to discover why gun crime is so prevalent among blacks in London. Your (baseless) assertions are bent towards suggesting that the problems stem from something inherent in black "culture" or some other internal cause. You dismiss all external factors as "political correctness" or invented "whining" by blacks themselves. You also try to act as if prejudice is something we've "gotten over" but blacks can't let go of. This is all vague bigotry, misinformation and lies, with absolutely no supporting evidence to back it up. In fact, you have proven over and over again that many people haven't "gotten over" old racial prejudices.
This is no longer an argument; it's merely contradiction on your part.
More falsehoods. There is absolutely no equivalence in terms of discrimination between whites and blacks within the scope of western history. None. Since when were whites discriminated against on a scale even within several orders of magnitude of that inflicted on black people? Not to mention that it's insulting to describe reactions to discrimination as "whining". You have a very large chip on your shoulder against perceived excesses of what you call "political correctness", but you appear to be either dismissive or completely ignorant of some basic facts that I have cited - facts that have a fundamental bearing on the issue.
Nein. What uncited assertion? I provided you with facts and statistics. You just don't seem to like them and don't want to face the facts. But that's ok.
That's completely untrue. You haven't provided a single fact or statistic to back up your statements.
Which is BS. Why should i find a country without a history of racial prejudice? Again, all the other races have moved past it except blacks.
Why? Because you suggested they exist - but you won't find one, because once again you are simply making things up. Your arguments are informed by emotion, not fact. Unless you can find some real evidence to back up these statements, they are nothing but bigotry.
Beside the fact, many blacks in the UK are immigrants and their ancestors didn't even deal with racial prejudice in the UK. So figure that one out.
Racial prejudice exists everywhere -yes, even in Africa amongst different nationalities and ethnic groups, all of whome are "black" - and it is not limited to Africans either. Look at the way Irish immigrants have been treated in the UK and US in the past. They are as white as any "white", and yet they suffered many of the exact same types prejudice as any other minority, barring slavery only.
The stated purpose of your "pondering" was to discover why gun crime is so prevalent among blacks in London. Your (baseless) assertions are bent towards suggesting that the problems stem from something inherent in black "culture" or some other internal cause. You dismiss all external factors as "political correctness" or invented "whining" by blacks themselves. You also try to act as if prejudice is something we've "gotten over" but blacks can't let go of. This is all vague bigotry, misinformation and lies, with absolutely no supporting evidence to back it up. In fact, you have proven over and over again that many people haven't "gotten over" old racial prejudices.
This is no longer an argument; it's merely contradiction on your part.
NT1440
Mar 10, 07:28 PM
Id also like to add that I increased spending on veterans, so you can save the "you don't support the troops" crap, I dont want to hear it.
The funny thing is that our current war spending doesn't put anything aside or even factor in the serious cash we're gonna have to drop on veteran benefits down the road. Thats a huge unaccounted for money pit, that MUST be paid for.
The funny thing is that our current war spending doesn't put anything aside or even factor in the serious cash we're gonna have to drop on veteran benefits down the road. Thats a huge unaccounted for money pit, that MUST be paid for.
john123
Mar 14, 10:44 PM
The sort of money you put down on a Mac you shouldn't expect anything less than USB 3.0 from here on out. Core 2 Duo in 2010 leaves a lot to be desired.
This is pretty academic, since you've always paid a premium for the Apple logo. Rarely does a Mac laptop have cutting edge hardware across the board (see the graphics cards in laptops for an example of something that seems always a generation or more behind). The sad reality is that even though you're right, they'll continue to sell those laptops at a prodigious rate. Most people don't care about technical specs as much as they do the overall user experience.
This is pretty academic, since you've always paid a premium for the Apple logo. Rarely does a Mac laptop have cutting edge hardware across the board (see the graphics cards in laptops for an example of something that seems always a generation or more behind). The sad reality is that even though you're right, they'll continue to sell those laptops at a prodigious rate. Most people don't care about technical specs as much as they do the overall user experience.
jacollins
Mar 25, 12:19 PM
Any "bug fixes" actually listed out?
MrsNO
Mar 21, 03:39 PM
thank you for doing informatics a boy's thing.
Tec972
Nov 25, 11:43 AM
I sympathise with lots of your points, but this one doesn't necessarily stand up.
Cost of an external hard disk to back up my entire music library (if I had bought it all from iTunes): Approx �40
Cost of shelving to hold all my CD's: Approx �200
I understand what you are saying and already realized that, like I said, I would love for iTunes to be my one stop shop for music, because it's more convenient. But their pricing is off due to such low overhead, that I shouldn't be able to buy physical media more cheaply.
My argument is has more to do with them not keeping accounts that you can access your purchased stuff from. It is more of the fact that I don't want to back up stuff 2 or 3 times over because if it is lost I wouldn't be able to get it again. Hard drives do fail quite a bit. I know there are circumstance of apple letting people download all their stuff once, but it should be something they would offer anyway.
Most of my original post would pertain to buying something like the Beatles Box set on iTunes. I could buy it on iTunes for $150 in digital format or go to Amazon get the real box set for $130 encode it in better quality if I desired and either throw the box set away, give it away or sell it for lets say $80, if I didn't want it taking up space. So it cost me $50, and I have the same exact thing I would have gotten on iTunes for about one third the cost (depending on what I sold it for). If you still think that buying that set on iTunes is the better value then that's fine. To me it just doesn't compare.
I didn't really mean to write a rant opposed to trying to make people realize that iTunes is not a good deal in many cases and they should not be charging what they do, but people are so blinded, it makes me wonder.
Don't get me wrong, on few occasions I do buy music on iTunes but I still think it is a ripoff because it is an all digital purchase.
Cost of an external hard disk to back up my entire music library (if I had bought it all from iTunes): Approx �40
Cost of shelving to hold all my CD's: Approx �200
I understand what you are saying and already realized that, like I said, I would love for iTunes to be my one stop shop for music, because it's more convenient. But their pricing is off due to such low overhead, that I shouldn't be able to buy physical media more cheaply.
My argument is has more to do with them not keeping accounts that you can access your purchased stuff from. It is more of the fact that I don't want to back up stuff 2 or 3 times over because if it is lost I wouldn't be able to get it again. Hard drives do fail quite a bit. I know there are circumstance of apple letting people download all their stuff once, but it should be something they would offer anyway.
Most of my original post would pertain to buying something like the Beatles Box set on iTunes. I could buy it on iTunes for $150 in digital format or go to Amazon get the real box set for $130 encode it in better quality if I desired and either throw the box set away, give it away or sell it for lets say $80, if I didn't want it taking up space. So it cost me $50, and I have the same exact thing I would have gotten on iTunes for about one third the cost (depending on what I sold it for). If you still think that buying that set on iTunes is the better value then that's fine. To me it just doesn't compare.
I didn't really mean to write a rant opposed to trying to make people realize that iTunes is not a good deal in many cases and they should not be charging what they do, but people are so blinded, it makes me wonder.
Don't get me wrong, on few occasions I do buy music on iTunes but I still think it is a ripoff because it is an all digital purchase.
Manic Mouse
Nov 7, 06:23 AM
Would this be out of the question for the two MBs?
1.83Ghz 2.0Ghz C2D
512Mb 1Gb RAM
60Gb 80Gb HDD
GMA950 X1400
At least the option for a dedicated GPU would be awesome, and since the MBP's would have faster CPUs and significantly faster GPUs I don't see how it would make that much of a difference... Light gaming is NOT "Pro" usage, no matter what Apple would try to tell us.
1.83Ghz 2.0Ghz C2D
512Mb 1Gb RAM
60Gb 80Gb HDD
GMA950 X1400
At least the option for a dedicated GPU would be awesome, and since the MBP's would have faster CPUs and significantly faster GPUs I don't see how it would make that much of a difference... Light gaming is NOT "Pro" usage, no matter what Apple would try to tell us.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 14, 01:27 PM
That would be totally irrelevant.
Except for Apple, they all build the same old PCs. Because they all build the same product, sales can move from one company to another company very, very quickly, as we can see from the enormous growth followed by a very quick fall of Acer. Apple has 9.3%, so the rest has 90.7%. It would be possible with these numbers to have nine companies selling more than Apple. If Apple doubles their share to 18.6%, you still could have four companies selling more than Apple.
Right. My point is that Apple's market share is increasing to to increased sales in PC's rather than other companies' failures. As their percentage increases, the number of companies that could possibly simultaneously have greater market share decreases.
Apple's position in this chart doesn't matter one bit; not even the market share really matters; the thing that matters is how many Macs are sold. If HP takes a few sales away from Toshiba, Apple comes third. But if Acer takes a few sales away from HP instead, Apple comes fifth. What does it matter? (BTW. The IDC report at macobserver shows Apple fourth, with Acer having lost a lot more and coming fifth, not third).
As Apple's sales increase and the sum of the competitions' decrease, Apple's market share has to increase. They can take away from each other but if they are all losing sales then Apple has to go up.
If Apple is selling tons of products, in a market with plenty of competitors, how can they be not competitive? 9.3% of buyers in the USA decided that for their money, a Mac is the best computer they can find.
I see Apple slowly rising to a respectable 15% market share over the next few years. Again, the top market share will likely be below 30% so 15% is very good. 9% is very good. HP may increase market share for a while with decrease overall sales of other windows PC sellers but that won't last. If they break 30% it will be temporary.
Except for Apple, they all build the same old PCs. Because they all build the same product, sales can move from one company to another company very, very quickly, as we can see from the enormous growth followed by a very quick fall of Acer. Apple has 9.3%, so the rest has 90.7%. It would be possible with these numbers to have nine companies selling more than Apple. If Apple doubles their share to 18.6%, you still could have four companies selling more than Apple.
Right. My point is that Apple's market share is increasing to to increased sales in PC's rather than other companies' failures. As their percentage increases, the number of companies that could possibly simultaneously have greater market share decreases.
Apple's position in this chart doesn't matter one bit; not even the market share really matters; the thing that matters is how many Macs are sold. If HP takes a few sales away from Toshiba, Apple comes third. But if Acer takes a few sales away from HP instead, Apple comes fifth. What does it matter? (BTW. The IDC report at macobserver shows Apple fourth, with Acer having lost a lot more and coming fifth, not third).
As Apple's sales increase and the sum of the competitions' decrease, Apple's market share has to increase. They can take away from each other but if they are all losing sales then Apple has to go up.
If Apple is selling tons of products, in a market with plenty of competitors, how can they be not competitive? 9.3% of buyers in the USA decided that for their money, a Mac is the best computer they can find.
I see Apple slowly rising to a respectable 15% market share over the next few years. Again, the top market share will likely be below 30% so 15% is very good. 9% is very good. HP may increase market share for a while with decrease overall sales of other windows PC sellers but that won't last. If they break 30% it will be temporary.
zekegri
Mar 30, 08:54 AM
SIRI rocks! The BEST, by far, voice recognition right out of the gate I have EVER tried-it is quite amazing and I wish Apple all the best integrating it-great choice! Put it into a remote control to provide functions- "turn to sports channel" " record this movie" "next, previous" etc.............
leekohler
Apr 4, 12:29 PM
Do we atheists need our own "Good Book"?
No- how ridiculous. Atheism is not a religion.
No- how ridiculous. Atheism is not a religion.
IronLogik
Nov 12, 12:14 PM
This tweet (http://twitter.com/counternotions/status/5639310946) might explain it.
Walled garden is what makes it work. I don't want everyone in the world to see me on there. I don't want my information on facebook outside of facebook.
It's better because of the walled garden. Sure it might be better functionality-wise if it was open. But my identity is sort of important to me and if that was compromised that doesn't benefit me at all.
So, sure. Irony. But there's a good reason for the walled garden.
Walled garden is what makes it work. I don't want everyone in the world to see me on there. I don't want my information on facebook outside of facebook.
It's better because of the walled garden. Sure it might be better functionality-wise if it was open. But my identity is sort of important to me and if that was compromised that doesn't benefit me at all.
So, sure. Irony. But there's a good reason for the walled garden.
ilovethisgame
Mar 28, 08:07 PM
Retail stores are free to do what they want as long as they don't advertise under the Apple MSRP. Don't like it? Don't buy....
Apple also doesn't have to sell their products in every store. I am sure Apple could say that they couldn't do that if they want to continue selling the iPad 2. I'd be very surprised if Apple knew about this and allowed it.
My guess is that since managers are pressuring the sales staff to sell the add-ons so hard, that they are just saying its required.
Apple also doesn't have to sell their products in every store. I am sure Apple could say that they couldn't do that if they want to continue selling the iPad 2. I'd be very surprised if Apple knew about this and allowed it.
My guess is that since managers are pressuring the sales staff to sell the add-ons so hard, that they are just saying its required.
Westside guy
Aug 2, 11:12 PM
Some of you should consider getting a smug-ectomy - this looks like a proof of concept more than anything else. Depending on exactly where the point of vulnerability is (which is not totally clear, perhaps intentionally) down the road this could have implications for built-in airport cards as well.
A couple years ago a security researcher discovered an Internet Explorer exploit that took advantage of a jpeg vulnerability. For this exploit to work, a user had to drag the image from the browser and onto their desktop, so many people blew it off - I mean, who would be stupid enough to do that? Well, after a bit more time other hackers (please don't bother "correcting" that) figured out how to take advantage of this exploit with some specially crafted script that could leverage the vulnerability without actual user interaction required.
I would agree that, at this moment, it's not a problem most Mac users need to worry about. But blowing it off completely is sophomoric at best.
A couple years ago a security researcher discovered an Internet Explorer exploit that took advantage of a jpeg vulnerability. For this exploit to work, a user had to drag the image from the browser and onto their desktop, so many people blew it off - I mean, who would be stupid enough to do that? Well, after a bit more time other hackers (please don't bother "correcting" that) figured out how to take advantage of this exploit with some specially crafted script that could leverage the vulnerability without actual user interaction required.
I would agree that, at this moment, it's not a problem most Mac users need to worry about. But blowing it off completely is sophomoric at best.
Compile 'em all
Nov 17, 01:38 AM
Hi,
According to me,Facebook application is very useful in the making of the i-phone application.It is very quit relevant to the i-phone application.
Wait, what?
According to me,Facebook application is very useful in the making of the i-phone application.It is very quit relevant to the i-phone application.
Wait, what?
gradydds
Sep 4, 06:09 PM
Seriously, i could care less about the wait...my computer works fine. I am currently using an Apple IIc...it kicks ass. I had to update it a bit to be able to use the internet though. Do you think i would be better to wait for the Santa Rosa platform to get a MBP? or just get the merom on the current.....and please don't say "if you keep waiting, there will always be something new around the corner and you will wait forever."
Laird Knox
Mar 28, 10:11 PM
What's with the focus on 'sold out'? Simply limit your passes well below the projected numbers of participants, and there you go, sold out. It's just a math game and a marketing ploy.
But how many tickets were actually for sale? 3000? 5000? 10,000? Remember that the conference center needs to house all the Apple employees, the contractors, and of course all the booths/rooms.
I would imagine that Apple purposely plans events (timing as well as location) that WILL sell out. Apple doesn't want to hold an event where only 50% of the conference hall is filled.
Selling out in 12 hours may not be all that it's cracked up to be. But in theory if 100% of the attendees are truly developers, I could see a fast sellout.
You and a few other thousand engineers. What hasn't been said is how many tickets were sold. I would be curious to see if Apple limited the amount of tickets the first round to get hype and "additional tickets" will go on sale later this week.
Really? Wow, what's next?
Cupertino:
Apple has announced a reduction in the number of restrooms available in their office buildings. This is seen as a media ploy to drive up demand. :rolleyes:
Tin foil hats, necessity or fashion accessory? New at eleven.
But there are larger venues available, so it is certainly possible to limit the number of attendees by choosing a venue that is too small.
But are they ready to make the move to Vegas? Would love to see WWDC move here. :)
But how many tickets were actually for sale? 3000? 5000? 10,000? Remember that the conference center needs to house all the Apple employees, the contractors, and of course all the booths/rooms.
I would imagine that Apple purposely plans events (timing as well as location) that WILL sell out. Apple doesn't want to hold an event where only 50% of the conference hall is filled.
Selling out in 12 hours may not be all that it's cracked up to be. But in theory if 100% of the attendees are truly developers, I could see a fast sellout.
You and a few other thousand engineers. What hasn't been said is how many tickets were sold. I would be curious to see if Apple limited the amount of tickets the first round to get hype and "additional tickets" will go on sale later this week.
Really? Wow, what's next?
Cupertino:
Apple has announced a reduction in the number of restrooms available in their office buildings. This is seen as a media ploy to drive up demand. :rolleyes:
Tin foil hats, necessity or fashion accessory? New at eleven.
But there are larger venues available, so it is certainly possible to limit the number of attendees by choosing a venue that is too small.
But are they ready to make the move to Vegas? Would love to see WWDC move here. :)
behindthecamera
Sep 22, 02:28 PM
Well, that was fun. Hit "send" too soon. Where is the Justice Department? This is clearly the anti-competitive raving of a monopolistic entity.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire