donlphi
Sep 5, 12:25 PM
Hopefully it doesn't turn out to be another device like the Apple hi-fi. What a let down that was!
So we will get movie service from iTunes, a new iPOD NANO with a metal scratchproof case, a new Airport extreme with Audio and Video OUT... no hi-def for sure... and a bump in processor speed for the whole line.
Am I really leaving anything out?
We'll see next week. The hype always just creates this big let down for me. Hopefully my negative attitude will bring me happiness, regardless of what is presented.
WHY SUCH A LONG WAIT???
So we will get movie service from iTunes, a new iPOD NANO with a metal scratchproof case, a new Airport extreme with Audio and Video OUT... no hi-def for sure... and a bump in processor speed for the whole line.
Am I really leaving anything out?
We'll see next week. The hype always just creates this big let down for me. Hopefully my negative attitude will bring me happiness, regardless of what is presented.
WHY SUCH A LONG WAIT???
APPLENEWBIE
Sep 5, 04:45 PM
Indeed it is. Microsoft is simply DEAD after 12th of September...Apple is finally gonna reach the status of market leader in media and computers...this is gonna be mindblowing.
I think MS might just survive, since they have 95% of the PC market, a big hunk of the game console market, some pretty good peripherals (mice/keyboards) and the world beating (for better or worse) office suite... I'm not getting out my shovel just yet.
I think MS might just survive, since they have 95% of the PC market, a big hunk of the game console market, some pretty good peripherals (mice/keyboards) and the world beating (for better or worse) office suite... I'm not getting out my shovel just yet.
oldwatery
Sep 26, 01:25 PM
Damn you guys bitch alot:rolleyes:
Seriously though...I think it is fair to say we all have good and bad stories about carriers. All carriers.
But read the release.
They are using Cingular for just 6 months then offering it to everyone (who wants to take it)
This is a wise decision on a brand new product for lots of obvious reasons.
I personally use Cingular but have my issues with them and all the rest for that matter. (don't waste your $$$ on their lame insurance plan for instance)
Also it would seem that this will not be a US only product.
I know it is hard to be patient with these things....damn it I am frustrated at having to wait 2 weeks for my wireless keyboard and 2 months for my Shuffle.
BUT as they say and the truth is.....ALL good things come to those who wait.
I think many of you have missed the simple significance of this news.
At last the phone is real...it is coming soon. No more rumors:D
Seriously though...I think it is fair to say we all have good and bad stories about carriers. All carriers.
But read the release.
They are using Cingular for just 6 months then offering it to everyone (who wants to take it)
This is a wise decision on a brand new product for lots of obvious reasons.
I personally use Cingular but have my issues with them and all the rest for that matter. (don't waste your $$$ on their lame insurance plan for instance)
Also it would seem that this will not be a US only product.
I know it is hard to be patient with these things....damn it I am frustrated at having to wait 2 weeks for my wireless keyboard and 2 months for my Shuffle.
BUT as they say and the truth is.....ALL good things come to those who wait.
I think many of you have missed the simple significance of this news.
At last the phone is real...it is coming soon. No more rumors:D
Silencio
Dec 30, 06:39 PM
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2010:
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2009:
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2008:
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2007:
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
&c. &c.
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2009:
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2008:
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2007:
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
&c. &c.
Henri Gaudier
Oct 28, 03:45 AM
..Green Peace. Is this another manifestation of "End Time" thinking? Unbelievable. From what does it stem from?
What can be offensive about being "green"?
There's exploitation, war and hate mongering everywhere you look and you come to a Mac community forum and you find out you hate your neighbours. Neo-liberal capitalist scum. Amazing. Mightilly pissed off with a lot of you.
What can be offensive about being "green"?
There's exploitation, war and hate mongering everywhere you look and you come to a Mac community forum and you find out you hate your neighbours. Neo-liberal capitalist scum. Amazing. Mightilly pissed off with a lot of you.
flinstone
Sep 12, 02:40 PM
Anubis "We waited 334 days for this? "
I agree totally lame and bad for Apple.
How longer i think of the "news" today the more foolish i think it is of Steve to even announce this crap!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
I agree totally lame and bad for Apple.
How longer i think of the "news" today the more foolish i think it is of Steve to even announce this crap!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
MattInOz
Apr 14, 07:17 PM
Thunderbolt will never replace USB because they serve different functions. You will never see low-bandwidth devices such as keyboard/mice/USB stick using thunderbolt because it doesn't make sense.
Yes but why would these devices move to USB3 either?
Most are happy on USB1 or 2. with no demand for 3.
If they have the market for features then Wireless is the most attractive up sell for most of them over faster wires. So Low bandwidth devices are either going to stay USB 2 or go wireless.
Low bandwidth is really a moot point, it's high bandwidth that drives wired connections.
Yes but why would these devices move to USB3 either?
Most are happy on USB1 or 2. with no demand for 3.
If they have the market for features then Wireless is the most attractive up sell for most of them over faster wires. So Low bandwidth devices are either going to stay USB 2 or go wireless.
Low bandwidth is really a moot point, it's high bandwidth that drives wired connections.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
Much Ado
Sep 8, 01:40 PM
I remember that SNL skit too. That was great.
Introducing, and i'm thrilled about this- the new iPod invisa.
:)
Introducing, and i'm thrilled about this- the new iPod invisa.
:)
~Shard~
Sep 13, 09:14 PM
Dear god, enough with the phone rumors already!:mad:
Would you prefer us to go back to the PowerBook G5 rumors instead? :p ;) :D
Would you prefer us to go back to the PowerBook G5 rumors instead? :p ;) :D
ArchaicRevival
Mar 23, 06:42 PM
Im in agreement with this.
Remove them from the App Store.
It might be illegal etc.. but we must draw the line somewhere.
Nope it's not illegal. The law enforcement is required to announce them, plus many radio show hosts announce them as well.
but I definitely agree with other posts, that if a guy is too drunk to drive, he's probably to drunk to use his phone and look for DUI checkpoints anyway. It's probably for people that are not super drunk, but are maybe 0.09% instead of 0.08%. ;)
Overzealous democrats and republicans on both side need to suck it.:mad:
Remove them from the App Store.
It might be illegal etc.. but we must draw the line somewhere.
Nope it's not illegal. The law enforcement is required to announce them, plus many radio show hosts announce them as well.
but I definitely agree with other posts, that if a guy is too drunk to drive, he's probably to drunk to use his phone and look for DUI checkpoints anyway. It's probably for people that are not super drunk, but are maybe 0.09% instead of 0.08%. ;)
Overzealous democrats and republicans on both side need to suck it.:mad:
Amazing Iceman
Apr 11, 08:47 AM
i dont know much about this, but does this mean i can stream to my ps3 now?
Not yet. This just means that it's now very possible for someone to develop an app to do it.
Not yet. This just means that it's now very possible for someone to develop an app to do it.
GGJstudios
Apr 4, 04:52 PM
ClamXav only detects Windows viruses.
http://www.clamxav.com
ClamXav is a free virus scanner for Mac OS X. It uses the very popular ClamAV open source antivirus engine as a back end and has the ability to detect both Windows and Mac threats.
http://www.clamxav.com
ClamXav is a free virus scanner for Mac OS X. It uses the very popular ClamAV open source antivirus engine as a back end and has the ability to detect both Windows and Mac threats.
rloechner
Mar 30, 01:28 PM
Actually M$ its:
"App Store"
Take that.
"App Store"
Take that.
Dmac77
Apr 25, 12:50 AM
and you doing 20 mph over the limit was a good idea?
A rarely if ever a good idea.
2 you lack the experience to even know how to drive that much over the limit.
3 fact that she had to go out of your way quickly tells me you really screwed up. I know if I saw someone flying up on me I might flash my brake lights (not slow down but flash them) to get them to slow down and back off. Force them to see me and people see brake lights they tend to slow down. I have gotten people like you to smoke their tires before. Mind you I was in the left lane. Had a semi truck to my right and I was going threw a pass. They come flying up on me and get on my bumper. I press my brakes just hard enough to cause the lights to come on but my speed stays the same. They smoke their tires and give me some breathing room. Works every time to get people to back off.
Rodimus I think you misunderstand. When I flew up on her I slowed down. I signaled for her to move over to the "slow lane," she did not. After I signaled her again, she brakechecked me, then proceeded to do under 55mph on a 70mph highway in the fast lane. When she did that, I passed her, waited till there was a car on her side and then slammed on my brakes, forcing her into the service lane, in order to avoid hitting me.
-Don
A rarely if ever a good idea.
2 you lack the experience to even know how to drive that much over the limit.
3 fact that she had to go out of your way quickly tells me you really screwed up. I know if I saw someone flying up on me I might flash my brake lights (not slow down but flash them) to get them to slow down and back off. Force them to see me and people see brake lights they tend to slow down. I have gotten people like you to smoke their tires before. Mind you I was in the left lane. Had a semi truck to my right and I was going threw a pass. They come flying up on me and get on my bumper. I press my brakes just hard enough to cause the lights to come on but my speed stays the same. They smoke their tires and give me some breathing room. Works every time to get people to back off.
Rodimus I think you misunderstand. When I flew up on her I slowed down. I signaled for her to move over to the "slow lane," she did not. After I signaled her again, she brakechecked me, then proceeded to do under 55mph on a 70mph highway in the fast lane. When she did that, I passed her, waited till there was a car on her side and then slammed on my brakes, forcing her into the service lane, in order to avoid hitting me.
-Don
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 11:56 AM
Also the fact that its pretty obvious that Steve Jobs is obsessed with the Beatles.
That doesn't count either. You're looking at it wrong. :D
That doesn't count either. You're looking at it wrong. :D
BenRoethig
Sep 26, 09:55 AM
No iPhone for me neither. But really, unless it was out-of-the-park good, there was no change I get one anyway.
Is anyone else getting a bit tired of all this apple branding outside of the computer space? I mean, a phone? Why o why SJ? :confused:
Okay, more Apple products out there means more brand recognition. More brand recognition means more people will be willing to check out Apple's hardware offerings. Got it?
Is anyone else getting a bit tired of all this apple branding outside of the computer space? I mean, a phone? Why o why SJ? :confused:
Okay, more Apple products out there means more brand recognition. More brand recognition means more people will be willing to check out Apple's hardware offerings. Got it?
awr
Apr 4, 12:52 PM
sorry but if i'm a mall security guard and i got 3 thugs poppin off at me - i'm doing headshots all day.
some of you bleeding hearts want to be all noble - try having any mindset other than "survive" when low-lifes with nothing to lose are pointing guns at you.
some of you bleeding hearts want to be all noble - try having any mindset other than "survive" when low-lifes with nothing to lose are pointing guns at you.
hyperpasta
Sep 5, 09:07 AM
Store is back up. Can't see anything new
Same here. False alarm! :(
Same here. False alarm! :(
SmalTek
Nov 14, 12:21 PM
I think that Apple doesn't have resources for decent quality review process.
App store works in a such way, that all underdog app developers want to update their apps as often as possible. A new update brings an app to the first page in its category, sorted by date (for a day or 2)
Apple does not have guts or desire to charge for reviews, and all this mess goes on. They "review" apps very formally, and I suspect that this is outsourced to India.
If Apple wants to make this right, they should include 10 or 20 reviews into the annual $100 developer fee, and charge $20-$50 for each additional review. That would greatly reduce the number of updates, and increase the quality of reviews.
I myself have several apps in the appstore, and my apps and updates were also rejected many times for formal reasons, which were totally stupid in the context of my apps.
And what's also funny, Apple suddenly rejected my critical update with a bug fix because of a piece of graphic that already was in my app for 6 months :-)
App store works in a such way, that all underdog app developers want to update their apps as often as possible. A new update brings an app to the first page in its category, sorted by date (for a day or 2)
Apple does not have guts or desire to charge for reviews, and all this mess goes on. They "review" apps very formally, and I suspect that this is outsourced to India.
If Apple wants to make this right, they should include 10 or 20 reviews into the annual $100 developer fee, and charge $20-$50 for each additional review. That would greatly reduce the number of updates, and increase the quality of reviews.
I myself have several apps in the appstore, and my apps and updates were also rejected many times for formal reasons, which were totally stupid in the context of my apps.
And what's also funny, Apple suddenly rejected my critical update with a bug fix because of a piece of graphic that already was in my app for 6 months :-)
dsnort
Aug 31, 08:23 PM
Now, I may be wrong, but if they roll out iTunes movies in Paris or London, won't they be introducing the product in a locale where it won't be available?
macfan881
Sep 12, 04:20 PM
Wasting breath on a comment like this isn't even worth it.
although i agree with u techicly u just did i dont know why im replying lol but i liked all the stuff i mean if ur a Video Quailty Freak go get a dvd and play it on your tv if ur just a average movie watcher like me i think this is great and i hope to see more companys on itunes as well
although i agree with u techicly u just did i dont know why im replying lol but i liked all the stuff i mean if ur a Video Quailty Freak go get a dvd and play it on your tv if ur just a average movie watcher like me i think this is great and i hope to see more companys on itunes as well
aiqw9182
Apr 17, 04:49 AM
I stop reading everything you said after this statement. You are clueless dude. Go back to school or finish school or jsut stop typing.
I have a job, a wife and a kid and you want me to go back to school when I graduated college five years ago? All because I said to buy an adapter that WILL be cheap when/if it's necessary to have one?
Whatever helps you feel like you're more accomplished. ;)
I have a job, a wife and a kid and you want me to go back to school when I graduated college five years ago? All because I said to buy an adapter that WILL be cheap when/if it's necessary to have one?
Whatever helps you feel like you're more accomplished. ;)
Peace
Sep 4, 04:09 PM
Read on and be wowed:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2016
Unfortunately that seemingly inadvertent leak was recanted today by the radio host
http://www.yourmaclife.com
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2016
Unfortunately that seemingly inadvertent leak was recanted today by the radio host
http://www.yourmaclife.com