h'biki
Apr 16, 03:21 AM
when marketshare is almost 0 % you are close to dying, look a 1 % of all new machines built is not giving me any confidence in the platform. sure we have 10 % in a installed platform but are loosing everywhere( thank you motorola for holding up the ass end. Fact is Pcs are running away from Mac and when a 500 dollar machine kicks a new $2000 Imac its time to say so long to Jobs and his croonies. Supported you guys way to long at my expense.
Layman's version:
When you CEASE TO MAKE A PROFIT then you are dying*. Until then, it doesn't matter what your market share is.
If 1% of the world's population gave me a dollar, I'd be very rich. If 50% of the world's population gave you 1 cent, you'd also be rich, but not as rich as me... even though you have a greater market share. Its all about margins!
For those who are actually interested in understanding the world of business:
*Well, possibly dying... You have to continue to lose money and do it over a period of time before you are dying. Even then, that may be a result of mismanagement, rather than the company itself being dead -- there may still be the potential for money to be made. Really, the only time a company is dead is when its bankrupt and/or when its taken over and its assets stripped (because its been mis-valued).
To give two recent examples. Gateway has been losing money for some time. It has gone from a all time high in 1997 of $61 per share to its current price of around $6 (which it has been at for over the last year). In other words, its been devalued by a magnitude of 10. (They may have refinanced during that time and devalued the price per share, while increasing their overall market value... but I can't remember them doing that. Gateway may have greater marker share, but Apple is valued at around $28 per share. Just to make the comparison properly fair, Gateway has a market value of $1,999 Million, while Apple's market value is around $10,000 million. In other words, Apple is worth ten times as much as Gateway, despite their smaller market share. (Admittely, Apple's share price flucates like crazy, but thats arguably a result of the FUD of uninformed gits, like those at C|Net). Nonetheless, Gateway is likely to be around for some time. Until it continues to burn through money and its share price drops even lower, and it becomes the target of a hostile takeover... which will result in (1) a merger/total buyout/absortion; (2) a massive corporate governance change because the hostile company thinks there's money to be made; and (3) its bought out, its assets stripped and resold.
Example 2 is Media 100. They were also burning through money. Unlike Gateway, however, they weren't generating much gross revenue. Their technology was good, but not that good, and their management was baaad. They weren't generating much gross revenue, which is why no one was really interested in buying them or giving them a loan. They just didn't seem capable of even making a profit (and thats what matters). They were a dying company (unlike Gateway, which is just troubled). So they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Now their assets are being bought by Optibase -- when that deal is complete, they will be dead.
Point is, corporate finance is a very convuluted world. They're like stars. The bigger they are, the longer it usually takes them to die. Sometimes there are corporate "supernovas" (like Enron or HIH or OneTel) in which the whole corporate structure implodes, but thats because of criminal negligence, lack of transparency, and dodgy account practices. (All of which render the mechanisms of the market for corporate control to be rather useless. Noone wants to touch a company when you don't want to know what you're buying).
The most important thing to the world of corporate finance -- the one in which a company lives or dies -- is profit per share, then revenue. Both of which Apple has. Thus it is healthy. Oh, and its debt free. This is a good thing, because it signals to potentially future creditors that it pays off it loans... thus they're likely to bail it out, if it finds itself in trouble again. (Of course, there are mitigating factors there, but thats true of anything).
The only reason that Apple's market share is an issue is because uninformed gits in the IT press (tautology that) scream about it being an issue. This creates information asynchronicity (imnsho) and distorts the market (both the share market and the IT market). Personally I reckon that if people didn't think market share was an issue, Apple would actually be increasing its marketshare. Of course, thats exactly the reason companies like C|NET do scream about it, so it becomes a quasi self-fulfililng prophercy.
Here endeth the lesson on "Introduction to Corporate Financing 101"
Layman's version:
When you CEASE TO MAKE A PROFIT then you are dying*. Until then, it doesn't matter what your market share is.
If 1% of the world's population gave me a dollar, I'd be very rich. If 50% of the world's population gave you 1 cent, you'd also be rich, but not as rich as me... even though you have a greater market share. Its all about margins!
For those who are actually interested in understanding the world of business:
*Well, possibly dying... You have to continue to lose money and do it over a period of time before you are dying. Even then, that may be a result of mismanagement, rather than the company itself being dead -- there may still be the potential for money to be made. Really, the only time a company is dead is when its bankrupt and/or when its taken over and its assets stripped (because its been mis-valued).
To give two recent examples. Gateway has been losing money for some time. It has gone from a all time high in 1997 of $61 per share to its current price of around $6 (which it has been at for over the last year). In other words, its been devalued by a magnitude of 10. (They may have refinanced during that time and devalued the price per share, while increasing their overall market value... but I can't remember them doing that. Gateway may have greater marker share, but Apple is valued at around $28 per share. Just to make the comparison properly fair, Gateway has a market value of $1,999 Million, while Apple's market value is around $10,000 million. In other words, Apple is worth ten times as much as Gateway, despite their smaller market share. (Admittely, Apple's share price flucates like crazy, but thats arguably a result of the FUD of uninformed gits, like those at C|Net). Nonetheless, Gateway is likely to be around for some time. Until it continues to burn through money and its share price drops even lower, and it becomes the target of a hostile takeover... which will result in (1) a merger/total buyout/absortion; (2) a massive corporate governance change because the hostile company thinks there's money to be made; and (3) its bought out, its assets stripped and resold.
Example 2 is Media 100. They were also burning through money. Unlike Gateway, however, they weren't generating much gross revenue. Their technology was good, but not that good, and their management was baaad. They weren't generating much gross revenue, which is why no one was really interested in buying them or giving them a loan. They just didn't seem capable of even making a profit (and thats what matters). They were a dying company (unlike Gateway, which is just troubled). So they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Now their assets are being bought by Optibase -- when that deal is complete, they will be dead.
Point is, corporate finance is a very convuluted world. They're like stars. The bigger they are, the longer it usually takes them to die. Sometimes there are corporate "supernovas" (like Enron or HIH or OneTel) in which the whole corporate structure implodes, but thats because of criminal negligence, lack of transparency, and dodgy account practices. (All of which render the mechanisms of the market for corporate control to be rather useless. Noone wants to touch a company when you don't want to know what you're buying).
The most important thing to the world of corporate finance -- the one in which a company lives or dies -- is profit per share, then revenue. Both of which Apple has. Thus it is healthy. Oh, and its debt free. This is a good thing, because it signals to potentially future creditors that it pays off it loans... thus they're likely to bail it out, if it finds itself in trouble again. (Of course, there are mitigating factors there, but thats true of anything).
The only reason that Apple's market share is an issue is because uninformed gits in the IT press (tautology that) scream about it being an issue. This creates information asynchronicity (imnsho) and distorts the market (both the share market and the IT market). Personally I reckon that if people didn't think market share was an issue, Apple would actually be increasing its marketshare. Of course, thats exactly the reason companies like C|NET do scream about it, so it becomes a quasi self-fulfililng prophercy.
Here endeth the lesson on "Introduction to Corporate Financing 101"
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:49 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
Themaeds
Mar 23, 06:20 AM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Totally necessary...You never know when you are going to want to listen to that random Engelbert Humperdinck song that's been stuck in your head
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Totally necessary...You never know when you are going to want to listen to that random Engelbert Humperdinck song that's been stuck in your head
rasmasyean
Mar 19, 05:32 PM
That's why the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
I don't think so. Gaddafi willingly traded Libya's oil, currently no oil at all is traded, and I don't think the rebels (unorganized as they are) will do a good job at it anytime soon. The nations now supporting the air strikes against Gaddafi would have been better off quietly sending him weapons to mute the rebels if they wanted oil.
Even if it didn't directly affect the oil trade, I wouldn't be surprised if yet another US base or two somehow gets negotiated into the aftermath. That's also "securing the oil". If we one day figure out how to do fusion, and make electric cars work or something, we wouldn't give a crap about which leader kills eachother there.
I don't think so. Gaddafi willingly traded Libya's oil, currently no oil at all is traded, and I don't think the rebels (unorganized as they are) will do a good job at it anytime soon. The nations now supporting the air strikes against Gaddafi would have been better off quietly sending him weapons to mute the rebels if they wanted oil.
Even if it didn't directly affect the oil trade, I wouldn't be surprised if yet another US base or two somehow gets negotiated into the aftermath. That's also "securing the oil". If we one day figure out how to do fusion, and make electric cars work or something, we wouldn't give a crap about which leader kills eachother there.
jettredmont
May 2, 04:56 PM
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
When I switched (back in 2002), the hardest thing in this respect was getting it through my head that that one icon sitting in the /Applications folder really is the whole app (*for well-behaved drag-install apps). Yes, you have "tools" like AppCleaner which delete all the prefs and user files for an app as well, obliterating any trace that the app was ver on your system, but those are just prefs. If the app itself is removed, the prefs are just text (or sometimes binary compressed) files sitting on the hard drive. They don't matter.
This is in absolute contrast to Windows where any app worth its salt comes with an installer, which spreads unknowable components throughout the hard drive and changes various settings everywhere in the system. Of course you need another automated tool to (sometimes) undo all those changes.
Since the trend in Mac software has been a lot of large installers (the majority are well-behaved drag-install apps, but I see installers on apps which really shouldn't need an opaque installer at all). OS X doesn't have a good answer for those kinds of apps, and it is indeed messy.
The App Store, however, essentially moves us back to a compartmentalized app workspace which can be removed as automatically as it is laid down.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
When I switched (back in 2002), the hardest thing in this respect was getting it through my head that that one icon sitting in the /Applications folder really is the whole app (*for well-behaved drag-install apps). Yes, you have "tools" like AppCleaner which delete all the prefs and user files for an app as well, obliterating any trace that the app was ver on your system, but those are just prefs. If the app itself is removed, the prefs are just text (or sometimes binary compressed) files sitting on the hard drive. They don't matter.
This is in absolute contrast to Windows where any app worth its salt comes with an installer, which spreads unknowable components throughout the hard drive and changes various settings everywhere in the system. Of course you need another automated tool to (sometimes) undo all those changes.
Since the trend in Mac software has been a lot of large installers (the majority are well-behaved drag-install apps, but I see installers on apps which really shouldn't need an opaque installer at all). OS X doesn't have a good answer for those kinds of apps, and it is indeed messy.
The App Store, however, essentially moves us back to a compartmentalized app workspace which can be removed as automatically as it is laid down.
noisycats
Apr 25, 02:55 AM
Would feel the same way if it was Google or Microsoft or any other company?
yes
yes
lordonuthin
Apr 17, 03:53 PM
congrats to SciFrog for 6 million points! (with MR team)
Grats to SciFrog for 6 mil!!
and congrats to rwh202 for 4 million points!
and to rwh202 for 4mil!!
Were not ignoring anyone else, it's just too hard to keep track of all 67 of you :p
Grats to SciFrog for 6 mil!!
and congrats to rwh202 for 4 million points!
and to rwh202 for 4mil!!
Were not ignoring anyone else, it's just too hard to keep track of all 67 of you :p
redkamel
Mar 22, 11:44 PM
end the classic? Please no! It's great for storing large libraries, uncompressed music/complete music + video libraries and you are able to use it without looking. iOS is fun to look at, but the ipod app is terrible and can't replace tactile controls. I also hate using my phone as a music player as phone calls require me to interface with the player, rather than just take out my earbuds and answer the call (much faster and easier)
The real, and best, reason to not discontinue it is that the classic represents Apples first big win. Its a very symbolic design, and I doubt they will be retiring it...ever. Much like porsche and the carrera, or Ford and the F-150.
The classic IS the ipod. Notice how people still call the ipod touch the "itouch". Few think of it as "the ipod".
There always be a market for a slim, easy to use, portable, high capacity music player with touch controls.
The real, and best, reason to not discontinue it is that the classic represents Apples first big win. Its a very symbolic design, and I doubt they will be retiring it...ever. Much like porsche and the carrera, or Ford and the F-150.
The classic IS the ipod. Notice how people still call the ipod touch the "itouch". Few think of it as "the ipod".
There always be a market for a slim, easy to use, portable, high capacity music player with touch controls.
dont24
Apr 19, 05:26 PM
Would be nice to see a 24" iMac back in the line up. 27" is just too big for my space.
I may look into a new mini with a 24" monitor, to replace my 2007 24" 2.4 iMac.
I may look into a new mini with a 24" monitor, to replace my 2007 24" 2.4 iMac.
*LTD*
Mar 25, 06:47 PM
I can hook it up to my TV and play in 1080, but....why would I want to? I watched the video on YouTube, and compared to Gran Turismo 5, F1 DiRT 2 and the upcoming Shift 2, etc, this game looks like crap. And I get to play it with no wheel or even a gamepad? Thanks, but no thanks.
It's pretty astounding, little more than a year later, that this is even possible on a tablet device, and to this degree of ease and sophistication. Compare the growth and advancement from January 2010 to March 2011.
You're not getting the point.
It's pretty astounding, little more than a year later, that this is even possible on a tablet device, and to this degree of ease and sophistication. Compare the growth and advancement from January 2010 to March 2011.
You're not getting the point.
zin
Mar 24, 02:38 PM
Please don't put an AMD 5XXX series into the new iMacs! :(
FearNo1
Apr 23, 01:39 AM
Using your example, couldn't they do that with the GPS tech in most fones today simply by saving your location info in a server side database? I wouldn't put anything pass these companies and govt today.
If LTD wants an example other wise you can see companies start using these feature on the phones to track employees at all time and what they do. Or in court cases them being pulled it to use against one spouse in a mess divorce.
Spying on ones spouse is another example.
If LTD wants an example other wise you can see companies start using these feature on the phones to track employees at all time and what they do. Or in court cases them being pulled it to use against one spouse in a mess divorce.
Spying on ones spouse is another example.
cube
Mar 24, 04:24 PM
Which is not even out yet. Brazos/Zacate and Ontario are the ones I'm referring. Let me edit that out.
Yes. And there are conflicting reports about whether Llano will be released in Q2 or Q3. Not such a long wait for a consumer which is not in a hurry.
In general, Zacate wins over Atom.
Yes. And there are conflicting reports about whether Llano will be released in Q2 or Q3. Not such a long wait for a consumer which is not in a hurry.
In general, Zacate wins over Atom.
doberman211
Mar 22, 11:04 PM
Well the apple TV has no drive anymore. if i could store stuff on the ipod i would be very happy. with 220GB storage? hell yeah! radio is a good idea too. no internal speakers because they just sound terrible. but higher screen resolution, yeah. i think so. i put movies on it occasionally. the usefulness of airplay features and blutooth are wireless headphones/speakers removing the need for a dock entirely. i don't really see the practicality of even having HDMI. but nothing too substantial. no new games thank you, im very content with klondike and the occasional session of vortex.
bmustaf
Sep 14, 04:07 PM
You must be very unfamiliar with how an auto recall works. Besides, the analogy is flawed.
They cannot reasonably service your car in your household for anything but the easiest of repairs (e.g. fill your tires up to the right pressure, but even then, what if there's a flat and they have to patch it? balance it?).
Besides, no one is asking Apple to go to everyone's home.
Finally, every auto owner involved in a recall gets notified. If they can't or don't feel safe bringing it in, most recalls cover some alternate method (e.g. if you didn't want to drive your Prius in in the most recent recall, Toyota offered to have their dealer send out a flatbed or a tech to drive it in for you in many cases).
No one has offered to have an Apple Rep come out to my house to pick up my iPhone 4 to fit the case, because that's unreasonable.
I guess you don't read my posts carefully. I said what you said, that Toyota issues a recall, but the onus is on the owner to bring in the vehicle for servicing. Exactly as Apple has now done: if you experience a problem, let them know and you can get a free bumper.
To Consumer Reports this is an unacceptable way to deal with a design flaw. If it's Apple. For Toyota, it's fine and considered the normal way to handle a design flaw.
They cannot reasonably service your car in your household for anything but the easiest of repairs (e.g. fill your tires up to the right pressure, but even then, what if there's a flat and they have to patch it? balance it?).
Besides, no one is asking Apple to go to everyone's home.
Finally, every auto owner involved in a recall gets notified. If they can't or don't feel safe bringing it in, most recalls cover some alternate method (e.g. if you didn't want to drive your Prius in in the most recent recall, Toyota offered to have their dealer send out a flatbed or a tech to drive it in for you in many cases).
No one has offered to have an Apple Rep come out to my house to pick up my iPhone 4 to fit the case, because that's unreasonable.
I guess you don't read my posts carefully. I said what you said, that Toyota issues a recall, but the onus is on the owner to bring in the vehicle for servicing. Exactly as Apple has now done: if you experience a problem, let them know and you can get a free bumper.
To Consumer Reports this is an unacceptable way to deal with a design flaw. If it's Apple. For Toyota, it's fine and considered the normal way to handle a design flaw.
batmccoy
Jun 24, 01:03 PM
I think people are getting confused with an iMac and "workhorse". The iMac was always intended to be a consumer-level device and the consumer desktop segment may be evolving to apps that are touch-friendly (kitchen/TV). Essentially an even larger screen iPad. It also makes sense that the touch capability would help characterize/define the iMac line as different from the Pro line. Even though I'm a professional designer, choosing an iMac over a Pro has been a somewhat confusing decision. Making all the iMacs touch-enabled, would clarify that.
Pro users/developers who generally don't use iMacs, would still make use of a non-touch desktop system.
Pro users/developers who generally don't use iMacs, would still make use of a non-touch desktop system.
drewyboy
May 2, 04:47 PM
No, Microsoft have not got it right. There should be not need for a specific tool to uninstall applications. applications should be self-contained and be deletable with the press of a button�
Amen my brother!!! Preach it!
Amen my brother!!! Preach it!
SubaruNation555
Jan 19, 02:52 PM
Some pics of my Impreza after a night of freezing rain:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5203/5366971777_ce8b11c76d_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5090/5366971673_6d6ab4f12e_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5203/5366971777_ce8b11c76d_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5090/5366971673_6d6ab4f12e_b.jpg
garybUK
Mar 10, 06:50 AM
Interesting thoughts iGav. Apparently it's up to the Indians to get creative with their Tata Nano.
cube
Mar 25, 12:53 PM
It doesn't mean anything, as I've noted about three times already.
That's not the correct answer. The possible answers concerning the documented hardware capabilities are:
- That's not enough for any OpenCL
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.0
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.1
That's not the correct answer. The possible answers concerning the documented hardware capabilities are:
- That's not enough for any OpenCL
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.0
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.1
Carguy172
Oct 23, 07:41 PM
I hope this happens I have been waiting for a long time
Chundles
Aug 7, 05:18 AM
Aussie waiters must earn a fortune. My sister in law worked as a waitress in the USA and earned over US$1000 per weekend in wages and tips. So what's it like in Oz?
We don't get tips. The comparison was between minimum wage in Alberta, Canada and regular award wages in NSW (same as minimum wage).
NSW minimum wage for class 3 waiter at age 23: $17ph mon-fri, $20ph sat, $24ph sun.
Alberta minimum wage ~5.90ph regardless of day, level and age.
Mind you this was back in both wages have gone up since.
I earnt over $5000 in about 3 months working 5 nights a week for a max of about 5 hours per shift.
We don't get tips. The comparison was between minimum wage in Alberta, Canada and regular award wages in NSW (same as minimum wage).
NSW minimum wage for class 3 waiter at age 23: $17ph mon-fri, $20ph sat, $24ph sun.
Alberta minimum wage ~5.90ph regardless of day, level and age.
Mind you this was back in both wages have gone up since.
I earnt over $5000 in about 3 months working 5 nights a week for a max of about 5 hours per shift.
blondepianist
May 2, 05:36 PM
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
I think what he is saying is that programs that are actually doing work in the background can continue running, while those that aren't can suspend iOS style. That is how Lion works. It brings the benefits of both iOS & Mac OS.
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
I think what he is saying is that programs that are actually doing work in the background can continue running, while those that aren't can suspend iOS style. That is how Lion works. It brings the benefits of both iOS & Mac OS.
poppe
Jul 14, 10:33 AM
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now.
-Terry
Because this is MacRumors which has more Sony fans that Mac fans
-Terry
Because this is MacRumors which has more Sony fans that Mac fans