Rocketman
Dec 13, 10:38 AM
I really hope LTE is on all handsets going forward whether fully deployed or not. It will be deployed. While I am wishing for unicorns here, I also wish both AT&T and Verizon would let the other carriers customers roam on their LTE network, possibly for a monthly fee or a bucket of GB fee. Let's pay them what they are due, but let's have consumer convenience as the primary goal for a change.
BTW the reason the rumor is wrong is it says LTE only. In reality it will be data only, no voice specific transceiver. All ops will be by IP including VoIP for voice. It will still be able to drop from 4G to 3G level service to assure access.
Rocketman
BTW the reason the rumor is wrong is it says LTE only. In reality it will be data only, no voice specific transceiver. All ops will be by IP including VoIP for voice. It will still be able to drop from 4G to 3G level service to assure access.
Rocketman
![millions of people. millions of people] CD 1](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u4ZecKR_v2GjBp2j1NeJFUL4AmL8XNK8yB8jovaLxOorfYgakrnIw01yzYdNETgj_QiXuJom164zPWumLgO8UE3YL8W_W2lQJQNFxaR5TGAWzSsByInZlKzaiUB8Og1BT8rFU7Q8h3WZ2gE2hpzwBOqKYc0zyIoAnGUnY=s0-d "millions of people] CD 1")
Scarlet Fever
Jan 8, 08:55 PM
What I want;
-updated ACDs. They're getting on a bit. I predict the 20" display will go at least 1080 HD, iSight and IR in all models, faster response time, contrast, etc.
-MBP updates. Penryn sounds good at the moment. 2GB RAM standard, updated HDDs, maybe 17" LED display?
-Big Mac Mini update. It could turn into the headless iMac we all want so bad. I'm not hedging any bets on this, though. If it is updated, it'll at least go SR
-MacBook Nano; ULV dual core intel chip at 1.2GHz, 802.11n, BT, up to 2GB RAM (one stick), external optical drive, 11.1" LED display. US$1499
-iTunes 7.6 brings movie rentals, games for iPhone/iPod Touch
-updated ACDs. They're getting on a bit. I predict the 20" display will go at least 1080 HD, iSight and IR in all models, faster response time, contrast, etc.
-MBP updates. Penryn sounds good at the moment. 2GB RAM standard, updated HDDs, maybe 17" LED display?
-Big Mac Mini update. It could turn into the headless iMac we all want so bad. I'm not hedging any bets on this, though. If it is updated, it'll at least go SR
-MacBook Nano; ULV dual core intel chip at 1.2GHz, 802.11n, BT, up to 2GB RAM (one stick), external optical drive, 11.1" LED display. US$1499
-iTunes 7.6 brings movie rentals, games for iPhone/iPod Touch
![millions of people. millions of people] CD 1](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ukaQT9wQsV31pk8DfBk_edXkKIK7U1hfyUhoxMVkbqKkhCZ6MaUJ-sE5gWOjgXTeVVeE_-T3DSV5J1r7w3m_VGeCSoSJTFxDdP6QIu3XWmllf6KxySRYc96_Z3hafmMVFDUO94hSipcWgMETdYS1ZY5uAA7Fz1x1FR1p0=s0-d "millions of people] CD 1")
Yamcha
May 2, 09:40 AM
I find it hilarious that Steve Jobs claimed Apple was not tracking users, but now all of a sudden we find Location tracking being completely removed from this version of iOS, that is honestly something that annoyes me..
supamario
Apr 9, 10:47 AM
They had it coming...you don't do something like that when the entire mac community is watching and expect to get away with it
praterkeith
Nov 16, 10:34 PM
If this did happen, would it mean that we would have a sub-$700 apple portable?
I'm down.
I'm down.
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 04:56 PM
What if there's a lesbian in the women's bathroom?
What if??
Because if they used the men's washroom they would be swamped by men trying to 'make' her a real woman.
Better she stays in the woman's loo. Far safer.
What if??
Because if they used the men's washroom they would be swamped by men trying to 'make' her a real woman.
Better she stays in the woman's loo. Far safer.
Slix
Apr 16, 06:38 PM
So you're saying that iTunes is hard to beat?
No way?
No way?
deannnnn
Apr 5, 06:49 PM
This app will be on the Top 25 list by tomorrow.
ThaDoggg
Apr 11, 12:19 PM
http://www.lockwaresystems.com/swanm10b-179.html
Have you posted your setup before?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1098165
If you have a picture of your setup and don't mind sharing it, I would love to see the two together.
I am still in the middle of setting everything up and the monitor for example is not even out of the box yet...just been really busy. Hopefully in about 1 month's time I can share. Sorry :(
Have you posted your setup before?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1098165
If you have a picture of your setup and don't mind sharing it, I would love to see the two together.
I am still in the middle of setting everything up and the monitor for example is not even out of the box yet...just been really busy. Hopefully in about 1 month's time I can share. Sorry :(
twoodcc
May 14, 06:09 AM
oh thats not very hot! might be the PSU struggling maybe?
i'm really not sure. it's a 1200 watt PSU, so it should be good
i'm really not sure. it's a 1200 watt PSU, so it should be good
abooch1
Mar 17, 12:07 PM
I been a browser of this forum for years, but never posted many threads, Picked up My black 16g wi-fi iPad 2 on launch day at Best Buy. The store was chaos, and it turned out to be a very lucky day. I told the stoner at the register I wanted to pay some of the balance in cash and the rest with my credit card. He counted the cash I gave him which was $230.00 looked dumbfounded for a moment, printed out a receipt and handed me my bag, followed by are we cool? I said yes, walked out and could not believe he never asked for the remaining balance. Walked out with a brand new ipad for 230.00 Wow!! Now normally I'm honest about things in that nature, but I have been screwed by Best Buy so many times I looked at it as being payback. Picked up a green smart cover incase sleeve and a STM micro ipad carry on sling pack, an excellent iPad combo. Yes, there are some minor issues with a little light bleed but no device is perfect, and it's not going to last 5 years. Instead of looking for imperfections and little micro scratches in the aluminum people should have fun and enjoy the device. Hope everyone is enjoying their iPad 2, I know I am
That really isn't anything to brag about.. If I saw that this happened I would make sure I paid in full and if I realized I only paid I would go back and make sure I paid. I don't want someone to get fired just because I got a few hundred dollars off without bringing it to his and his managers attention.. To me that is pretty much stealing..
That really isn't anything to brag about.. If I saw that this happened I would make sure I paid in full and if I realized I only paid I would go back and make sure I paid. I don't want someone to get fired just because I got a few hundred dollars off without bringing it to his and his managers attention.. To me that is pretty much stealing..
arn
Jan 5, 02:19 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2007/01/20070105150245.shtml
We'll update that page. It's linked to this thread.
arn
We'll update that page. It's linked to this thread.
arn
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
z4n3
Mar 24, 04:46 PM
I think that's Audion.
http://www.panic.com/audion/
Thanks... :D
I wish it was still around.
Found this link (https://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory) that is quite interesting regarding iTunes beginnings
http://www.panic.com/audion/
Thanks... :D
I wish it was still around.
Found this link (https://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory) that is quite interesting regarding iTunes beginnings
MorphingDragon
Apr 29, 07:29 PM
I personally find that the "translucent plastic" in Windows 7 looks like it was ripped off from the 90s and a bad Linux window manager. Seriously, it screams "look at me, I'm trying too hard!".
And it's a complete rip-off of KDE 4.x.
So KDE4 is a bad 90s Linux Window Manager?
And it's a complete rip-off of KDE 4.x.
So KDE4 is a bad 90s Linux Window Manager?
*LTD*
Mar 28, 03:48 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Very, very smart move. Good for Apple, good for devs.
Very, very smart move. Good for Apple, good for devs.
zooey91
Aug 10, 03:32 PM
Thanks stoid, Just trying to determine when the specs actually changed,
RATHER than when Apple decided to announced the changes.
Must have been before August 7 2006 when they were "updated".
It looks terrific, no problems so far.
Just want to be sure I have the "latest and greatest" right?
I ordered mine on Monday and got it yesterday (ground shipping!). I just got off the phone with tech support (customer service had no clue about the change in specs). He actually had no clue either. He'd never heard of any color or pink cast problems, surprise surprise, and said that that kind of thing is just a matter of opinion. I said that bumping brightness to 400 cd/m2 (up from 270 cd/m2) and contrast ration to 700:1 (up from 400:1) isn't a matter of opinion, so they should have some way of confirming that I received what I paid for.
In any event, he did tell me that mine was manufactured in June (sn 2A6221XXXXX). I would hope and assume that this means it's the newer LCD. It looked great from my powerbook, and I'm looking forward to checking it out with my new Mac Pro when it arrives tomorrow.
Jim
RATHER than when Apple decided to announced the changes.
Must have been before August 7 2006 when they were "updated".
It looks terrific, no problems so far.
Just want to be sure I have the "latest and greatest" right?
I ordered mine on Monday and got it yesterday (ground shipping!). I just got off the phone with tech support (customer service had no clue about the change in specs). He actually had no clue either. He'd never heard of any color or pink cast problems, surprise surprise, and said that that kind of thing is just a matter of opinion. I said that bumping brightness to 400 cd/m2 (up from 270 cd/m2) and contrast ration to 700:1 (up from 400:1) isn't a matter of opinion, so they should have some way of confirming that I received what I paid for.
In any event, he did tell me that mine was manufactured in June (sn 2A6221XXXXX). I would hope and assume that this means it's the newer LCD. It looked great from my powerbook, and I'm looking forward to checking it out with my new Mac Pro when it arrives tomorrow.
Jim
thejadedmonkey
Sep 12, 08:04 AM
First iTMS wasn't working, now it is.. it's like they're updating the DNS or something.
roadbloc
Mar 29, 11:36 AM
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons...
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the Windows Live Marketplace in Windows Vista a integrated (badly integrated but still integrated), App Store before it was discontinued due to lack of consumers and made to redirect to a Microsoft website that sold some products?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the Windows Live Marketplace in Windows Vista a integrated (badly integrated but still integrated), App Store before it was discontinued due to lack of consumers and made to redirect to a Microsoft website that sold some products?
Branskins
Apr 29, 09:46 PM
Versions seems to work a lot faster. It has animated stars!!!!
Matthew Yohe
Mar 28, 10:22 PM
I think we are headed towards a "locked down" OS X, FWIW.
Uh, no.
Uh, no.
John Purple
Jan 15, 03:40 PM
Not overly excited about the keynote.
Yes, which is why the $20 iPod touch apps update is �12.99 over here, instead of �10.20 which is what the exchange rate demands. Even with some made up tax, it's another example of "rip-off Britain".
It's even worse on the continent: EUR 2,268 excl. VAT in Germany which equals $ 3,356 for a standard MBP 17" (US store: $ 2,799)
BTW $ 2,112 excl. VAT for MBA in Europe !!! Ridiculous.
Yes, which is why the $20 iPod touch apps update is �12.99 over here, instead of �10.20 which is what the exchange rate demands. Even with some made up tax, it's another example of "rip-off Britain".
It's even worse on the continent: EUR 2,268 excl. VAT in Germany which equals $ 3,356 for a standard MBP 17" (US store: $ 2,799)
BTW $ 2,112 excl. VAT for MBA in Europe !!! Ridiculous.
Swift
Jan 6, 09:15 AM
Sad to say, I think the Quicktime feeds were great, but even back when you were a tiny minority, you had to be lucky in getting on the Akamai bandwagon, and the stream was prone to big glitches. When Quicktime 7 (or was it 6?) came out, Steve wanted the HD treatment, and the audience got so big that the server charges would just be too large, and the whole operation questionable.
But I was at the Apple store when the G5 was announced, and it's that G5 that I got six months later. As for the excellent marketing idea of having the announced products available for sale, I think the perceived need for secrecy interferes too much with that. If they were shipping new Macs or iPods throughout the chain in the week before MacWorld, how long before some guy's cell phone takes a picture that ends up on, er, MacRumors?
:p
But I was at the Apple store when the G5 was announced, and it's that G5 that I got six months later. As for the excellent marketing idea of having the announced products available for sale, I think the perceived need for secrecy interferes too much with that. If they were shipping new Macs or iPods throughout the chain in the week before MacWorld, how long before some guy's cell phone takes a picture that ends up on, er, MacRumors?
:p
D1G1T4L
Mar 17, 05:14 PM
You mean like posting just to say "I'm laughing at you all?" Welcome to the "holier than thou club, buddy.
Please read my post again. Never did I say I was laughing at "you all" but rather the post "buddy". Hope I didn't touch a nerve.
Also who are you quoting?
Please read my post again. Never did I say I was laughing at "you all" but rather the post "buddy". Hope I didn't touch a nerve.
Also who are you quoting?
No comments:
Post a Comment