~Shard~
Aug 25, 03:00 PM
Apple needs to address this situation appropriately. As their products gain higher profile, as their customer base increases and they gain market share, it's only logical to think that there will be a greater need for support. If nothing else, it's simple math - more Macs out there = more problems! Esepcially with how well the Intel Macs have been selling, I think Apple would be foolish to think that what was good enough a few years ago is still good enough today in terms of support.
Apple must also realize the importance of first impressions. Now more than ever new switchers are coming on board to the Intel platform, and if they have problems right off the bat and poor customer service and support, that's going to leave a sour taste in their mouth, and perhaps they may just get fed up and switch back.
Apple is so good at so many things - let's hope they ensure this is the case for their Support services as well.
Apple must also realize the importance of first impressions. Now more than ever new switchers are coming on board to the Intel platform, and if they have problems right off the bat and poor customer service and support, that's going to leave a sour taste in their mouth, and perhaps they may just get fed up and switch back.
Apple is so good at so many things - let's hope they ensure this is the case for their Support services as well.
Evangelion
Aug 12, 03:51 AM
Is it possible for Apple to release a phone sold in their stores that would work on all networks? Or have several versions of the phone that will work for Verizon, Cingular...
I'll never be ceased at just how retarded the phone-system is outside Finland (or Scandinavia). I just buy a phone, and I get a SIM-card, and boom, it just works. I can replace the SIM at will, and it will just work. No hassle, no worries that "but this phone wotn work with that operator!". Unsatisfied with your current operator? It takes maybe ten minutes to get a new operator, and you get to keep your old number, AND your phone (it is YOUR phone, after all!).
I think that the scheme where the phones are tied to certain operator is just plain retarded. This is a perfect example as to why that is so. And I'm REALLY surprised that you folks (the rest of the world that is) hasn't seen the light on this issue. You just happily accept a scheme that limits choice and competition.
I'll never be ceased at just how retarded the phone-system is outside Finland (or Scandinavia). I just buy a phone, and I get a SIM-card, and boom, it just works. I can replace the SIM at will, and it will just work. No hassle, no worries that "but this phone wotn work with that operator!". Unsatisfied with your current operator? It takes maybe ten minutes to get a new operator, and you get to keep your old number, AND your phone (it is YOUR phone, after all!).
I think that the scheme where the phones are tied to certain operator is just plain retarded. This is a perfect example as to why that is so. And I'm REALLY surprised that you folks (the rest of the world that is) hasn't seen the light on this issue. You just happily accept a scheme that limits choice and competition.
longofest
Aug 7, 03:33 PM
Hey nice to see osx will have system restore =D
heh... they give MS so much crap for photocopying, but if anything, this is more or less taking a page out of MS's book with System Restore. Granted, it looks like it will be better, but still, MS had this kind of thing first.
Not trolling, just pointing it out :)
*cough* TOP SECRET *cough* :rolleyes:
It would definitely appear as though rumors of a re-vamped Finder could have some merit...
heh... they give MS so much crap for photocopying, but if anything, this is more or less taking a page out of MS's book with System Restore. Granted, it looks like it will be better, but still, MS had this kind of thing first.
Not trolling, just pointing it out :)
*cough* TOP SECRET *cough* :rolleyes:
It would definitely appear as though rumors of a re-vamped Finder could have some merit...
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 07:50 AM
Don't let a few cherry picked pictures trick you, most Galaxy models don't look at all like an iPhone :
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
Why are you always anti-apple in every other thread?
Don't you yourself see any similarities b/w SG phones and the iPhone?
The only difference to me is the wallpaper and dull icons. They look almost the same.
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
Why are you always anti-apple in every other thread?
Don't you yourself see any similarities b/w SG phones and the iPhone?
The only difference to me is the wallpaper and dull icons. They look almost the same.
baryon
Mar 26, 08:31 AM
Unless I'm missing something, Mission Control is added in addition to Expos� as it is now. The old functionality will still be there. As for it being "ruined," a couple of days before the Lion preview the graphic artist I work with most was describing changes he wished they'd make to Expos� and we were laughing together a few days later when we watched the preview and boom, there it was. Incidentally, he makes his living off what he does with his "real" computer.
Unfortunately Expos� as you have it today is gone in Lion, and is replaced by Mission Control. What you still have in Lion is Expos� for the current app, which sort of defeats its purpose as most apps only have a single or not many windows open (thanks to tabs in Safari, etc...).
You no longer have expos� for all windows, which annoys me! You can also no longer see ALL your open windows in one glance, as you could zoom out of Spaces and do an Expos� before. Now you have to flick through all of your spaces one by one in Mission Control to see all your windows. And the icons for each space are tiny, making it very difficult to figure out what's on that space. I have no idea what was wrong with Spaces and Expos� in Leopard, why they needed to change Expos� in Snow Leopard, and why they needed to remove these features altogether in Lion. They were probably the best things in OS X.
Unfortunately Expos� as you have it today is gone in Lion, and is replaced by Mission Control. What you still have in Lion is Expos� for the current app, which sort of defeats its purpose as most apps only have a single or not many windows open (thanks to tabs in Safari, etc...).
You no longer have expos� for all windows, which annoys me! You can also no longer see ALL your open windows in one glance, as you could zoom out of Spaces and do an Expos� before. Now you have to flick through all of your spaces one by one in Mission Control to see all your windows. And the icons for each space are tiny, making it very difficult to figure out what's on that space. I have no idea what was wrong with Spaces and Expos� in Leopard, why they needed to change Expos� in Snow Leopard, and why they needed to remove these features altogether in Lion. They were probably the best things in OS X.
Gupster
Apr 7, 10:38 PM
:mad:Best Buy told me today that they had them in but Apple would not let them sell them. I have been going for two weeks every other day and they finally tell me they have them and can't sell them. I hate this crap. I want my IPad 2.
gauriemma
Aug 26, 08:12 AM
No, because different versions of the ranges were initially posted only recently has it been clarified...get with the program and stop trying to be a smartass
Get with what program? I went to the support site on the day the recall was announced, checked to see if my serial number was in the range, it wasn't, and I went on with my life. Just to be safe, I even checked back a couple days later, and the ranges were still the same as the first time I checked.
I had to do the same thing wheh I was checking out our Dell laptops at the office. It's really not that difficult a concept. I think some people just like to have something to complain about.
Get with what program? I went to the support site on the day the recall was announced, checked to see if my serial number was in the range, it wasn't, and I went on with my life. Just to be safe, I even checked back a couple days later, and the ranges were still the same as the first time I checked.
I had to do the same thing wheh I was checking out our Dell laptops at the office. It's really not that difficult a concept. I think some people just like to have something to complain about.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
JRM PowerPod
Aug 11, 11:46 PM
The K800 battery life is rubbish I've found, I wouldn't particularly recommend one, same with the K610i.
I would recommend it, battery life is rubbish if you're taking 3.2 megapixel photos all the time, on your 3G content, and playing music, but i've found for such a feature packed phone it still gets about 3-4days standyby on my network, obviously this is going to be depedent on who is your service provider
I would recommend it, battery life is rubbish if you're taking 3.2 megapixel photos all the time, on your 3G content, and playing music, but i've found for such a feature packed phone it still gets about 3-4days standyby on my network, obviously this is going to be depedent on who is your service provider
puuukeey
Nov 28, 10:39 PM
https://home.comcast.net/~puuukeey/evil2.gif
JMax1
Nov 28, 06:58 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big.
I didn't know that. I'm glad I do now, it kind of makes a little more sense now, and that this idea isn't completely out of nowhere. You make a very good point. Especially with the stale-ness.
I didn't know that. I'm glad I do now, it kind of makes a little more sense now, and that this idea isn't completely out of nowhere. You make a very good point. Especially with the stale-ness.
Willis
Jul 28, 05:46 PM
I appreciate the thoughts on my quandry whether or not to return my 20 " iMac and purchase after the WWDC. Of course my decision is not any easier with one vote for and one vote against.
Thanks Grokgod and Multimedia for the thoughts...
bare in mind that iMacs might not even get updated at wwdc. it could be at the paris expo.
go with what you feel suits you best.
Thanks Grokgod and Multimedia for the thoughts...
bare in mind that iMacs might not even get updated at wwdc. it could be at the paris expo.
go with what you feel suits you best.
LagunaSol
Apr 11, 11:52 AM
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition
If you're going to judge "looks," the Atrix looks (and feels) like cheap junk next to the iPhone. Just like practically every other Android phone on the market. The iPhone looks like a Rolex sitting next to the Casio of the Android offerings.
Enjoy the plastic. ;)
If you're going to judge "looks," the Atrix looks (and feels) like cheap junk next to the iPhone. Just like practically every other Android phone on the market. The iPhone looks like a Rolex sitting next to the Casio of the Android offerings.
Enjoy the plastic. ;)
daneoni
Aug 27, 08:03 PM
Alright i'm off, i hope everyone gets what they wish for on tuesday, however wild. Cheers and here's to PowerBook G5s tomorrow.
01civicman
Apr 8, 08:21 AM
Hummm... I would think by them throttling the sales, they get people back into the store over and over again trying to get one. So, take their "hot product" and dish a few out everyday to keep the eager hunters coming back in day after day and hope they buy something else in the mean time.
Also, I can see from the sales incentive standpoint that if you've hit your quota for the day selling 20 ipads in an hour, but have another 40 in stock, hold them for the next day to ensure you have consecutive days of hitting your sales quota making you look better and probably getting other bonuses? I would think they compensate managers based on daily sales and consecutive days of sales above quota.
So... basically, I see BB messing with stock to manipulate their sales and Apple being mad because they are so far behind on keeping up with demand and one of their big partners is holding out and using the iPad as sales bait.
I get your point, but it doesn't work like that. One, selling 20 iPads will not hit budgets (believe me). Two, if there any bonus' to hit, its done quarterly. Again, if you sell 50 iPads in one day, its the exact same as selling 3 over the course of 15 days.
Also, I can see from the sales incentive standpoint that if you've hit your quota for the day selling 20 ipads in an hour, but have another 40 in stock, hold them for the next day to ensure you have consecutive days of hitting your sales quota making you look better and probably getting other bonuses? I would think they compensate managers based on daily sales and consecutive days of sales above quota.
So... basically, I see BB messing with stock to manipulate their sales and Apple being mad because they are so far behind on keeping up with demand and one of their big partners is holding out and using the iPad as sales bait.
I get your point, but it doesn't work like that. One, selling 20 iPads will not hit budgets (believe me). Two, if there any bonus' to hit, its done quarterly. Again, if you sell 50 iPads in one day, its the exact same as selling 3 over the course of 15 days.
chrmjenkins
Apr 27, 10:32 AM
I'm a little confused at the magnitude of people's reaction here.
Cell phone companies already do this. This is how they track potential crime victims locations'. They can access the cellular provider's database and get a ping with a cell tower and location. This is also timestamped. Your cellular provider already has more information than Apple ever had.
Cell phone companies already do this. This is how they track potential crime victims locations'. They can access the cellular provider's database and get a ping with a cell tower and location. This is also timestamped. Your cellular provider already has more information than Apple ever had.
BRLawyer
Aug 5, 05:59 PM
According to my last chat with Steve Jobs, we're gonna have the following:
- MacPro with Woodcrest, 3 configs;
- updated XServes with Woodcrest, 2 configs;
- updated MBPs with Merom;
- NO DISPLAYS
- NO iPods
- NO iPhone
- Leopard Preview
That's all, folks...
- MacPro with Woodcrest, 3 configs;
- updated XServes with Woodcrest, 2 configs;
- updated MBPs with Merom;
- NO DISPLAYS
- NO iPods
- NO iPhone
- Leopard Preview
That's all, folks...
Peace
Aug 5, 05:15 PM
No MacRumors IRC channel?
http://www.macrumorslive.com/irc/login/
http://www.macrumorslive.com/irc/login/
Adamb18c5
Jun 9, 10:25 PM
I tried to send you a pm, I'm not really sure why I couldn't.
I tried to PM you too couldn't get it to work either. You can email me at adamb18c5@gmail
I tried to PM you too couldn't get it to work either. You can email me at adamb18c5@gmail
kdarling
Apr 19, 01:49 PM
One of the three basics that must be proven in order to win a trade dress case, is the likelihood of confusion.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
THX1139
Aug 19, 07:34 PM
... For anyone out there who has been needlessly influenced by this guy to wait for a system that will only be outdated by the one that will come after it, please uninfluence yourself, and buy the stupid computer that you want, when you want it.
Jeeshh!!
I agree. I'm noticing a trend. People who are looking at the Macpro in a negative way come in three flavors. The first type are invested in G5 (especially quad) and are desperately trying justify that their investment is sound, when they actually desire a Macpro. They can feel better about their old machines by making the new ones seem bad. The are almost "smug" about waiting until a better one comes out. The second flavor are people who hate the Mac culture and are pissed that the Mac is catching up to the windows workstation sector. The third type are people who can't afford a Macpro and go out of their way to publicly discredit the machine so that they can feel good about their iMacs or Minis. There are others, but you get the point.
I also find it amusing when I see posters participating in Macpro discussions when they have publicly stated that they have no intention of buying a Macpro. WTF?? Don't they have a life outside of macrumors? If I owned a G5 Quad and had no intention of buying a Macpro, I'd be spending all of my spare time doing cool stuff with my machine... instead of wasting that time participating in discussions that have nothing to do with me. I might read though some of the threads now and then, just to keep up with technology - but to particpate and debate, what a waste. I guess some folks have no life.
Jeeshh!!
I agree. I'm noticing a trend. People who are looking at the Macpro in a negative way come in three flavors. The first type are invested in G5 (especially quad) and are desperately trying justify that their investment is sound, when they actually desire a Macpro. They can feel better about their old machines by making the new ones seem bad. The are almost "smug" about waiting until a better one comes out. The second flavor are people who hate the Mac culture and are pissed that the Mac is catching up to the windows workstation sector. The third type are people who can't afford a Macpro and go out of their way to publicly discredit the machine so that they can feel good about their iMacs or Minis. There are others, but you get the point.
I also find it amusing when I see posters participating in Macpro discussions when they have publicly stated that they have no intention of buying a Macpro. WTF?? Don't they have a life outside of macrumors? If I owned a G5 Quad and had no intention of buying a Macpro, I'd be spending all of my spare time doing cool stuff with my machine... instead of wasting that time participating in discussions that have nothing to do with me. I might read though some of the threads now and then, just to keep up with technology - but to particpate and debate, what a waste. I guess some folks have no life.
Superdrive
Nov 28, 07:05 PM
Make quality music and I'll buy it.
Perhaps my iPod doesn't even play Universal's music. Why should they get a chunk? Greedy bastards. Apple should just go ahead and open up the iTMS to artists and eliminate the middle man.
Perhaps my iPod doesn't even play Universal's music. Why should they get a chunk? Greedy bastards. Apple should just go ahead and open up the iTMS to artists and eliminate the middle man.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 19, 03:12 PM
Apple better not win this case and anyone who thinks that they should are a fool.
lame
lame
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:47 PM
Yes. EVERYONE. If you dont believe me, maybe you believe the economist:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=4351974
Please note that the graph is about three years old. Nowadays a lot more of the countries are over 100%.
No, not EVERYONE. I own 4 cell phones. By your logic, I would be counted as 4 people.
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=4351974
Please note that the graph is about three years old. Nowadays a lot more of the countries are over 100%.
No, not EVERYONE. I own 4 cell phones. By your logic, I would be counted as 4 people.