zombitronic
Oct 6, 03:42 PM
No the add is right. To many people drool over apple so they go with ATT. If you picked AT&T for the iPhone and knew the service was spotty in your area you loose all right to complain about it.
The smart people out there first pick a network that offers them the price they want and the coverage. Then your worry about what phone to get. The iPhone is not game changing and it sure as hell is not THAT much better any more with all the other phones hitting the market.
As for the add that was the exact reason why I left them. Verizon had crappy service out in Lubbock Texas and lied about them moving there network out there. They told us 6 months and that 6 months claim turn was not filled 4 years later of course I left at the end of the first year when my contract was up. I switch to AT&T because service was great there and in Houston so I choose them. I choose a network that works were I lived and spend my time.
They are correct choose a network then worry about your phone. Apple Fan seem to not understand that.
I still disagree with you. The device is material. The network is supposed to be invisible. You're not supposed to notice the network. AT&T's service isn't great, but I'll put up with it to use the device of my choice.
The mobile industry has a strange business model compared to other industries. You don't buy a desktop computer that you can only use on one ISP or a car that you can only fill up at particular gas stations (excluding electric). However, If these industries were to operate this way, I still think people would go for the product over the commodity.
To me, and apparently many others, mobile service is just a commodity. Some may be a bit better than others, but in the end you're getting a comparable service. The devices, on the other hand, vary. And, yes, I still think the iPhone was game changing. All I remember before January 2007 were RAZRs and Chocolates. Unintuitive text-based interfaces with linear button-mashing controls in a hyped-up shell.
The smart people out there first pick a network that offers them the price they want and the coverage. Then your worry about what phone to get. The iPhone is not game changing and it sure as hell is not THAT much better any more with all the other phones hitting the market.
As for the add that was the exact reason why I left them. Verizon had crappy service out in Lubbock Texas and lied about them moving there network out there. They told us 6 months and that 6 months claim turn was not filled 4 years later of course I left at the end of the first year when my contract was up. I switch to AT&T because service was great there and in Houston so I choose them. I choose a network that works were I lived and spend my time.
They are correct choose a network then worry about your phone. Apple Fan seem to not understand that.
I still disagree with you. The device is material. The network is supposed to be invisible. You're not supposed to notice the network. AT&T's service isn't great, but I'll put up with it to use the device of my choice.
The mobile industry has a strange business model compared to other industries. You don't buy a desktop computer that you can only use on one ISP or a car that you can only fill up at particular gas stations (excluding electric). However, If these industries were to operate this way, I still think people would go for the product over the commodity.
To me, and apparently many others, mobile service is just a commodity. Some may be a bit better than others, but in the end you're getting a comparable service. The devices, on the other hand, vary. And, yes, I still think the iPhone was game changing. All I remember before January 2007 were RAZRs and Chocolates. Unintuitive text-based interfaces with linear button-mashing controls in a hyped-up shell.
milo
Sep 12, 08:01 AM
The Stores seem to be listing MacBook delivery times as 5-7 working days. Is that normal or has it been increased? If it's an increase might that suggest a speedbump or something? There's not been much rumour activity around that though.
Not at this event.
Not at this event.
inkswamp
Oct 2, 04:01 PM
You'd expect Jobs would have some sympathy for the guy, what with his phreaking days before Apple.
How do you know he doesn't? Back then, he wasn't a CEO responsible for a company's success and having to answer to board members and shareholders. He has other responsibilities. I love how famous people get every little detail of their lives held up as a an "a ha!" kind of thing for every move they make. The stuff he did when he was younger is sort of not relevant anymore, is it?
ATM, Apple is making its money on the hardware device, so this really shouldn't hurt their profits too much, even if it does hurt the Store.
You're exactly right. To me, the refusal to license FairPlay is the single most puzzling thing about Apple right now. With one move, they could have potentially hundreds of content providers wrapped around their finger in the same way MS had so many PC vendors wrapped around theirs in the past two decades. They could lock down the market for many, many years if they did it right. (BTW, I don't advocate that kind of thing, but they could do it and most companies would jump at the chance.) The iTunes music store would probably disappear or gradually fade away but then, Apple doesn't make the bulk of their money off that anyway and perhaps the FairPlay licensing money would cover that loss. Think of the iPod with hundreds of licensed content providers out there trying to outdo each other. I can't imagine why Apple hasn't done it yet.
How do you know he doesn't? Back then, he wasn't a CEO responsible for a company's success and having to answer to board members and shareholders. He has other responsibilities. I love how famous people get every little detail of their lives held up as a an "a ha!" kind of thing for every move they make. The stuff he did when he was younger is sort of not relevant anymore, is it?
ATM, Apple is making its money on the hardware device, so this really shouldn't hurt their profits too much, even if it does hurt the Store.
You're exactly right. To me, the refusal to license FairPlay is the single most puzzling thing about Apple right now. With one move, they could have potentially hundreds of content providers wrapped around their finger in the same way MS had so many PC vendors wrapped around theirs in the past two decades. They could lock down the market for many, many years if they did it right. (BTW, I don't advocate that kind of thing, but they could do it and most companies would jump at the chance.) The iTunes music store would probably disappear or gradually fade away but then, Apple doesn't make the bulk of their money off that anyway and perhaps the FairPlay licensing money would cover that loss. Think of the iPod with hundreds of licensed content providers out there trying to outdo each other. I can't imagine why Apple hasn't done it yet.
Erwin-Br
May 3, 05:50 PM
It's funny because nowhere in europe (well, from first hand experience in UK/ Scandanavia), do the carriers prevent tethering, nor do they charge an extra fee for it.
They have data caps (100MB, 500MB, 1GB etc) but they don't care what you use it for. And this makes sense. Thus I can work from cafes through my HTC Desire, and as long as I'm not streaming video or downloading many podcasts then the 1GB/month is more than enough for my phone and occasional tethered usage.
For once Europe seems to be ahead of the curve to the advantage of the consumer when compared to the USA.
I'm sorry to say that in The Netherlands carriers do prevent tethering on the iPhone. They don't, however, impose a data cap... YET. Many have announced they will do that too in the future, though. My own carrier doesn't even OFFER tethering, if I wanted to pay extra for it.
They have data caps (100MB, 500MB, 1GB etc) but they don't care what you use it for. And this makes sense. Thus I can work from cafes through my HTC Desire, and as long as I'm not streaming video or downloading many podcasts then the 1GB/month is more than enough for my phone and occasional tethered usage.
For once Europe seems to be ahead of the curve to the advantage of the consumer when compared to the USA.
I'm sorry to say that in The Netherlands carriers do prevent tethering on the iPhone. They don't, however, impose a data cap... YET. Many have announced they will do that too in the future, though. My own carrier doesn't even OFFER tethering, if I wanted to pay extra for it.
more...
yoda13
Sep 12, 12:39 AM
I can't wait to see what they got up their sleeve, hope I am stoked...:D
EricNau
Jan 12, 12:25 AM
they didn't release iwork and ilife probably b/c of Amazon putting it up on their website early
Actually, I believe it wasn't released at MacWorld for two reasons...
1) Time. They keynote ran about 2 hours as is (already above the average). Introducing two new software suites would easily add another 45 minutes (making the event much too long).
2) The focus was clearly the iPhone, and Jobs didn't want anything to steal its glory.
It makes much more sense to introduce the iPhone at MacWorld and have a separate event for Leopard, iLife, and iWork.
Actually, I believe it wasn't released at MacWorld for two reasons...
1) Time. They keynote ran about 2 hours as is (already above the average). Introducing two new software suites would easily add another 45 minutes (making the event much too long).
2) The focus was clearly the iPhone, and Jobs didn't want anything to steal its glory.
It makes much more sense to introduce the iPhone at MacWorld and have a separate event for Leopard, iLife, and iWork.
more...
GoKyu
Apr 29, 07:05 PM
When I read the subject, I got a little hopeful...when I saw the screenshot showing Spaces/Expos�, I really thought the "UI tweak" was that they'd let us use the old Spaces if we wanted to.
Guess not, it's still that b******ized Mission Control...
Guess not, it's still that b******ized Mission Control...
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
more...
roadbloc
Apr 5, 05:49 PM
Not currently available in the UK Store...
Thank God. What a pathetic app...
Thank God. What a pathetic app...
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 26, 01:34 AM
ummmm... may have been said, it's grea that it runs like a normal app now, but hwo do I get it to load from my 1.0 disk to my 12" pb and Macbook? Do I have to shell out again? Where's the love?
more...
andyblac
Aug 9, 11:58 AM
UK specs have been updated.
:), just ordered myself a Mac Pro 2.66 with 20" ACD. shipping on the 15th August :D
:), just ordered myself a Mac Pro 2.66 with 20" ACD. shipping on the 15th August :D
Scarlet Fever
Jan 13, 05:12 PM
so now if i need the widescreen ipod, but dont like the phone .. i dont have the choice .. either stand outside apple outlet and drool all day or go in and pay extra for the phone that comes with the ipod that i want.
but the point is that Apple's lineup isn't going to stay the way it is forever. Within a couple of weeks or months, Apple will announce the widescreen iPod. Now that they have shown what you can do with a touchscreen, I reckon we should expect OS X and a dully-touchable display on the iPod.
Just wait a little while; the 6th Gen iPod will be released :)
but the point is that Apple's lineup isn't going to stay the way it is forever. Within a couple of weeks or months, Apple will announce the widescreen iPod. Now that they have shown what you can do with a touchscreen, I reckon we should expect OS X and a dully-touchable display on the iPod.
Just wait a little while; the 6th Gen iPod will be released :)
more...
mcmadhatter
Sep 12, 08:21 AM
If you click check for itunes updates you get a message The Itunes update server could not be contacted, try again later
Dagless
Apr 15, 12:37 PM
To say the lighting is quite good, it sure is grainy! The grain also seems fake. As does the angle of the phone.
It's also fairly ugly and fairly fake.
It's also fairly ugly and fairly fake.
more...
spiderman0616
Mar 18, 11:46 AM
I've had the opposite. A lot of my friends are Android owners and have flat out told me that they want to switch to iPhone after checking mine out. Most of them complain about battery life and smoothness of interface.
My best friend was checking out my phone the other day (he's a Droid Incredible owner) and using my IMDB app, and I heard him mumble to himself, "I can't wait to get one of these." He hates that the scrolling on his phone always locks up and stutters. He also hates that he can't get through a whole day on one battery charge even though he is REALLY anal about killing processes.
The office I used to work in was about half and half iPhone/Android. The sales guys all used the original Motorola Droid. They all swore by it. Once that iPhone 4 for Verizon dropped, I saw a lot of people changing their tune. About half of the Android users walked in with them in the next couple of weeks.
I now work in downtown Chicago, and being a gadget lover, I often look at what people are using on my walk to the train station. (EVERYONE is carrying some kind of gadget or another). I see about 75% iPhones/iPods and about 25% of everything else. I have seen exactly TWO Android tablets out in the wild and about a zillion iPads. (Haven't seen any iPad 2s yet).
A lot of people bought android stuff because they hated AT&T. I have always looked as Android as a me too product. It just depends on how you look at it and what you need. I am not even an Apple lover, but the iPhone 4 was the best phone I tried at the time.
My best friend was checking out my phone the other day (he's a Droid Incredible owner) and using my IMDB app, and I heard him mumble to himself, "I can't wait to get one of these." He hates that the scrolling on his phone always locks up and stutters. He also hates that he can't get through a whole day on one battery charge even though he is REALLY anal about killing processes.
The office I used to work in was about half and half iPhone/Android. The sales guys all used the original Motorola Droid. They all swore by it. Once that iPhone 4 for Verizon dropped, I saw a lot of people changing their tune. About half of the Android users walked in with them in the next couple of weeks.
I now work in downtown Chicago, and being a gadget lover, I often look at what people are using on my walk to the train station. (EVERYONE is carrying some kind of gadget or another). I see about 75% iPhones/iPods and about 25% of everything else. I have seen exactly TWO Android tablets out in the wild and about a zillion iPads. (Haven't seen any iPad 2s yet).
A lot of people bought android stuff because they hated AT&T. I have always looked as Android as a me too product. It just depends on how you look at it and what you need. I am not even an Apple lover, but the iPhone 4 was the best phone I tried at the time.
dextertangocci
Jan 6, 06:56 AM
Won't the ads on MR ruin it?
more...
ten-oak-druid
Apr 8, 04:24 PM
Roasted.
Glad to see not everyones an Apple sheep..
Apple Sheep Rule!
That's sarcasm in case you don't get it.
I imagine your declaration that there are "apple sheep" and that you are not one of them makes you feel very good about yourself. A respectability self injection! LMAO
Glad to see not everyones an Apple sheep..
Apple Sheep Rule!
That's sarcasm in case you don't get it.
I imagine your declaration that there are "apple sheep" and that you are not one of them makes you feel very good about yourself. A respectability self injection! LMAO
KidHoliday
Oct 11, 07:22 PM
Sweet! Now all I need is a car charger and some silly putty to stick it to my dashboard
*LTD*
Mar 13, 03:49 PM
Which software development industry would this be ? Embedded systems ? Mobile devices ?
Nope, nothing new there. They expanded maybe, but they did not create.
Again for the people wanting very much to redefine computing, "shifting the way people use" is not redefining computing. At least qualify it properly as a shift in usability, not in computing. You are talking about the lower levels when you use the word computing.
Why are some of you uninitiated insisting on using "computing" and claiming it is redefined ? Is it because a shift in usability doesn't sound as great accomplishment and you want to make what Apple did much bigger than it really is ? Stay objective please, don't involve emotions you have for a corporation in this discussion.
I'm not sure what the point is of constantly fighting to understate what Apple has achieved. Compare the smartphone landscape pre- June 2007 to now. Compare the mobile landscape overall pre-January 2010 to now. Big, big differences. All of it ushered in by Apple. If you want to get specific, let's start with the App Store. It all started with iTunes. Then Apple pushed the entire industry forward again in 2008.
All these big industry milestones in key areas - mobile, software distribution, interface design - all the credit goes to Apple. Once Apple gets into a market it changes. Then everyone sees their success and follows suit.
This might seem unfair or uncharitable to other tech outfits, but it's true. It's also part of the reason you're making these voracious attempts to balance out the pro-Apple situation. The very reason you're posting what you're posting is because Apple has turned the entire game on its head and everyone else is made to look like clueless pretenders. This "unfair" situation that elicits a lot of pro-Apple enthusiasm doesn't sit well with you. Thus, the opportunity for a contrarian to join the conversation.
Nope, nothing new there. They expanded maybe, but they did not create.
Again for the people wanting very much to redefine computing, "shifting the way people use" is not redefining computing. At least qualify it properly as a shift in usability, not in computing. You are talking about the lower levels when you use the word computing.
Why are some of you uninitiated insisting on using "computing" and claiming it is redefined ? Is it because a shift in usability doesn't sound as great accomplishment and you want to make what Apple did much bigger than it really is ? Stay objective please, don't involve emotions you have for a corporation in this discussion.
I'm not sure what the point is of constantly fighting to understate what Apple has achieved. Compare the smartphone landscape pre- June 2007 to now. Compare the mobile landscape overall pre-January 2010 to now. Big, big differences. All of it ushered in by Apple. If you want to get specific, let's start with the App Store. It all started with iTunes. Then Apple pushed the entire industry forward again in 2008.
All these big industry milestones in key areas - mobile, software distribution, interface design - all the credit goes to Apple. Once Apple gets into a market it changes. Then everyone sees their success and follows suit.
This might seem unfair or uncharitable to other tech outfits, but it's true. It's also part of the reason you're making these voracious attempts to balance out the pro-Apple situation. The very reason you're posting what you're posting is because Apple has turned the entire game on its head and everyone else is made to look like clueless pretenders. This "unfair" situation that elicits a lot of pro-Apple enthusiasm doesn't sit well with you. Thus, the opportunity for a contrarian to join the conversation.
iluomo
Apr 30, 12:09 PM
I noticed most of the criticism stems from the changes in iCal and Address Book which are both disgusting. Sadly they havent changed yet
I positively loathe the look of the "new" iCal and Address Book. It looks like a design from the mid 90's. I cannot comprehend how a company who goes for a clean, smooth, modern aesthetic could produce a faux leather interface and think that meshes with that aesthetic. This is something I would expect from Palm or Microsoft. But Apple? I'm amazed by how off the mark this is. :confused:
I positively loathe the look of the "new" iCal and Address Book. It looks like a design from the mid 90's. I cannot comprehend how a company who goes for a clean, smooth, modern aesthetic could produce a faux leather interface and think that meshes with that aesthetic. This is something I would expect from Palm or Microsoft. But Apple? I'm amazed by how off the mark this is. :confused:
Patrick J
Apr 15, 03:59 PM
This would be popular with suicides (cut throat sharp edges) and PC users (device has numerous huge holes which may or not have a function).
Macnoviz
Oct 3, 01:48 PM
In other news, the pope today announced that he is Catholic. He also confesses to **** in the woods.
No really, I expect quite a number of those things, but then at the end one more thing that nobody expects, not a phone, not another iPod, but something radically different. Just like the games at the last Stevenote, only bigger, something that will make you go Huh? :eek: Wtf ? :confused: Wow ! :) Now where's that credit card? :D
No really, I expect quite a number of those things, but then at the end one more thing that nobody expects, not a phone, not another iPod, but something radically different. Just like the games at the last Stevenote, only bigger, something that will make you go Huh? :eek: Wtf ? :confused: Wow ! :) Now where's that credit card? :D
Arcus
Apr 5, 04:02 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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Is Larry Page retarded? Seriously? Have you heard him speak? I think he is retarded!
You never go full retard though....but this is dam close.
Is Larry Page retarded? Seriously? Have you heard him speak? I think he is retarded!
You never go full retard though....but this is dam close.
ECUpirate44
May 2, 09:42 AM
y u no like bugfixes?
Do we even know if this update is also for the Verizon iPhone or just the AT&T? And no, bug fixes cover up my jailbreak.
Do we even know if this update is also for the Verizon iPhone or just the AT&T? And no, bug fixes cover up my jailbreak.
No comments:
Post a Comment