eric_n_dfw
Mar 18, 09:17 PM
This isn't rocket science! iTMS sells DRM'ed songs - period.
If you don't want DRM'ed tunes (and still want to do things legally):
1.) burn 'em to a CD and re-rip as AAC or MP3 (or WAV/AIFF)
2.) (Mac only) use iMovie to export it (essentially the same as #1, but easier).
3.) use another service
4.) go buy the CD, you'll get better quality anyway
My prediction: Apple will release an iTunes patch that implements some kind of public/private key challenge/response message between their server and the client app and require iTMS purchases to be done only from that new client. Old clients will get an error that tells them to upgrade.
If you don't want DRM'ed tunes (and still want to do things legally):
1.) burn 'em to a CD and re-rip as AAC or MP3 (or WAV/AIFF)
2.) (Mac only) use iMovie to export it (essentially the same as #1, but easier).
3.) use another service
4.) go buy the CD, you'll get better quality anyway
My prediction: Apple will release an iTunes patch that implements some kind of public/private key challenge/response message between their server and the client app and require iTMS purchases to be done only from that new client. Old clients will get an error that tells them to upgrade.
takao
Mar 15, 05:07 PM
according to current reports the roof of reactor 4 broke apart/collapsed and two workers are considered missing
also the fire which was put out earlier seems to have started again
also the fire which was put out earlier seems to have started again
auero
Mar 18, 07:59 AM
I don't understand the ranting of why AT&T charges more to tether. Sprint and Verizon do it too? Just because your jailbreak method doesn't work anymore shouldn't make you mad. The system caught up to you. Yes it's stupid to pay for extra data but that's just how it is and people are still going to pay for it so complaining won't do anything.
I'm glad those people who are abusing the service and using 6+ gb of data so they can tether are finally getting the boot. It bogs down the network. Unlimited doesn't mean unlimited in the fine print either. It's the same on every network so don't blame AT&T.
I'm glad those people who are abusing the service and using 6+ gb of data so they can tether are finally getting the boot. It bogs down the network. Unlimited doesn't mean unlimited in the fine print either. It's the same on every network so don't blame AT&T.
supmango
Mar 18, 12:02 PM
You realize there's a difference between those that "man" the CSR phones and the people responsible for the IT infrastructure, billing, etc, right?
Of course there is a difference. But only in the individuals I am dealing with. My personal experience with AT&T (~2 years ago) is that they have difficulty communicating very basic information internally. This is things like upgrade eligibility, data plan pricing (between corporate and personal); you know, the stuff you can get pretty easily on the website. Now why would this be for a "telecom" company? This piece of evidence points to a pattern of incompetence that likely goes pretty deep. And, if in fact people are getting these threats from AT&T, and they call to discuss it with them, good luck getting any good information from the rep on the other end of the phone as to how they know this is happening.
As other's have pointed out, it seems like there are a few legal loopholes in what AT&T is trying to do. If they send you a message and you don't call, it's on you and they can do that (in the contract). If they change your terms of service, they have to notify you within 30 days, and you can cancel the rest of your contract. If, however, you call and they can't provide sufficient evidence of what they are accusing you of doing, and they are changing your terms no matter what, you have the right to terminate service. My guess is that they won't want you to do that, unless they have evidence that you are overloading their network. In which case, I think they can change your terms and not let you out of the contract (if someone wants to look that up, great, I don't really care enough to do it).
Someone who has received one of these messages needs to call and see what they say, and then post back. I am really curious about what kind of evidence they give you. It might be something as simple as targeting high-volume users and accusing them of tethering (as others have already mentioned).
Just because the person that answers your call doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes doesn't mean ATT isn't FULLY aware of who is and who is not tethering or what websites you are viewing, etc.
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have.
Of course there is a difference. But only in the individuals I am dealing with. My personal experience with AT&T (~2 years ago) is that they have difficulty communicating very basic information internally. This is things like upgrade eligibility, data plan pricing (between corporate and personal); you know, the stuff you can get pretty easily on the website. Now why would this be for a "telecom" company? This piece of evidence points to a pattern of incompetence that likely goes pretty deep. And, if in fact people are getting these threats from AT&T, and they call to discuss it with them, good luck getting any good information from the rep on the other end of the phone as to how they know this is happening.
As other's have pointed out, it seems like there are a few legal loopholes in what AT&T is trying to do. If they send you a message and you don't call, it's on you and they can do that (in the contract). If they change your terms of service, they have to notify you within 30 days, and you can cancel the rest of your contract. If, however, you call and they can't provide sufficient evidence of what they are accusing you of doing, and they are changing your terms no matter what, you have the right to terminate service. My guess is that they won't want you to do that, unless they have evidence that you are overloading their network. In which case, I think they can change your terms and not let you out of the contract (if someone wants to look that up, great, I don't really care enough to do it).
Someone who has received one of these messages needs to call and see what they say, and then post back. I am really curious about what kind of evidence they give you. It might be something as simple as targeting high-volume users and accusing them of tethering (as others have already mentioned).
Just because the person that answers your call doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes doesn't mean ATT isn't FULLY aware of who is and who is not tethering or what websites you are viewing, etc.
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have.
rdowns
May 5, 12:00 PM
FWIW, I got many more dropped calls with Verizon than I do with ATT in the Queens-Long Island NY areas.
Interesting how iPad 3G owners are claiming that signal strength and speed are much better than on their iPhones. Couldn't possibly be Apple's doing. :rolleyes:
Interesting how iPad 3G owners are claiming that signal strength and speed are much better than on their iPhones. Couldn't possibly be Apple's doing. :rolleyes:
Multimedia
Oct 26, 09:02 PM
Glossing over "heat" and "power" with a blah blah blah is probably a bit cavalier. Those are the two main issues facing notebook computers. Desktops have the advantage of infinite possibilities in terms of size, scale, cooling units, fans, and they have an infinite power source to go with it. Notebooks have to balance performance with energy constraints and heat constraints, the latter being the main issue. If you pile processors into a notebook that heat up, that heat has to dissipate somehow, so you're left with two choices: make a bigger laptop with more vents/cooling units (nobody wants that), or allow that heat to dissipate naturally which has limitations. If you ignore those limitations, you end up with a notebook that overheats, and inevitably your drives die or your motherboard cracks from heat stress.
So yes, notebooks are going to start to lag behind desktops more and more as multiple cores start to proliferate because cooling units can't keep up. Yet anyway.Zactly. They already have. I am postponing the mobile purchase until after I have the Dual Clovertown fully operational. Moreover, we can't even see beyond the mobile speed Apple just introduced Tuesday. Intel is giving us no numbers when it comes to beyond 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo. Sure the FSB will be "enhanced" to 800MHz with Santa Rosa. But that's hardly worth a sneeze compared to the 667GHz FSB it already has.
So I think you can forget about large multi-tasking on any mobile for the foreseeable future. Once my workflow shifted from linear to multi-threaded multi-tasking a little less than a year ago, I realized that dual core processors are really not much better than what we had for processing in 1985 - in this new paradigm of how to work a lot of stuff simultaneously.
When I ordered my Quad G5 in February, I was almost in a cold sweat panic. The sudden lack of power not coming out of my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 was frightening as soon as I had made that workflow shift. Scared me to death. I was visibly alarmed.
It was like a combination epiphany and natural disaster - fear and panic at the same time.
So yes, notebooks are going to start to lag behind desktops more and more as multiple cores start to proliferate because cooling units can't keep up. Yet anyway.Zactly. They already have. I am postponing the mobile purchase until after I have the Dual Clovertown fully operational. Moreover, we can't even see beyond the mobile speed Apple just introduced Tuesday. Intel is giving us no numbers when it comes to beyond 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo. Sure the FSB will be "enhanced" to 800MHz with Santa Rosa. But that's hardly worth a sneeze compared to the 667GHz FSB it already has.
So I think you can forget about large multi-tasking on any mobile for the foreseeable future. Once my workflow shifted from linear to multi-threaded multi-tasking a little less than a year ago, I realized that dual core processors are really not much better than what we had for processing in 1985 - in this new paradigm of how to work a lot of stuff simultaneously.
When I ordered my Quad G5 in February, I was almost in a cold sweat panic. The sudden lack of power not coming out of my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 was frightening as soon as I had made that workflow shift. Scared me to death. I was visibly alarmed.
It was like a combination epiphany and natural disaster - fear and panic at the same time.
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 09:30 PM
This doesn't have anything to do with the new machines, but does anybody have in inkling of how to get extra drive sleds for a MacPro?
The Mac Pro uses sleds??? Uh, oh... Why Apple, why??? So it's not like my G5 quads where everything you need is included (just add drives)? That sucks. :mad:
Is this really true?
The Mac Pro uses sleds??? Uh, oh... Why Apple, why??? So it's not like my G5 quads where everything you need is included (just add drives)? That sucks. :mad:
Is this really true?
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 09:56 PM
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
Hello!!! http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/flagoftruce.gif Me!! Me!! Been there, done that. :p
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
I would not presume to tell them anything. And I expect the same consideration in return.
Hello!!! http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/flagoftruce.gif Me!! Me!! Been there, done that. :p
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
I would not presume to tell them anything. And I expect the same consideration in return.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Blipp
Apr 13, 08:11 AM
I can't believe how many of you are writing off this app already after it's debut announcement which only covered new features and a new UI design. We essentially know NOTHING yet beyond it's new tricks, none of us have actually sat down and experienced a workflow with it. I haven't seen a single thing to suggest that features have been removed entirely or that the rest fo studio is now dead. At the absolute least Apple would put the rest of FCS2 onto the app store individually in their current form and from the attitudes I've seen in here most of you would love that they didn't update them in the least.
I too am suspicious about this release but I'm also optimistic. I don't assume that just because they didn't mention this or that that it must now be dead. We got our 64bit FCP that we've been dying for, we get background rendering and a wider range of native codecs (though we don't know which ones yet), and that all sounds like good news to me so far. I don't know what to expect from the rest of Studio as it'd be hard to imagine them revamping the entire suite unless they are truly being consumed by FCPX. If FCPX is able to switch between "Color" mode and "Motion" mode then so long as those modes remain full featured with a consistent UI across the board (something that has plagued the suite for a long time) then I can only see that as an upgrade. We'll find out more soon enough I'm sure.
If this truly does turn into what everyone is afraid of then oh well, I'm confident in my abilities to be able to adapt to an Avid or Adobe workflow. This isn't going to hold me back or ruin my parade.
I too am suspicious about this release but I'm also optimistic. I don't assume that just because they didn't mention this or that that it must now be dead. We got our 64bit FCP that we've been dying for, we get background rendering and a wider range of native codecs (though we don't know which ones yet), and that all sounds like good news to me so far. I don't know what to expect from the rest of Studio as it'd be hard to imagine them revamping the entire suite unless they are truly being consumed by FCPX. If FCPX is able to switch between "Color" mode and "Motion" mode then so long as those modes remain full featured with a consistent UI across the board (something that has plagued the suite for a long time) then I can only see that as an upgrade. We'll find out more soon enough I'm sure.
If this truly does turn into what everyone is afraid of then oh well, I'm confident in my abilities to be able to adapt to an Avid or Adobe workflow. This isn't going to hold me back or ruin my parade.
deconai
Aug 29, 04:06 PM
And Apple IS eco-friendly, or so I thought--Al Gore is on the board. I got the impression he was sort of into the environmental movement...
Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement. ;)
Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement. ;)
Wayazo
May 5, 09:03 PM
As much as I want to say that it s a grass is always greener type situation, in Phoenix AT&T is considered the worst. Especially indoors. They really must stretch the towers out here in the desert. I can;t even use my iphone in my home.
I live just north of Seattle. I have an AT&T cell tower (sign on tower base identifies it as such) within line of sight less than a quarter mile away in a residential area. Inside my house I have never had a single call successfully completed on my iPhone. They have all dropped out. If I step outside where I can see the tower, about half the calls drop out. I also have delayed reception of SMS and voice mail. For example, this morning I received a voicemail that was left for me the previous evening. I've replaced my phone and cards twice without luck. My neighbor has Verizon. He can stand inside my house right next to me, get full bars, chat up a storm, SMS, browse Internet.
Go figure.
I live just north of Seattle. I have an AT&T cell tower (sign on tower base identifies it as such) within line of sight less than a quarter mile away in a residential area. Inside my house I have never had a single call successfully completed on my iPhone. They have all dropped out. If I step outside where I can see the tower, about half the calls drop out. I also have delayed reception of SMS and voice mail. For example, this morning I received a voicemail that was left for me the previous evening. I've replaced my phone and cards twice without luck. My neighbor has Verizon. He can stand inside my house right next to me, get full bars, chat up a storm, SMS, browse Internet.
Go figure.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:54 PM
That is by NO MEANS CERTAIN!!! Think about it: FrontRow's Remote will work through this device communicating with the desktop to load content. iTV itself connects directly to the web and to iTunes to get trailers, etc.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
It's not certain, but It's a damn good bet that it won't record as it doesn't look like it'll have any storage... I wouldn't bet a dime on recording ability...
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
It's not certain, but It's a damn good bet that it won't record as it doesn't look like it'll have any storage... I wouldn't bet a dime on recording ability...
iFiend
Apr 21, 09:46 AM
It is this quote right here that separates the fan from the fanboi.
win
win
MorganK
May 9, 11:35 PM
I have a 3G and my calls keep dropping for no apparent reason. I'll look down right after it ends and have 0 bars then 2 seconds later, standing in the same spot, I will have full bars. It is quite frustrating. Good thing I text more than I talk though or else I'd be highly annoyed.
coder12
Mar 18, 11:59 AM
I smell a lawsuit against AT&T coming along!
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:31 PM
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
Stranger things happen. I just like the company (as in forum members, not Apple). ;)
Stranger things happen. I just like the company (as in forum members, not Apple). ;)
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 04:32 PM
In the EU there will soon be WEEE directive that governs the disposal of so called "E-waste" (televisions, computers, phones, etc), that will seriously affect manufacturers and retailers. So will Apple continue along their current trend of simply not selling products in these territories or will they redesign them? Because, eventually these sorts of laws will be passed all around the world, including the US.
Apple needs to abide by the laws of whatever country it sells products in (I know, I ended with a preposition, I'm tired). In order to survive, Apple will need to adapt along with changine environmental law....I'm certainly not suggesting that Apple break the law.
I'm only saying that as of right now, Apple's not actually doing anything legally wrong.
EDIT: And as far as being "proactive," Apple is somewhat bound by its suppliers, at least in a manufacturing sense. Batteries from Sony, processors from Motorola, IBM and Intel, hard drives from Toshiba, etc.
Apple needs to abide by the laws of whatever country it sells products in (I know, I ended with a preposition, I'm tired). In order to survive, Apple will need to adapt along with changine environmental law....I'm certainly not suggesting that Apple break the law.
I'm only saying that as of right now, Apple's not actually doing anything legally wrong.
EDIT: And as far as being "proactive," Apple is somewhat bound by its suppliers, at least in a manufacturing sense. Batteries from Sony, processors from Motorola, IBM and Intel, hard drives from Toshiba, etc.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 12:10 PM
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
spazzcat
May 5, 01:28 PM
Does this data have number of calls vs number of dropped calls? It looks like they just asked people if they have had a dropped call? I had maybe one dropped call this whole year. But I don't talk on my phone as much as someone else may.
odedia
Jul 12, 12:00 AM
Hate to say I told you so (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2559135#post2559135) ;)
Oded S.
Oded S.
mr.steevo
Apr 15, 10:21 AM
It's a good video and sends a message of hope for the future to kids that are feeling hopeless.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 08:11 AM
Think Obama & Jobs the supreme power couple :)
You mean "Obama and civil service jobs," don't you? ;)
You mean "Obama and civil service jobs," don't you? ;)
neilp4453
Feb 12, 03:14 AM
All I'm going to say is that Apple isn't doing enough to keep iPhone users...well, iPhone users!
Two of my cousins now own droids. One had an iPhone and got a Droid once he started working at a Verizon store. The damn phone is jampacked with features that Apple refuses to include.
In order for Apple to improve their device, they must first be beaten. Otherwise, they will sit on their asses just watching the cash come in. They do it with their current line of computers and they are doing it now.
I love my iPhone but I think it is just that time. Hopefully they can come back. It is time to loosen their grip on the App Store, let Google do their "thang" and add numerous features that are available NATIVELY!
Two of my cousins now own droids. One had an iPhone and got a Droid once he started working at a Verizon store. The damn phone is jampacked with features that Apple refuses to include.
In order for Apple to improve their device, they must first be beaten. Otherwise, they will sit on their asses just watching the cash come in. They do it with their current line of computers and they are doing it now.
I love my iPhone but I think it is just that time. Hopefully they can come back. It is time to loosen their grip on the App Store, let Google do their "thang" and add numerous features that are available NATIVELY!
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar