organerito
Apr 30, 06:05 PM
Because that huge base of thunderbolt based devices is overwhelming! :p
Or, Thunderbolt people must feel very special. There are about 10 of them in the world.:D
Or, Thunderbolt people must feel very special. There are about 10 of them in the world.:D
Superdrive
Sep 26, 12:13 PM
After the ROKR and SLVR, is anyone really surprised that Cingular will help launch this phone?
I'm still waiting for this to hit the market. My SLVR is great, and as long as Apple does NOT make a slider, I will buy an iPhone right away.
2007 is going to be spendy. I'll have to buy "iTV", Leopard, "iPhone", and a new portable. AHHH :eek:
I'm still waiting for this to hit the market. My SLVR is great, and as long as Apple does NOT make a slider, I will buy an iPhone right away.
2007 is going to be spendy. I'll have to buy "iTV", Leopard, "iPhone", and a new portable. AHHH :eek:
aly
Sep 14, 09:04 AM
I doubt we'll see some headless tower (apart from the macpro) i honestly don't think its in apple's interest to openup a new price point. Mac mini provides a nice entry for windows users, people wanting something next to their tv, or have the monitor etc already. MacBook provides mobile low end. iMac allows a bit more power and features over the mini for home users wanting a bit more and companies and people who dont need the power of the Mac Pro. MacBook Pro is high end portable allowing for graphics, photography, design, etc, and to some extent gaming on the go. The Mac Pro is the beast, a workstation more than a desktop and therefore is over specced for the normal user. But why put in a new model in between a imac and a mac pro when having the gap forces people looking for more than an imac to go for the mac pro and increase revenue. By creating an 'in between' model it takes sales away from the popular imac and the expensive mac pro, would probably have to have lower margins to get people to buy it and would just float about in the middle. Maybe die a fate similar to the cube? I don't see it being a smart move.
Some_Big_Spoon
Oct 27, 09:10 AM
I'm a Green Peace supporter, but with Bush in the Whitehouse, don't they have bigger fish to fry?
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
blizaine
Apr 4, 11:54 AM
I heard the mall cop got the head-shot while moving at full speed on a Segway. Simply amazing.
rhett7660
Nov 13, 05:12 PM
the tide is turning against Apple here, they need to clean up their act and get this whole thing working better.
i understand the walled-garden approach and respect that, but they also need to get the store cleaned up/organized and they need to work better with developers - which might just mean hiring more people to work with them on a daily basis.
You really think so? Three programs between these two development teams. Facebook and then these two. Yeah I see a huge tide turning right now. Please.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
i understand the walled-garden approach and respect that, but they also need to get the store cleaned up/organized and they need to work better with developers - which might just mean hiring more people to work with them on a daily basis.
You really think so? Three programs between these two development teams. Facebook and then these two. Yeah I see a huge tide turning right now. Please.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
Moyank24
Apr 25, 03:12 AM
i thought this from my first post, but his join date is 08, and he's a regular. that is what has me thinking that what he is saying is really how he thinks/acts.
I don't doubt that he goes around cutting people off at dangerous speeds. That screams of trying to make himself feel like less of a loser.
It's all the other crap that I think is BS...the money, connected family members, SAT score, all of the volunteering, Harvard. Complete lies. The kid is sitting in his basement listening to death metal (no offense to those who like that kind of music) as we speak and cursing all of the girls in his class because nobody would be caught dead at Prom with him.
I don't doubt that he goes around cutting people off at dangerous speeds. That screams of trying to make himself feel like less of a loser.
It's all the other crap that I think is BS...the money, connected family members, SAT score, all of the volunteering, Harvard. Complete lies. The kid is sitting in his basement listening to death metal (no offense to those who like that kind of music) as we speak and cursing all of the girls in his class because nobody would be caught dead at Prom with him.
nishioka
Apr 22, 04:22 AM
Well I can already listen to my music on my MacBook, iPad and iPhone so why would I want it?
Maybe you wouldn't. I could see a use for it myself - I have a library of music so big you couldn't fit it all on any existing iPhone, and it's annoying to be out someplace and wanting to listen to a song, but you can't because you had to exclude it from your last sync. It would be preferable then for me to be able to link my iPhone to my music library and just have Apple deliver everything to me on demand... be it from the hard drive at home or from a central location.
Of course, how this is all implemented will play a big role in whether the service is useful to me or not. If I can't listen to the CDs I bought and imported into iTunes for example... that's a dealbreaker as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe you wouldn't. I could see a use for it myself - I have a library of music so big you couldn't fit it all on any existing iPhone, and it's annoying to be out someplace and wanting to listen to a song, but you can't because you had to exclude it from your last sync. It would be preferable then for me to be able to link my iPhone to my music library and just have Apple deliver everything to me on demand... be it from the hard drive at home or from a central location.
Of course, how this is all implemented will play a big role in whether the service is useful to me or not. If I can't listen to the CDs I bought and imported into iTunes for example... that's a dealbreaker as far as I'm concerned.
snebes
Apr 4, 12:00 PM
How sad,
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
I don't mean to be off-topic with this, nor am I pro-guns or anything, but the security guard was protecting himself from people that had no respect for life to begin with. Would your story be the same if the felons killed the security guard? or if they were robbing your house?
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
I don't mean to be off-topic with this, nor am I pro-guns or anything, but the security guard was protecting himself from people that had no respect for life to begin with. Would your story be the same if the felons killed the security guard? or if they were robbing your house?
aswitcher
Sep 26, 07:20 AM
looking forward to an Australian deal. Hopefully it will be someone cheap like Virgin - they are "hip and trendy" (at least I think they are...)
Chase R
May 3, 05:18 PM
...and we like to hook up our consoles to our monitors... I really hope this deal about the failed Target Mode is some kind of misunderstanding.
Yeah... All 13 of you :rolleyes: JK.
Don't get me wrong, I'd probably be a little upset if I were you, but this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise; you are a VERY small percentage of the market.
Yeah... All 13 of you :rolleyes: JK.
Don't get me wrong, I'd probably be a little upset if I were you, but this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise; you are a VERY small percentage of the market.
iStudentUK
Apr 18, 02:36 PM
About 30 years ago, his holiness Ronald Reagan fired over 11 thousand Air Traffic Controllers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)) for going on strike. One of their most important demands was for a 32 hour week, so that they would not be falling asleep on the job.
Damn straight I want these guys awake! ATC is a very stressful job. Although didn't they announce a change in America yesterday?
(PS that thing in your sig about the pen and pencil is partly an urban legend.)
Damn straight I want these guys awake! ATC is a very stressful job. Although didn't they announce a change in America yesterday?
(PS that thing in your sig about the pen and pencil is partly an urban legend.)
morespce54
Aug 24, 10:54 AM
Definitely interesting......now I'll just have to remember to never buy Creative products :) I like Apple not Creative........so why support a company I do not like that sued a company I do like and got $100 million in a lawsuit over a BS patent.
Because buying from the company you don't love will pay 10% to the company you love! ;)
Because buying from the company you don't love will pay 10% to the company you love! ;)
wolfie37
Apr 20, 11:05 AM
Actually this could be just as bad. Imagine a issue comes up and you need to prove that you were (or were not) somewhere and your phone conflicts with the facts. The government now has data that you need to clarify or explain.
FWIW
DLM
No it's not, it's a complete non-issue. As you said, correctly, my phone would be conflicting with the FACTS. This is a whole load of nonsense privacy wise, lets face it every mobile operator has a log of where your mobile last communicated with one of their towers, always has been. Because your mobile phone is somewhere doesn't mean that YOU are there.
People really do get so paranoid about these things. There are many many ways your personal movements are recorded, credit/debit card transactions cctv, check ins at airports, hotels, telephone calls and text messages you send. This is nothing extraordinary or of any concern, in fact completely the opposite as everyone should always be able to justify why they are at a certain place at a certain time.
The only ones ho need to worry are those that are up to no good....
FWIW
DLM
No it's not, it's a complete non-issue. As you said, correctly, my phone would be conflicting with the FACTS. This is a whole load of nonsense privacy wise, lets face it every mobile operator has a log of where your mobile last communicated with one of their towers, always has been. Because your mobile phone is somewhere doesn't mean that YOU are there.
People really do get so paranoid about these things. There are many many ways your personal movements are recorded, credit/debit card transactions cctv, check ins at airports, hotels, telephone calls and text messages you send. This is nothing extraordinary or of any concern, in fact completely the opposite as everyone should always be able to justify why they are at a certain place at a certain time.
The only ones ho need to worry are those that are up to no good....
cdavis11
Mar 23, 04:31 PM
If you're sober enough to have presence of mind to check an app for a sobriety checkpoint, you're probably sober enough to drive.
AppleScruff1
May 1, 12:42 AM
Wouldn't a more relevant comparison be Apple and HP since they are both hardware companies and MS really isn't in the same category hardware wise?
Lord Blackadder
Oct 12, 05:20 PM
Oprah & Bono introduce new red iPod
That just sounds cheesy. :rolleyes:
That just sounds cheesy. :rolleyes:
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 11:04 PM
I never said Apple going after Woolworths for their logo was a good move.
My only point in this whole discussion is Apple is not all sweet and innocent like so many like to think and defend them to the death. They have done some pretty lame things and filed frivolous lawsuits. And as an aside, The Beatles Let It Be album had a red apple logo in the center instead of the usual green.
My only point in this whole discussion is Apple is not all sweet and innocent like so many like to think and defend them to the death. They have done some pretty lame things and filed frivolous lawsuits. And as an aside, The Beatles Let It Be album had a red apple logo in the center instead of the usual green.
dsnort
Sep 19, 06:26 PM
I can't wait until I can get access to movies from around the world instead of just insipid Hollywood crap.
And a hearty Amen and hell yeah for that!
And a hearty Amen and hell yeah for that!
ChrisA
Apr 11, 12:00 PM
They'll change the key and force a firmware update on any airport express user who wants to update itunes.
That would break all properly licensed third party hardware.
That would break all properly licensed third party hardware.
Wild-Bill
Apr 30, 03:54 PM
Apple really needs to get on the SATA-3 bandwagon. There are already plenty of SSD choices that can utilize the higher throughput, and more drives are on the way.
Not to mention the fact that most motherboards out there today all have SATA-3 and have for a while now.
Not to mention the fact that most motherboards out there today all have SATA-3 and have for a while now.
DaveK
Sep 13, 11:17 PM
I'm hoping for something a little more than a slicker LG Chocolate that syncs with iLife.
Hs anyone seen the Synaptics Onyx? It's only a prototype, or is it?
http://www.synaptics.com/onyx/
Now this seems like the iPhone to me. I want an easily cleanable, hard to scratch touch screen, impeccable voice recognition, an onscreen clickwheel, and great text to speech, ala Alex from the Leopard demo to read me my e-mail while I'm driving to work, and iChat. Not asking for much am I?
I am also waiting for the day when Steve, while showing a new portable product, has the battery die on him. He plugs in the charger and makes the usual sheepish excuses about how this wasn't supposed to happen and stalls for about a minute to explain some of the other new features. He then picks up the unit and announces that while he was talking the unit has 80% of it's charge due to a new battery they are introducing today.
It's the Toshiba "Super Charge Battery"
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/toshibas-60second-charge-battery-037558.php
Now if they can only make the batteries not ignite. Shoot, I seem to have misplaced my Flying Car keys.
Hs anyone seen the Synaptics Onyx? It's only a prototype, or is it?
http://www.synaptics.com/onyx/
Now this seems like the iPhone to me. I want an easily cleanable, hard to scratch touch screen, impeccable voice recognition, an onscreen clickwheel, and great text to speech, ala Alex from the Leopard demo to read me my e-mail while I'm driving to work, and iChat. Not asking for much am I?
I am also waiting for the day when Steve, while showing a new portable product, has the battery die on him. He plugs in the charger and makes the usual sheepish excuses about how this wasn't supposed to happen and stalls for about a minute to explain some of the other new features. He then picks up the unit and announces that while he was talking the unit has 80% of it's charge due to a new battery they are introducing today.
It's the Toshiba "Super Charge Battery"
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/toshibas-60second-charge-battery-037558.php
Now if they can only make the batteries not ignite. Shoot, I seem to have misplaced my Flying Car keys.
koen
Sep 13, 09:25 PM
Type the following in the Terminal:
cd /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS
strings * | grep -i phone
cd /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS
strings * | grep -i phone