takao
Jan 12, 10:22 AM
The bloody thing is not even released yet and you are already an expert? Give me a break.
the iphone not being out makes it even worse
especially for the european market where it's still 1 year away and you can get UMTS phones _today_ .etc
can you download music from itms on your iphone ?
one provider here offers such a service except that you pay 1 buck for the phone and the contract is somewhere around 25 or so per month ( 0cent per minute into 4 networks) but you get the top 40 charts for free every month or something like that
1 year is a lot in the mobile phone business
edit: oh and i just found the W850i and it _has_ a 2mp camera around here (but only 1 GB)
but it only costs _3_ bucks with a contract
the iphone not being out makes it even worse
especially for the european market where it's still 1 year away and you can get UMTS phones _today_ .etc
can you download music from itms on your iphone ?
one provider here offers such a service except that you pay 1 buck for the phone and the contract is somewhere around 25 or so per month ( 0cent per minute into 4 networks) but you get the top 40 charts for free every month or something like that
1 year is a lot in the mobile phone business
edit: oh and i just found the W850i and it _has_ a 2mp camera around here (but only 1 GB)
but it only costs _3_ bucks with a contract
paradox00
May 3, 04:14 PM
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you. You aren't legally obligated to pay twice for that same 2 GB of consideration if you want to use a tethering app.
Any concerns carriers have with bandwidth use can be addressed through their data plans, which they have full control of. They are not within their rights to start dictating what apps can or can't access data on your phone. Even if tethering apps generate a lot of data use, charging specifically for tethering is just a stopgap for a larger problem with their data plan pricing structure. Tethering apps are just one type of many high bandwidth apps. Are they going to start charging for all of them? Do you think that's reasonable?
Today your wireless ISP charges extra for tethering, tomorrow it will charge extra to access Netflix, and perhaps later on, your local ISP will want in on the action and start charge per device connected to your router. This segmented path of internet service is not a path I want to go down. The moment data becomes more than just data, and becomes data by application or use, is the day that consumers lose.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you. You aren't legally obligated to pay twice for that same 2 GB of consideration if you want to use a tethering app.
Any concerns carriers have with bandwidth use can be addressed through their data plans, which they have full control of. They are not within their rights to start dictating what apps can or can't access data on your phone. Even if tethering apps generate a lot of data use, charging specifically for tethering is just a stopgap for a larger problem with their data plan pricing structure. Tethering apps are just one type of many high bandwidth apps. Are they going to start charging for all of them? Do you think that's reasonable?
Today your wireless ISP charges extra for tethering, tomorrow it will charge extra to access Netflix, and perhaps later on, your local ISP will want in on the action and start charge per device connected to your router. This segmented path of internet service is not a path I want to go down. The moment data becomes more than just data, and becomes data by application or use, is the day that consumers lose.
Bistroengine
Apr 5, 06:04 PM
Yeah, I get it: Apple's iAd venture is doing really badly so they created this app to try to drum up some new business.
This app is vital if I want to be successful or wealthy? Huh?:confused:
hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........
Whoever spends their time looking at adverts is a lost cause and has no life. Seriously I think this is the most ridiculous thing apple has come up with.
Unfortunately, Clukas's quote above is a perfect example of how the majority of the board is reacting to this post. 'Lost cause', 'loser', 'moron', 'has no life' are all insults I've seen all over this posting. Incredibly immature and unnecessary if you ask me.
This app is vital if I want to be successful or wealthy? Huh?:confused:
hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........
Whoever spends their time looking at adverts is a lost cause and has no life. Seriously I think this is the most ridiculous thing apple has come up with.
Unfortunately, Clukas's quote above is a perfect example of how the majority of the board is reacting to this post. 'Lost cause', 'loser', 'moron', 'has no life' are all insults I've seen all over this posting. Incredibly immature and unnecessary if you ask me.
benjayman2
Apr 9, 09:21 PM
Yeah I just finished setting it up and i'm uber pleased! I'm in love with the shelves on the side, although give it a week and they will be crammed :p
Good choice. The GF and I love ours. it has been a godsend for organization.
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/9141/img0451ka.jpg
Good choice. The GF and I love ours. it has been a godsend for organization.
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/9141/img0451ka.jpg
Lord Blackadder
May 5, 06:36 PM
Dude. I haven't once mentioned a ban.
These days I'd be satisfied with a hint of awareness.
Fair enough. It took your statement as referring to bans.
Frankly awareness, or more specifically education, is the only solution. Gun owners need more education, particularly those who arm themselves for home defense or concealed carry. If citizens are expected to demonstrate proficiency in driving a car before being allowed on the road - and further proficiency for special kinds of driving (such as racing licenses, commercial licenses, limousine drivers, police driving training etc etc), then gun owners should get considerably more training in self-defense with firearms. Most hunters agree that mandatory hunter-safety classes are a good idea. If that is the case, self-defense training is even more necessary.
Furthermore, the public at large needs to be more educated about laws, regulations and firearms themselves. Fear of firearms can be healthy. Willfull ignorance towards them, not so much.
These days I'd be satisfied with a hint of awareness.
Fair enough. It took your statement as referring to bans.
Frankly awareness, or more specifically education, is the only solution. Gun owners need more education, particularly those who arm themselves for home defense or concealed carry. If citizens are expected to demonstrate proficiency in driving a car before being allowed on the road - and further proficiency for special kinds of driving (such as racing licenses, commercial licenses, limousine drivers, police driving training etc etc), then gun owners should get considerably more training in self-defense with firearms. Most hunters agree that mandatory hunter-safety classes are a good idea. If that is the case, self-defense training is even more necessary.
Furthermore, the public at large needs to be more educated about laws, regulations and firearms themselves. Fear of firearms can be healthy. Willfull ignorance towards them, not so much.
m-dogg
Nov 24, 09:01 AM
I buy my annual .mac subscription today when it's on sale. Doesn't actually renew until January...
madmaxmedia
Jan 11, 04:53 PM
Doing it during somebody's presentation is just plain cold.
I heard that the Gizmodo people pushed all the buttons in the elevators too.
I heard that the Gizmodo people pushed all the buttons in the elevators too.
maclaptop
Apr 16, 10:56 PM
And different browsers didn't appear for a long while I thought.
True. This is due to Apples desire to confine users to Safari.
Their dictatorial approach worked for quite some time. Finally user push back was too much, and Apple caved.
True. This is due to Apples desire to confine users to Safari.
Their dictatorial approach worked for quite some time. Finally user push back was too much, and Apple caved.
PygmySurfer
Oct 28, 05:23 PM
yeah, but Logic Pro requires a dongle.
The TPM on Intel-based Macs could essentially be used as a dongle.
What's worse, the TPM would make something like Microsoft's product activation trivially simple.
The TPM on Intel-based Macs could essentially be used as a dongle.
What's worse, the TPM would make something like Microsoft's product activation trivially simple.
joeboy_45101
Oct 28, 09:40 PM
Oh ****! Thanks Apple! Now, how am I supposed to get Mac OS X to run on my old Linux box?
Eric S.
Mar 30, 10:43 AM
So the next will be:
OS Xi
... little i being key.
Yes, it's already here; it's called iOS.
OS Xi
... little i being key.
Yes, it's already here; it's called iOS.
yoda13
Nov 16, 05:30 PM
DigiTimes' track record is amazingly bad. You'd think they'd be right more often just by guessing.
I thought that is what they were doing...:confused:
I thought that is what they were doing...:confused:
hob
Jan 9, 01:42 PM
I was gonna say this thread feels like an AA meeting, but it's more like we're all waiting for our next dose of crack or something... :p
numediaman
Oct 30, 12:43 PM
I'm on the phone with AT&T right now talking about the new fees they have added to my bill -- they are, of course, bogus and will be reversed. But every month I have to call AT&T about bogus charges they have added to the bill.
I imagine that this game adds thousands, if not millions, of dollars to their bottom line.
In response, I have eliminated my home lines that go through AT&T, and would immediately go with any other carrier that could handle the iPhone.
I imagine that this game adds thousands, if not millions, of dollars to their bottom line.
In response, I have eliminated my home lines that go through AT&T, and would immediately go with any other carrier that could handle the iPhone.
Full of Fail
May 3, 04:14 PM
I'd still argue that communism isn't really open because it's a top down government, but in theory it is more open than it is in reality.
In Texas, people are so ignorant about different forms of government, I forget that other people are more educated.
I am still referring to pure communism, with no top down government. You are referring to the Leninist theory that has become what we commonly think of communism as, which has a vanguard party lead the proletariat. Unfortunately this is not the right thread to continue this discussion.
Back on topic... the bottom line is, does it suck to be charged twice for data? Yes, it does. Is it legal? Yes, you agreed to it, and if you were in the carriers shoes, you would do the same. As cited previously, it does make economic sense as the price for all of us would go up if they allowed it at no additional cost. Are you stealing when you circumvent paying? Yes, and whether or not that matters is up to you.
In Texas, people are so ignorant about different forms of government, I forget that other people are more educated.
I am still referring to pure communism, with no top down government. You are referring to the Leninist theory that has become what we commonly think of communism as, which has a vanguard party lead the proletariat. Unfortunately this is not the right thread to continue this discussion.
Back on topic... the bottom line is, does it suck to be charged twice for data? Yes, it does. Is it legal? Yes, you agreed to it, and if you were in the carriers shoes, you would do the same. As cited previously, it does make economic sense as the price for all of us would go up if they allowed it at no additional cost. Are you stealing when you circumvent paying? Yes, and whether or not that matters is up to you.
Much Ado
Oct 29, 06:50 AM
"If they Hardware worked with any software, it would not be so easy to use"
"It would also not work so well"
Sorry, but that doesn't really make sense.
Title Of Album: Born This Way
Lady Gaga is starting promo
Lady Gaga – Born This Way
"It would also not work so well"
Sorry, but that doesn't really make sense.
skunk
Oct 11, 01:04 PM
that's not the criteria.Nor is it the criterion.
CWallace
Jan 15, 03:11 PM
Three new toys to own (MacBook Air, :apple:tv 2, and Time Capsule) plus an update for my existing toy - iPhone.
Count me as pleased.
Now hopefully an MBP refresh will happen next Tuesday.
Count me as pleased.
Now hopefully an MBP refresh will happen next Tuesday.
Superken7
May 3, 02:42 PM
First: I thought this was called macrumors.com ... oh well :)
Second: Android supports sideloading, no rooting or any hacking required on 99.99% of all phones. You can just DL and install that app. (for now, wait until the modified ROM disables that, like the HTC something by ATT... frickin carrieres!! :/)
Second: Android supports sideloading, no rooting or any hacking required on 99.99% of all phones. You can just DL and install that app. (for now, wait until the modified ROM disables that, like the HTC something by ATT... frickin carrieres!! :/)
tinman0
Apr 16, 02:35 AM
Is the difference that Apple is more willing to talk to and play ball with the content providers? Is it that Google has "changing its demands"? Is it about technical concerns? Are the content provides trying to guess who the winning horse will be?
Haha, got to laugh when Google get a set back. As an executive a few months ago said about Google, "it's like negotiating with someone who is autistic".
At the end of the day, Google have tramped over the copyright of all the companies it's trying to get a deal from (think YouTube), chances are that it's also trying to negotiate better terms than Apple with little things like giving everyone else worse terms than them (think the books deal), and so forth.
And frankly, what do Google have to offer the record companies that Apple and Amazon don't?
So think about the autistic comment, think about the terms they will be looking for, and you have to conclude that there is no reason that to think the record companies want or need Google as a partner.
Google aren't bringing new subscribers so the chances are, Google are trying to bring prices down, which will ultimately cost the record companies money.
Haha, got to laugh when Google get a set back. As an executive a few months ago said about Google, "it's like negotiating with someone who is autistic".
At the end of the day, Google have tramped over the copyright of all the companies it's trying to get a deal from (think YouTube), chances are that it's also trying to negotiate better terms than Apple with little things like giving everyone else worse terms than them (think the books deal), and so forth.
And frankly, what do Google have to offer the record companies that Apple and Amazon don't?
So think about the autistic comment, think about the terms they will be looking for, and you have to conclude that there is no reason that to think the record companies want or need Google as a partner.
Google aren't bringing new subscribers so the chances are, Google are trying to bring prices down, which will ultimately cost the record companies money.
iAlan
Oct 3, 11:09 PM
Start your countdown widgets....
quagmire
Jan 12, 09:38 AM
Jobs wasn't smug at all IMHO. He was excited about it. You should of clearly seen that. He made a few jokes( like that prank call to Starbucks), but that was just his normal old humor. The only problem I had was with the order he stated iPod, phone, and internet communicator. The iPod and phone got good responses and then the internet communicator the people went, " ummm.... ok." I would of went internet communicator-> iPod-> phone. Get louder responses step and save the best for last. Other then that the keynote was good, if not one of his best.
For you iPhone haters, you people seem to think hardware makes the product revolutionary. Since you think so, you're right then. The iPhone in terms of hardware is nothing special. Got the standard CPU, standard 2.5G things, etc. But, there is more things that make it revolutionary then hardware. The UI is what makes the iPhone revolutionary. How you navigate the iPhone is revolutionary. How easy it is to use it and navigate through it. Ok, so it uses flash instead of an HD. How do most people treat their cell phones? Most people I see their cell phones are beat up. Scratches galore, etc. I bet the HD would be killed within weeks. Not to mention the extra thickness and power usage. 8 GB is the highest affordable flash you can put in a product right now so Apple didn't skimp out on that. Plus, the iPhone is a phone first and foremost. The iPod part is just a feature on it. I love how someone avoided the question, " What else were you hoping for?" Doesn't answer the question at all. Just continues the BS on how the iPhone isn't revolutionary.
For most part, the iPhone haters simply don't get the point of Apple. Why Apple makes the products the way they do. They have been brainwashed by other companies throwing in technology galore into their products. What is the point of adding even more technology if the current technology in the product isn't easy to use? You're just going to confuse the crap out of your customer base. That is where Apple steps in. Apple takes the technology and makes it easier to use. So Apple doesn't always use the latest and greatest stuff in their products. Look at the original Mac. Nothing really new in there hardware wise. But, it changed how we used a computer. Fast forward to 2001 when the iPod was introduced. It was just another HD based MP3 player. Had nothing the competition. The iPod did what the other MP3 players could do. Yet, what made the iPod revolutionary was the way we navigated through an MP3 player and how we used it overall( the iTunes/iPod integration for example). It was easy to use and put music on it.
PS: If we bought everything Apple made why didn't the Newton and Cube sell well?
For you iPhone haters, you people seem to think hardware makes the product revolutionary. Since you think so, you're right then. The iPhone in terms of hardware is nothing special. Got the standard CPU, standard 2.5G things, etc. But, there is more things that make it revolutionary then hardware. The UI is what makes the iPhone revolutionary. How you navigate the iPhone is revolutionary. How easy it is to use it and navigate through it. Ok, so it uses flash instead of an HD. How do most people treat their cell phones? Most people I see their cell phones are beat up. Scratches galore, etc. I bet the HD would be killed within weeks. Not to mention the extra thickness and power usage. 8 GB is the highest affordable flash you can put in a product right now so Apple didn't skimp out on that. Plus, the iPhone is a phone first and foremost. The iPod part is just a feature on it. I love how someone avoided the question, " What else were you hoping for?" Doesn't answer the question at all. Just continues the BS on how the iPhone isn't revolutionary.
For most part, the iPhone haters simply don't get the point of Apple. Why Apple makes the products the way they do. They have been brainwashed by other companies throwing in technology galore into their products. What is the point of adding even more technology if the current technology in the product isn't easy to use? You're just going to confuse the crap out of your customer base. That is where Apple steps in. Apple takes the technology and makes it easier to use. So Apple doesn't always use the latest and greatest stuff in their products. Look at the original Mac. Nothing really new in there hardware wise. But, it changed how we used a computer. Fast forward to 2001 when the iPod was introduced. It was just another HD based MP3 player. Had nothing the competition. The iPod did what the other MP3 players could do. Yet, what made the iPod revolutionary was the way we navigated through an MP3 player and how we used it overall( the iTunes/iPod integration for example). It was easy to use and put music on it.
PS: If we bought everything Apple made why didn't the Newton and Cube sell well?
Dagless
Apr 5, 03:31 PM
Hahaha.
Nope.
Nope.
maclaptop
Apr 29, 10:11 PM
+1
It was confusing but they could have sorted that out.
They have the technical skills to do so, it's the marketing side that seems to rule Apples every move.
Never before have they seemed so adrift. While revenue is always of great importance, usually its one element, not the only one that matters. While Apple makes an effort to appear as though they want to make a difference, a contribution to progress and change, its the race to the bottom that is of concern.
To simplify every aspect to its lowest common denominator. No education required.
It was confusing but they could have sorted that out.
They have the technical skills to do so, it's the marketing side that seems to rule Apples every move.
Never before have they seemed so adrift. While revenue is always of great importance, usually its one element, not the only one that matters. While Apple makes an effort to appear as though they want to make a difference, a contribution to progress and change, its the race to the bottom that is of concern.
To simplify every aspect to its lowest common denominator. No education required.
