know-it-all5
Sep 12, 04:23 PM
First and foremost, though i am repeating what others have said... this is still a 5g ipod... This update was VERY minor... I say expect an iphone at macworld 06, and ipod 6g somewhere in 1st quarter of 07 (maybe macworld).
aafuss1
Sep 9, 08:49 PM
Nice Core 2 performance-just what we need.
bretm
Oct 27, 10:47 AM
Meh, don't worry about the batteries. Sure, some people have problems, but my 3G ipod is still doing surprisingly well! It may have lost a little bit of charge since I bought it but it still lasts at least 7 hours. Maybe I'm just lucky. Or maybe it knows it needs to behave before the sweet widescreen video ipod comes out. Or else. :D
Nah, my 3G rocks too. I too am waiting to see what's next. I have a crappy phone and no pda. I'd love some sort of pda pod.
Nah, my 3G rocks too. I too am waiting to see what's next. I have a crappy phone and no pda. I'd love some sort of pda pod.
Eidorian
Jul 15, 05:21 AM
:( And I thought I was hot stuff with my 2GHz Core Duo iMac... Less than a month old!
Oh well, that's the way it always goes...Someone should have paid attention to the Buyer's Guide.
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
I've had the money for an iMac for over a month now. I haven't bought it though.
What's the probability of being able to drop one of the newer, more powerful chips into my iMac sometime in the future? I mean, I've got 2GB RAM and a 500GB HDD, and a 256MB video card... A newer processor down the line should work well, right?The CPU is possible but you probably wouldn't want to it yourself. The hard drive is easier. The video card would require an entire logic board replacement.
Oh well, that's the way it always goes...Someone should have paid attention to the Buyer's Guide.
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
I've had the money for an iMac for over a month now. I haven't bought it though.
What's the probability of being able to drop one of the newer, more powerful chips into my iMac sometime in the future? I mean, I've got 2GB RAM and a 500GB HDD, and a 256MB video card... A newer processor down the line should work well, right?The CPU is possible but you probably wouldn't want to it yourself. The hard drive is easier. The video card would require an entire logic board replacement.
j_maddison
Sep 26, 11:16 AM
i REALLLLLLLYYYYYYYYY hope its orange...
as the choice of mobile phones they have at the moment is the poorest i have ever seen in the UK.
ive been waiting on a p990i since march.....still dont have it on orange, was told yesterday it could be end of october now.
i am gauranteed a free upgrade on any handset, so come one apple!!
Do you're self a favour and ask for your pac code when the phon is released. A free upgrade is pretty much to be expected, if you dont ask for the pac code their unlikely to give you any other freebies.
You should always ask for the pac code and then wait for their retention team to give you a call back
Jay
as the choice of mobile phones they have at the moment is the poorest i have ever seen in the UK.
ive been waiting on a p990i since march.....still dont have it on orange, was told yesterday it could be end of october now.
i am gauranteed a free upgrade on any handset, so come one apple!!
Do you're self a favour and ask for your pac code when the phon is released. A free upgrade is pretty much to be expected, if you dont ask for the pac code their unlikely to give you any other freebies.
You should always ask for the pac code and then wait for their retention team to give you a call back
Jay
VPrime
Apr 30, 05:11 PM
He was talking about the fact that "Cloud storage" uses physical media. ;) The cloud is not some kind of magic thing, it's just a bunch of physical disks and servers. And those disks and servers aren't anything special either, they are your typical server computer and the disks are also your standard server based disk, grouped up in a volume manager over massive raid arrays.
Oh right, didn't think that part through.... Its the future everthing is magic! :D
Oh right, didn't think that part through.... Its the future everthing is magic! :D
wordoflife
Apr 4, 12:34 PM
Was It really necessary to kill him?
No
They shot at the cops as well.
It's sad, but reality.
Can't do the time, don't do the crime.
No
They shot at the cops as well.
It's sad, but reality.
Can't do the time, don't do the crime.
whateverandever
Mar 23, 05:20 PM
I'm simultaneously amused and saddened by the number of people who believe that drunk driving is a constitutionally protected right.
Hope you never have to see the results of the 'patriots' who would have a use for this and then kill innocent people.
This app enables murder. Rationalize all you want.
Nobody said that drunk driving was a constitutionally protected right. The ability to tell someone how to drive drunk is a protected right. It may not be one that you agree with but taking away that right would be a slippery slope of banning speech that people could find potentially dangerous.
And guess what -- Safari enables you to learn how to do all sorts of things that can lead to murder. You know what, I suggest you stop using your web browser right now -- you're in danger of becoming a murderer!
Hope you never have to see the results of the 'patriots' who would have a use for this and then kill innocent people.
This app enables murder. Rationalize all you want.
Nobody said that drunk driving was a constitutionally protected right. The ability to tell someone how to drive drunk is a protected right. It may not be one that you agree with but taking away that right would be a slippery slope of banning speech that people could find potentially dangerous.
And guess what -- Safari enables you to learn how to do all sorts of things that can lead to murder. You know what, I suggest you stop using your web browser right now -- you're in danger of becoming a murderer!
AppleScruff1
Apr 28, 05:47 PM
Well thank you Steve Balmer. Why in the hell did Gates left him in charge I never will understand.
While Steve Jobs is great.
See you have two kinds of Steves, one is an idiot and other one is highly intelligent. :D
And from this post one can venture a guess as to which kind you are.
While Steve Jobs is great.
See you have two kinds of Steves, one is an idiot and other one is highly intelligent. :D
And from this post one can venture a guess as to which kind you are.
Josias
Aug 28, 02:45 PM
To the guy that on page 2 requested a 7600GT in the MBP's: Why? The X1800XT is gonna whoop it's butt, and ATI is way better at making mobile cards. Oh BTW, the X1600's were not underlocked. I saw a thread somewhere, that said they wouldn�t run at full speed when not needed.;)
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 28, 10:28 PM
Will an Apple Retail store upgrade your cpu? What's the cost to have this done without a warranty void?
Also,
The Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 1066MHz will work in an imac intel? newegg sells them for $369
Core 2 Duo Extreme runs at 2.93GHz
No, the Apple Retail Store will not upgrade your CPU. If you do upgrade your CPU, your warranty will be void. And the Conroe chip does NOT work in iMac Intels - rather, you'd need to use a MEROM chip if you wanted to upgrade it (but that, too, would void the warranty)
Also,
The Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 1066MHz will work in an imac intel? newegg sells them for $369
Core 2 Duo Extreme runs at 2.93GHz
No, the Apple Retail Store will not upgrade your CPU. If you do upgrade your CPU, your warranty will be void. And the Conroe chip does NOT work in iMac Intels - rather, you'd need to use a MEROM chip if you wanted to upgrade it (but that, too, would void the warranty)
fabianjj
Apr 19, 08:30 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
To be honest, there aren't ha t many ways you can design a touch screen smartphone. It's a big screen with speaker on top and a few buttons on the bottom.
And for the software, if apple is the only one who can use a grid that you swipe horizontally, could google then claim the right to a vertical one, leaving any new competitor forced to choose a diagonal one? <slight sarcasm>
To be honest, there aren't ha t many ways you can design a touch screen smartphone. It's a big screen with speaker on top and a few buttons on the bottom.
And for the software, if apple is the only one who can use a grid that you swipe horizontally, could google then claim the right to a vertical one, leaving any new competitor forced to choose a diagonal one? <slight sarcasm>
ValSalva
Apr 25, 02:33 PM
Would you disagree that, just perhaps, in these industries where the DVD drive is so crucial that they might just have external drives? Apple is trying to sell these MacBooks to everyone, not just pros. It's the internet and App store are capable of doing the exact same thing as DVDs (for most computer purposes). For everything else, buy the external superdrive. 15% of MBP customers might need a DVD drive, but we know Apple isn't going to ignore the 85% who don't.
I'd agree with you. Apple is also trying to get everyone to purchase software from the Mac App Store. They are even trying to distribute Final Cut Pro via download so you have to believe Apple is going to do everything possible to diminish the use of CD/DVDs.
You also have to believe that if you still intend to watch movies/TV on your MacBook Pro that Apple would rather you download it from iTunes than buy a DVD from which Apple receives no cut.
At this point I'd be more surprised if the next MacBook Pro had a Superdrive. I think they didn't remove it this year because that would have required a redesign.
I'd agree with you. Apple is also trying to get everyone to purchase software from the Mac App Store. They are even trying to distribute Final Cut Pro via download so you have to believe Apple is going to do everything possible to diminish the use of CD/DVDs.
You also have to believe that if you still intend to watch movies/TV on your MacBook Pro that Apple would rather you download it from iTunes than buy a DVD from which Apple receives no cut.
At this point I'd be more surprised if the next MacBook Pro had a Superdrive. I think they didn't remove it this year because that would have required a redesign.
blahblah100
Mar 30, 01:39 PM
Amen, brother... M$ wants to have it their way but not allow anyone else to do the same.
Care to explain how App�� differs?
Care to explain how App�� differs?
DJMastaWes
Sep 9, 10:34 PM
Two Questions...
1) If Merom MacBook Pros ship on the 12th, and I order mine that day, around how long would it take for me to get?
2) I hear there is going to be TONS of problems seeing as how it's going to be the first of Rev B. Models. Any truth to that?
1) If Merom MacBook Pros ship on the 12th, and I order mine that day, around how long would it take for me to get?
2) I hear there is going to be TONS of problems seeing as how it's going to be the first of Rev B. Models. Any truth to that?
jofarmer
Sep 12, 03:43 PM
Well Folks, you all seem to be concerned about if your iPod 5G is outdated..
ever thought about that?
If I got Steve right, no iPod that was sold prior to this very day will be able to play videos from the iTMS sold from this day on - not if Apple hasn't been lying VERY much about the H.264 decoding capabilities of the "old" iPod 5G.
I'd love to be corrected, though...You're wrong. Older 5g iPods can play the new tv shows and movies from the iTunes store. Lets not get ridiculous here.
Ahem. I was told that the iPod 5G can play H.264 with a resolution up to 320x240 and 768 kbps. Now the resolution gets quadrupled, and you suggest that it is ridiculous to assume that this does make a difference?
ever thought about that?
If I got Steve right, no iPod that was sold prior to this very day will be able to play videos from the iTMS sold from this day on - not if Apple hasn't been lying VERY much about the H.264 decoding capabilities of the "old" iPod 5G.
I'd love to be corrected, though...You're wrong. Older 5g iPods can play the new tv shows and movies from the iTunes store. Lets not get ridiculous here.
Ahem. I was told that the iPod 5G can play H.264 with a resolution up to 320x240 and 768 kbps. Now the resolution gets quadrupled, and you suggest that it is ridiculous to assume that this does make a difference?
Eidorian
May 3, 12:12 PM
You can see the multiple monitor setups for those cards in the usual hardware sites.That is still one display per output though.
Creibold
Oct 12, 03:55 PM
Look at the Story on the front page of the chicago tribune, it's true. It says right there that apple is introducing a Red iPod Nano, it's not photoshoped you goofs.
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.
cmaier
Nov 14, 12:08 AM
Dude. You have a double standard. If Apple were to infringe on the copyright of someone else, you would be here pitchfork in hand screaming for blood.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
eazyway
Oct 27, 07:32 PM
They do build in obsolescence into the ipod as you can't replace the battery (easily). It does become a disposable item, although a pricey one at that. I do love the ipod (even though I don't own one) but this puts me off to the point where I just can't go through with actually buying one. My experience with rechargeable batteries in mobile phones and lap top isn't good.
Actually replacing the battery is a piece of cake with the tool. My kids all have a 3g version and I replaced all the batteries(4) Cost $26 each.
or send it in for replacement.
http://irepair.ca/store/index.php?currency=USD&cPath=52&osCsid=91626da01ccc0f67dbc64c592e2c5d6c
Actually replacing the battery is a piece of cake with the tool. My kids all have a 3g version and I replaced all the batteries(4) Cost $26 each.
or send it in for replacement.
http://irepair.ca/store/index.php?currency=USD&cPath=52&osCsid=91626da01ccc0f67dbc64c592e2c5d6c
manu chao
Apr 20, 10:43 AM
everyone is fine with sharing their personal info on facebook but a device that remembers where it has been?
Go have a look what I am sharing on Facebook.
Go have a look what I am sharing on Facebook.
4God
Aug 28, 12:07 PM
I'll bet we see a Mini refresh tomorrow.
feddy84
Mar 29, 01:15 PM
i wouldnt be suprised, apple is heading for the same thing they did with mac vs pc battle. they are 1 company, that means they can be VERY succesfull with introducing new products but in the end they cant keep up when the other companys throw in their overdrive. just watch not with duelcore android phones. coming halv a year before "iphone 5" if thats even gonne get released. android or wp7 is going to be the dominant mobile operating system withing a few years cause they arent closed systems.
0 comments:
Post a Comment