rdowns
Dec 28, 01:29 PM
AT&T now selling iPhones to New Yorkers again (http://www.9to5mac.com/)
http://www.9to5mac.com/files/Screen%20shot%202009-12-28%20at%201.43.17%20PM.png
http://www.9to5mac.com/files/Screen%20shot%202009-12-28%20at%201.43.17%20PM.png
redbeard331
Jan 17, 11:58 PM
Still no push, it can't be that hard can it? The small devs get push working on their apps no problem..
0010101
Nov 2, 08:24 PM
I've followed the computer industry for 26+ years.. I remember a time when Apples marketshare was thru the roof. I also remember a company called Commodore that is still the best selling personal computer of all time.
I know a whole lot more people who would be more inclined to buy a Mac if they could run their favorite app, or the latest game under MacOSX.
That sort of thing can only come with market share.
The switch to Intel can go one of two ways.. it could get Macs in peoples hands, who grow to prefer the OSXperience and abandon Windows all together.. or it could end up being an Alienware kind of computer that people buy as a status symbol, but run Windows on it.
Heck, you may start to see software developers abandon their Mac divisions all together.. figuring that since most Intel Mac users have Windows installed, they can just write ONE version of their software and cover all bases.
Growth and increased market share is good for Apple, and good for their customers.
There is a long list of hardware companies that gave up their propriatary designs and archetecture and adopted the 'x86' that you don't hear much of anymore.
What seperates Apple from those companies is their totally rockin' OS.. but an OS is only as good as the software that's available for it.
I tell ya what i'd really like to see.. the ability to run XP apps from within OSX.. sort of like Wine.. in an easy to use and configure setup.
I know a whole lot more people who would be more inclined to buy a Mac if they could run their favorite app, or the latest game under MacOSX.
That sort of thing can only come with market share.
The switch to Intel can go one of two ways.. it could get Macs in peoples hands, who grow to prefer the OSXperience and abandon Windows all together.. or it could end up being an Alienware kind of computer that people buy as a status symbol, but run Windows on it.
Heck, you may start to see software developers abandon their Mac divisions all together.. figuring that since most Intel Mac users have Windows installed, they can just write ONE version of their software and cover all bases.
Growth and increased market share is good for Apple, and good for their customers.
There is a long list of hardware companies that gave up their propriatary designs and archetecture and adopted the 'x86' that you don't hear much of anymore.
What seperates Apple from those companies is their totally rockin' OS.. but an OS is only as good as the software that's available for it.
I tell ya what i'd really like to see.. the ability to run XP apps from within OSX.. sort of like Wine.. in an easy to use and configure setup.
RacerX
Apr 3, 01:43 PM
Great post. I've heard of Pages by Pages, but I didn't think that Apple's Pages was a direct descendant. While I took programming classes in college on a NeXT box, I never used the app and thought it was more of a classic word processor.
A lot of people didn't give Pages a try back then... it was a little expensive ($795), and I was using FrameMaker for papers on NeXT systems back then.
As for the rest of the discussion about comparing Pages to other apps...
I think it's absolutely fair to compare Pages to what else is out there...
What I see Pages as trying to do (again) is to define a new category.
I've seen the same thing happen with Create. When people try to do a toe-to-toe line up on some other app's specialty area, it is going to fall short. Compare Create to Illustrator in doing illustration and Illustrator wins... But it should, after all it is a dedicated illustration app, while Create is not. Compare Create to InDesign or QuarkXPress for page layout and those other apps win... But they should, after all they are dedicated layout apps. Further, all those dedicated apps cost far more than Create.
The problem is that most people hold up what is new to what they know. I think that if something like Create was held up to QuarkXPress looking at both apps illustration abilities, that would be just as fair. It is when we restrict these newer (to most people) apps to categories that they are not attempting to compete in directly that the comparisons fall far short.
I truly believe that apps like Pages and Create fill voids that exist in the software industry today. First, they don't cost as much as high end solutions. Second, they address some ranges of users which other companies try to force into high or low end apps. The gulf between the high end and low end has been getting larger over the years.
Pages lets people with little background make quality documents. Create provides a middle ground for people with experience that don't have the money or need for the top of the line professional apps.
Rather than pushing these into other categories, we should embrace these apps for filling these gaps in our (collective) software selection.
As I said, Pages, is not for me... but it is a solution for someone and I recognize that. And I sure don't need (or want) Apple to redefine it around my needs at the expense of those it is design to serve.
:rolleyes:
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that just because Pages isn't the app that some people want it to be doesn't make it a bad app or one that doesn't have it's place in the computing world.
A lot of people didn't give Pages a try back then... it was a little expensive ($795), and I was using FrameMaker for papers on NeXT systems back then.
As for the rest of the discussion about comparing Pages to other apps...
I think it's absolutely fair to compare Pages to what else is out there...
What I see Pages as trying to do (again) is to define a new category.
I've seen the same thing happen with Create. When people try to do a toe-to-toe line up on some other app's specialty area, it is going to fall short. Compare Create to Illustrator in doing illustration and Illustrator wins... But it should, after all it is a dedicated illustration app, while Create is not. Compare Create to InDesign or QuarkXPress for page layout and those other apps win... But they should, after all they are dedicated layout apps. Further, all those dedicated apps cost far more than Create.
The problem is that most people hold up what is new to what they know. I think that if something like Create was held up to QuarkXPress looking at both apps illustration abilities, that would be just as fair. It is when we restrict these newer (to most people) apps to categories that they are not attempting to compete in directly that the comparisons fall far short.
I truly believe that apps like Pages and Create fill voids that exist in the software industry today. First, they don't cost as much as high end solutions. Second, they address some ranges of users which other companies try to force into high or low end apps. The gulf between the high end and low end has been getting larger over the years.
Pages lets people with little background make quality documents. Create provides a middle ground for people with experience that don't have the money or need for the top of the line professional apps.
Rather than pushing these into other categories, we should embrace these apps for filling these gaps in our (collective) software selection.
As I said, Pages, is not for me... but it is a solution for someone and I recognize that. And I sure don't need (or want) Apple to redefine it around my needs at the expense of those it is design to serve.
:rolleyes:
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that just because Pages isn't the app that some people want it to be doesn't make it a bad app or one that doesn't have it's place in the computing world.
more...
lhotka
Mar 13, 12:21 PM
In Arizona - the Verizon phone shows the correct (unchanged time). The AT&T phone is an hour fast (it changed).
This is such a basic function - how can Apple get it wrong?
This is such a basic function - how can Apple get it wrong?
Giuly
Apr 29, 04:34 PM
Sorry but health care is paid by your health care taxes, that come off your gross income. You don't pay those at the gas station! :rolleyes:
What makes gas prices in the EU that high are VAT (which is considerably higher in the EU) and energy taxes.
The eco taxes you mentioned are actually only a small part of the energy taxes (they were introduced to reduce CO2 emissions and to decrease the taxes for annuity insurance). Who knows where the rest of the energy tax goes...
Actually, it's 43.3% plus VAT in Germany.
If the gas price is 1.50€, the gas itself is worth 0.61€, 0.65€ are eco taxes, plus 19% VAT of both gas and tax makes 1.50€.
And "healthcare and other nice things" are arguable, that's why I took it out. However, as mentioned, no one knows where the money goes, as you would use it 100% to build walls to decrease noise pollution and plant trees for CO2 neutrality, you'd have a lot of walls and trees. However, the money has to go anywhere, and I doubt that it has anything to do with cars or their emissions at all.
The reason for this kind of tax is really strange though: In the eyes of the politicians, oil was too cheap, and they know that it's limited - the prices will rise and at some point will gas will be not cheap enough. Here's the hilarious point: They put the tax on top of the oil price so "smoothen" the raise and are investing this tax into the development of cars that consume less gasoline.
Car manufacturers came up with that during the oil crisis in the 70ies themselves. And now I have to fund them by paying them as much as I pay the Sheik who delivers the oil.
I mean, did anyone pay Chevrolet to develop and build the Volt? No, and they did anyways.
Edit: It might not be health care, but look at this:
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2234/screenshot20110429at114.png
Year/Income from the eco tax in millions of Euro/That went into federal retirement assicuration/that funded renewable energies.
Well, might not be healthcare. I mostly pay grandpa's retirement though: And this should be considered as the one of the "other nice things".
What makes gas prices in the EU that high are VAT (which is considerably higher in the EU) and energy taxes.
The eco taxes you mentioned are actually only a small part of the energy taxes (they were introduced to reduce CO2 emissions and to decrease the taxes for annuity insurance). Who knows where the rest of the energy tax goes...
Actually, it's 43.3% plus VAT in Germany.
If the gas price is 1.50€, the gas itself is worth 0.61€, 0.65€ are eco taxes, plus 19% VAT of both gas and tax makes 1.50€.
And "healthcare and other nice things" are arguable, that's why I took it out. However, as mentioned, no one knows where the money goes, as you would use it 100% to build walls to decrease noise pollution and plant trees for CO2 neutrality, you'd have a lot of walls and trees. However, the money has to go anywhere, and I doubt that it has anything to do with cars or their emissions at all.
The reason for this kind of tax is really strange though: In the eyes of the politicians, oil was too cheap, and they know that it's limited - the prices will rise and at some point will gas will be not cheap enough. Here's the hilarious point: They put the tax on top of the oil price so "smoothen" the raise and are investing this tax into the development of cars that consume less gasoline.
Car manufacturers came up with that during the oil crisis in the 70ies themselves. And now I have to fund them by paying them as much as I pay the Sheik who delivers the oil.
I mean, did anyone pay Chevrolet to develop and build the Volt? No, and they did anyways.
Edit: It might not be health care, but look at this:
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2234/screenshot20110429at114.png
Year/Income from the eco tax in millions of Euro/That went into federal retirement assicuration/that funded renewable energies.
Well, might not be healthcare. I mostly pay grandpa's retirement though: And this should be considered as the one of the "other nice things".
more...
Happybunny
Apr 14, 03:42 AM
Yesterday a record broken here in the Netherlands, � 1.747 a Liter.
Kate Moss: Effortlessly Chic
more...
Kate Moss: Effortlessly Chic
kate moss style 2009.
more...
Style of Kate Moss
Kate Moss Fashion
more...
kate moss style book.
kate moss style.
more...
kate-moss-style-050509-2 -
Best Dressed, Kate Moss,
more...
Kate Moss.
Kate Moss Style
#39;CelebArmCandy / Kate Moss
pbh444
Mar 25, 08:48 AM
This is madness. The Verizon website is still showing the original price for iPad 1. (And my Verizon store claims to know nothing about the lowered prices).
more...
paulold
Apr 6, 08:27 AM
Been wanting to get a new iPod Classic for the larger capacity. This report makes me want to hold off, if they are going to improve its dock connector to be faster...
moobey
Apr 5, 12:10 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
They're still sticking with that aluminum/chrome back?? Ugh... It looks so dated, not to mention the fact that they get scratched to hell so easily.
They're still sticking with that aluminum/chrome back?? Ugh... It looks so dated, not to mention the fact that they get scratched to hell so easily.
more...
King Cobra
Sep 13, 08:50 PM
verbose, do you ever give newbies a break with typos these days? :rolleyes: :D
Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.
First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.
Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.
The only reasons Macs appear to be bogged down are because of the slower bus speeds (167MHz (Mac) compared to 333MHz or faster (PC) w/BOTH having DDR-RAM) and because not all applications support the Velocity Engine. It may not be THAT big of a difference, but it does bring the overall speed of the G4 down, when compared to a P4. Apple's apps sure work with OS X and the VE, but not a whole lot of other apps. In these cases (varies on how often, depending on what percentage of application usage involves the VE) the overall speed of the G4 (in relative terms to a P4) would decrease significantly, and that's one of the other reasons why were are getting hit badly.
I honestly don't see how a G5 (IF it comes out) would help, unless it was able to *fool* non-VE apps to thinking that data is going in 64-bit pathways, and the G5 could split that to 128-bit or even 256-bit pathways. Otherwise, the G4 will NOT be beneficial in the long run.
Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.
First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.
Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.
The only reasons Macs appear to be bogged down are because of the slower bus speeds (167MHz (Mac) compared to 333MHz or faster (PC) w/BOTH having DDR-RAM) and because not all applications support the Velocity Engine. It may not be THAT big of a difference, but it does bring the overall speed of the G4 down, when compared to a P4. Apple's apps sure work with OS X and the VE, but not a whole lot of other apps. In these cases (varies on how often, depending on what percentage of application usage involves the VE) the overall speed of the G4 (in relative terms to a P4) would decrease significantly, and that's one of the other reasons why were are getting hit badly.
I honestly don't see how a G5 (IF it comes out) would help, unless it was able to *fool* non-VE apps to thinking that data is going in 64-bit pathways, and the G5 could split that to 128-bit or even 256-bit pathways. Otherwise, the G4 will NOT be beneficial in the long run.
MacIllini
Nov 2, 03:02 PM
definitely a lot of switchers in my book. I know at least 5 friends who have switched in the past year, and 3 more (including myself) who will be switching by the end of the year :p
more...
Elijahg
Apr 5, 10:16 PM
It will be interesting to see if Apple develops its own controller chip for ARM processors.
I agree! They'll have to deal with flipping the endian-ness of the different architectures, the complete lack of a extensible interface like PCI-E on ARM too may pose a challenge.
The idea of having a common connector like minidisplay port is quite awesome, and the utilization is all in the software control approach. Dual channel, full bidirectional, with the possibility of up to 4 protocols running simultaneously with very high data rates. Apple is just covering their future bases, and doing it very nicely.
Yup, it'll be great if we manage to cut down the reams of connectors we have now to just a few TB and maybe USB ports. One port for all is a great idea, which has been tried in the past (i.e. USB's original intention), but USB was never designed well enough to become one-for-all. Just imagine having a Mac Mini attached to a 4TB disk array with an iTunes library on, daisy-chained to a HDTV. All through one thin cable, no messing about with X number of different cables all over the place. If you needed more storage, just add an extra disk into the daisy-chain.
One post wanted everything to go thru a standard phone jack. Not at all likely or even possible.
I saw that too, but forgot to reply in my previous post... @ the headphone jack poster: A standard headphone jack works with USB as it's got 4 wires, just one more than a normal set of headphones. Apple have an extra ring around the USB to jack cable, enabling USB transfer. It wouldn't be possible to add more than a few extra sleeves to the headphone jack without getting problems with interference and alignment. Displayport/Thunderbolt uses 20 pins, which would be quite a challenge to fit onto a jack plug. Though if Thunderbolt supports optical transmission, that could be used in a headphone jack, with the rings used for power only. Similar to the Toslink to headphone jack adapters. I'm not sure if TB does support future optical connections though. ;)
I agree! They'll have to deal with flipping the endian-ness of the different architectures, the complete lack of a extensible interface like PCI-E on ARM too may pose a challenge.
The idea of having a common connector like minidisplay port is quite awesome, and the utilization is all in the software control approach. Dual channel, full bidirectional, with the possibility of up to 4 protocols running simultaneously with very high data rates. Apple is just covering their future bases, and doing it very nicely.
Yup, it'll be great if we manage to cut down the reams of connectors we have now to just a few TB and maybe USB ports. One port for all is a great idea, which has been tried in the past (i.e. USB's original intention), but USB was never designed well enough to become one-for-all. Just imagine having a Mac Mini attached to a 4TB disk array with an iTunes library on, daisy-chained to a HDTV. All through one thin cable, no messing about with X number of different cables all over the place. If you needed more storage, just add an extra disk into the daisy-chain.
One post wanted everything to go thru a standard phone jack. Not at all likely or even possible.
I saw that too, but forgot to reply in my previous post... @ the headphone jack poster: A standard headphone jack works with USB as it's got 4 wires, just one more than a normal set of headphones. Apple have an extra ring around the USB to jack cable, enabling USB transfer. It wouldn't be possible to add more than a few extra sleeves to the headphone jack without getting problems with interference and alignment. Displayport/Thunderbolt uses 20 pins, which would be quite a challenge to fit onto a jack plug. Though if Thunderbolt supports optical transmission, that could be used in a headphone jack, with the rings used for power only. Similar to the Toslink to headphone jack adapters. I'm not sure if TB does support future optical connections though. ;)
DiamondMac
Mar 29, 11:21 AM
I just called a store in my area. They have 32 and 64GB but they said they can overnight ship me one with 16GB capacity!
Then I realized I am still not sure whether I really need one!!! :confused:
Try it out. It is WORTH giving a chance.
Then I realized I am still not sure whether I really need one!!! :confused:
Try it out. It is WORTH giving a chance.
more...
fun173
Apr 18, 09:16 PM
I am trading this guy a crappy guitar for it. I don't plan on using it, just wondering if it is something I could flip and make a profit. And the guitar has not been used since I was around 10 and I am pretty sure it is from Walmart.
Don't count on making a profit off of an iMac G3. I think at most it is worth $40. Having the box and everything is a plus, but it is still a G3. With all that said I would definitley buy it and keep. I bought one a while back in box with all the original items and box for $10!!
Don't count on making a profit off of an iMac G3. I think at most it is worth $40. Having the box and everything is a plus, but it is still a G3. With all that said I would definitley buy it and keep. I bought one a while back in box with all the original items and box for $10!!
mattwolfmatt
Mar 30, 10:12 PM
Haven't they been updated importing issues since day one? Is this about the 4th update?
more...
matthewroth
Sep 1, 06:52 AM
Taking THIS many people to court would be a PV (public view) suicide.
I know it is protected by copyright and it is not for public use but to prosecute all these people for a beta! Not worth it
I know it is protected by copyright and it is not for public use but to prosecute all these people for a beta! Not worth it
CFreymarc
Apr 21, 01:22 PM
1) Do something original
2) Spend time in Cupertino's outer circle at select geek houses in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Los Gatos or Mountain View.
3) Show the game off to the right engineers.
4) Win the geek Q&A
5) Learn how to get on the PVT list
6) Ignore anyone that doesn't code inside Apple
7) Don't piss off Steve.
8) Don't act sub-servant to Steve.
9) Learn to love beach volleyball.
Rinse and Repeat for every new hardware cycle.
2) Spend time in Cupertino's outer circle at select geek houses in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Los Gatos or Mountain View.
3) Show the game off to the right engineers.
4) Win the geek Q&A
5) Learn how to get on the PVT list
6) Ignore anyone that doesn't code inside Apple
7) Don't piss off Steve.
8) Don't act sub-servant to Steve.
9) Learn to love beach volleyball.
Rinse and Repeat for every new hardware cycle.
weldon
Apr 2, 07:56 PM
It's a great Word alternative for those who don't need Excel and don't want to shell out several hundred bucks (MS Office) just to get something better than TextEdit.
At $80 for iWork and $150 for the student/teacher edition of Office, it's a bit harder to justify. Of course, if you get an academic discount, $50 for iWork is low enough that you might just pick up both. I'm waiting for Pages to become a more capable page layout app. I'm still a little worried that Apple won't stick with it.
At $80 for iWork and $150 for the student/teacher edition of Office, it's a bit harder to justify. Of course, if you get an academic discount, $50 for iWork is low enough that you might just pick up both. I'm waiting for Pages to become a more capable page layout app. I'm still a little worried that Apple won't stick with it.
cookieme
Oct 26, 02:05 PM
I just came back from the store.
Incidentally, they are *not* offering *any* form of student discount on Leopard here. No higher education discount and no standard discount. Full price or family pack price only.
This is not TRUE I just showed them my univeristy ID and I got the discount. Btw when I came to the store it was about 18:15 and although the queue stretched around the block it only took 10 min before I was in the store and got my hands on a copy of leopard.
No tshirt unfortunately, which simply means that by 10pm tonight the Apple Store at Regent street will by my estimation have sold a few thousand copies. Amazing how an operating system can cause such interest, but that's what Apple do well. :D
Incidentally, they are *not* offering *any* form of student discount on Leopard here. No higher education discount and no standard discount. Full price or family pack price only.
This is not TRUE I just showed them my univeristy ID and I got the discount. Btw when I came to the store it was about 18:15 and although the queue stretched around the block it only took 10 min before I was in the store and got my hands on a copy of leopard.
No tshirt unfortunately, which simply means that by 10pm tonight the Apple Store at Regent street will by my estimation have sold a few thousand copies. Amazing how an operating system can cause such interest, but that's what Apple do well. :D
tarkeybear
Oct 9, 06:15 PM
I am a major Apple fan-boy but I haven't bought movies from iTunes for a couple reasons.
1) I like the special features on DVDs, and I doubt apple is offering alternate soundtracks, subtitles, director's comments, etc. with the Apple movie offerings.
2) My daughters like taking a DVD with them to their grandparents house. Unless we centralize Apple downloaded movies at my house and equip my kids with video iPods, the Apple movie sale solution is not a very portable option.
Don't get me wrong, one day I'll probably buy a movie from Apple, but at this time, I'll pay a $5-$10 premium for portability.
I do buy TV shows from iTunes, but I don't expect extra features with TV shows.
As other posters have have suggested, even if "Johnny Lunch-Pail" isn't interested in the benefits in physical media I list above, he probably won't have the bandwidth to download the movies at any reasonable speed. How much time does it take to save $5?
"Instant gratification" of iTunes movies is going to be painfully slow on most peeps DSL.
I'm surprised the folks at Target and Walmart haven't figured this out. Maybe the execs making all the fuss assume that their shoppers have the same high-end systems that they have?
I would assume any impact to DVD sales will be incremental, and T&W should be able to adjust their business model to this, adjusting retail space accordingly.
1) I like the special features on DVDs, and I doubt apple is offering alternate soundtracks, subtitles, director's comments, etc. with the Apple movie offerings.
2) My daughters like taking a DVD with them to their grandparents house. Unless we centralize Apple downloaded movies at my house and equip my kids with video iPods, the Apple movie sale solution is not a very portable option.
Don't get me wrong, one day I'll probably buy a movie from Apple, but at this time, I'll pay a $5-$10 premium for portability.
I do buy TV shows from iTunes, but I don't expect extra features with TV shows.
As other posters have have suggested, even if "Johnny Lunch-Pail" isn't interested in the benefits in physical media I list above, he probably won't have the bandwidth to download the movies at any reasonable speed. How much time does it take to save $5?
"Instant gratification" of iTunes movies is going to be painfully slow on most peeps DSL.
I'm surprised the folks at Target and Walmart haven't figured this out. Maybe the execs making all the fuss assume that their shoppers have the same high-end systems that they have?
I would assume any impact to DVD sales will be incremental, and T&W should be able to adjust their business model to this, adjusting retail space accordingly.
Mr. Anderson
Aug 19, 08:19 AM
well, speaking figuratively here, there is a free iPod. If I were to give you one as a gift, then it would be free, no? :p
D
D
bretm
Oct 10, 12:13 PM
My understanding was different. I take it that they are taking the same stance that Wal-Mart is, and that is that if the movie industry allows iTunes to sell movies, they will make the record companies pay for it (in a negative way). The retailers aren't ready to take on iTunes and the online market, so they are going to use their power to stall the transition to digital downloads as long as they possibly can.
What Target is doing is anti Apple, and more importantly, anti the progression of technology and lifestyle.
Yep. It's simply an attempt to buy some time. They know they can't fight it in the end.
What Target is doing is anti Apple, and more importantly, anti the progression of technology and lifestyle.
Yep. It's simply an attempt to buy some time. They know they can't fight it in the end.
hob
Nov 11, 04:04 AM
Ironically the Japanese site seems to crash Safari on my powerbook...
Firefox works though :rolleyes:
Firefox works though :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment