ugp
Jun 23, 12:41 PM
If the whole Region down here for Florida only got 139 I doubt Radio Shack got many iPhone 4s at all. Either that or all of them went to the huge Markets like New York and other areas like such.
arkitect
Apr 28, 06:13 AM
I am not going to read 7 pages to see if someone already said this because I am sure they did.
It's clearly a forgery.
And you base that on what evidence exactly? :confused:
Not liking Obama does not mean you are racist.
Well judging by your signature I'd take that comment with a large pinch of salt.
It's clearly a forgery.
And you base that on what evidence exactly? :confused:
Not liking Obama does not mean you are racist.
Well judging by your signature I'd take that comment with a large pinch of salt.
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 08:07 AM
heavy
It looks like 2006 won't be like 1984
It looks like 2006 won't be like 1984
BC2009
Apr 6, 03:28 PM
Nice...I'm glad to have a more rare piece of hardware. I love mine and have no issues, it'll only get better over time.Reminds me of the days of the RAZR, that's what the iPhone and iPad have become.
Honda sells a TON more cars than BMW by a huge factor...I'd rather drive a BMW, I guess you're all happy with the Hondas :)
I think its funny that when Google gains the edge in the smartphone marketshare battle the fandroids declare victory, but somehow the Xoom is the "BMW" of tablets when its marketshare sucks.
Xoom is NOT a terrible product, but to be called the BMW of tablets would require that it is better than the iPad. This is more like Hondas and Hyundais. Android tablets are currently the Hyundais -- trying to copy the Hondas as closely as possible (Hyundai's name is close to Honda and so is there logo, and so are most of their car styles). However, what you find is that the Hyundai while it may be priced comparably and has comparable technical specifications that it is really not built as well.
However, on the smartphone side, your analogy does in fact hold very well. Android is on high-end phones as well as the cheap freebies the carriers are giving away. There are variants of Android being used on devices that Google has no control over and behave in a far more inferior manner than regular Android phones, but are counted among the Android numbers. Android is the Chevrolet of the smartphone market (selling everything from Corvettes to Aveos) while Apple's sells only to the premier customers. People don't buy iPhone because they could not get an Android phone, but they do buy an Android phone because they could not get an iPhone for the price they wanted it. iPhone is the one that is more highly desired, though folks will settle for an Android phone because its cheaper to acquire and more widely available -- just like a Chevrolet.
Apple creates premier products. With the iPad, they were the first of such premier products and they are experiencing what Henry Ford experienced with the Model-T. Five years from now there will be a fleet of competitors that are as good or even better, but right now iPad is the standard and the competition is basically trying their best to copy or anticipate Apple's next move.
Ironically, the one area that Xoom got higher marks than iPad on Consumer Reports was "Versatility". This was because they had a Micro SD slot. I think its funny that a non-functioning Micro-SD slot is better than a $30 camera kit that includes two adapters that actually makes for a functioning SD-card connection or USB connection. I can connect SD cards to my iPad-2 all day long with my adapter. I also have a USB port via an adapter, HDMI, VGA, Composite Video, and Component Video. Sure it requires adapters, but at least I have the options -- they are all there. I also have better options at my disposal and only resort to wired connections when I have to (AirPlay >> HDMI -- wireless transfer >> SD card).
In summary.... Xoom good, iPad better (both iPad 1 and definitely iPad 2). Even the idiots at Consumer Reports can figure out that the Xoom is only as good as the comparable iPad 1 (which costs far less).
Honda sells a TON more cars than BMW by a huge factor...I'd rather drive a BMW, I guess you're all happy with the Hondas :)
I think its funny that when Google gains the edge in the smartphone marketshare battle the fandroids declare victory, but somehow the Xoom is the "BMW" of tablets when its marketshare sucks.
Xoom is NOT a terrible product, but to be called the BMW of tablets would require that it is better than the iPad. This is more like Hondas and Hyundais. Android tablets are currently the Hyundais -- trying to copy the Hondas as closely as possible (Hyundai's name is close to Honda and so is there logo, and so are most of their car styles). However, what you find is that the Hyundai while it may be priced comparably and has comparable technical specifications that it is really not built as well.
However, on the smartphone side, your analogy does in fact hold very well. Android is on high-end phones as well as the cheap freebies the carriers are giving away. There are variants of Android being used on devices that Google has no control over and behave in a far more inferior manner than regular Android phones, but are counted among the Android numbers. Android is the Chevrolet of the smartphone market (selling everything from Corvettes to Aveos) while Apple's sells only to the premier customers. People don't buy iPhone because they could not get an Android phone, but they do buy an Android phone because they could not get an iPhone for the price they wanted it. iPhone is the one that is more highly desired, though folks will settle for an Android phone because its cheaper to acquire and more widely available -- just like a Chevrolet.
Apple creates premier products. With the iPad, they were the first of such premier products and they are experiencing what Henry Ford experienced with the Model-T. Five years from now there will be a fleet of competitors that are as good or even better, but right now iPad is the standard and the competition is basically trying their best to copy or anticipate Apple's next move.
Ironically, the one area that Xoom got higher marks than iPad on Consumer Reports was "Versatility". This was because they had a Micro SD slot. I think its funny that a non-functioning Micro-SD slot is better than a $30 camera kit that includes two adapters that actually makes for a functioning SD-card connection or USB connection. I can connect SD cards to my iPad-2 all day long with my adapter. I also have a USB port via an adapter, HDMI, VGA, Composite Video, and Component Video. Sure it requires adapters, but at least I have the options -- they are all there. I also have better options at my disposal and only resort to wired connections when I have to (AirPlay >> HDMI -- wireless transfer >> SD card).
In summary.... Xoom good, iPad better (both iPad 1 and definitely iPad 2). Even the idiots at Consumer Reports can figure out that the Xoom is only as good as the comparable iPad 1 (which costs far less).
Multimedia
Aug 21, 05:43 AM
I stopped by the Apple store tonight to play with a Macpro. I'm getting ready to buy and thought I'd get some hands on experience to see how it performed with Finalcut Pro. I was especially interested in how it handles playback of uncompressed footage.
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.That's great info. Would you please tell us:
1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?
2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?
3. What kind of speed were you expecting?
I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.That's great info. Would you please tell us:
1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?
2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?
3. What kind of speed were you expecting?
I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)
iGary
Aug 15, 11:39 AM
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
logandzwon
Apr 25, 03:13 PM
I love how Media and most everyone was asleep about this known issue, until just recently, and now it is some kind of emergency.
I am not an Apple apologist by any means, but it is NOT their fault if people are not securely backing up, their personal and private data.
Apple's only fault (IMHO) is not encrypting the location logfile on the phone, or the system with regards to backups. Regardless, security of data is the end user's responsibility, not the manufacturer of their computer or software.
See, I have a very different opinion.
Apple has an image of things just working. Apple actively promotes this image. The image is includes the idea that people don't have to worry about the details, like security of their devices. Even for backups, Apple makes it so all you need to have full backups is plug in an $50 usb drive.
That said, looking at the iPhone the way it is intended to be used, it's an accessory of your computer. A mobile remote with limited access to the "main" computer. If we except that view point, then;
David+eckham+faux+hawk
It seems that David Beckham
david beckham hairstyle 2011.
her fiance David Beckham
Victoria Beckham
David+eckham+hairstyles+
Title: David Beckham#39;s Short,
Beckham leaves home at 16 to
David+eckham+hair+2011
Whereas, David Beckham#39;s
Modern Haircuts 2010 Men.
Man in official david moves
I am not an Apple apologist by any means, but it is NOT their fault if people are not securely backing up, their personal and private data.
Apple's only fault (IMHO) is not encrypting the location logfile on the phone, or the system with regards to backups. Regardless, security of data is the end user's responsibility, not the manufacturer of their computer or software.
See, I have a very different opinion.
Apple has an image of things just working. Apple actively promotes this image. The image is includes the idea that people don't have to worry about the details, like security of their devices. Even for backups, Apple makes it so all you need to have full backups is plug in an $50 usb drive.
That said, looking at the iPhone the way it is intended to be used, it's an accessory of your computer. A mobile remote with limited access to the "main" computer. If we except that view point, then;
Pontavignon
Mar 31, 07:54 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Finally Google admits Jobs was right about fragmentation and recognises that to fight Apple it must become Apple. But it won't admit it. Prepare for lots of "closed is open and open is closed" stuff. Plus: the state of emergency justifying this closure is temporary: sort of like in Syria 50 years ago.
You know, I am truly sorry for the idealists in the open source community. They deserve better.
Finally Google admits Jobs was right about fragmentation and recognises that to fight Apple it must become Apple. But it won't admit it. Prepare for lots of "closed is open and open is closed" stuff. Plus: the state of emergency justifying this closure is temporary: sort of like in Syria 50 years ago.
You know, I am truly sorry for the idealists in the open source community. They deserve better.
matticus008
Nov 29, 08:32 AM
I question any law/contract of this type on several grounds:
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
It depends on the system in place. In Canada, I believe the proceeds are turned over to the CRIA which is then responsible for distribution to its members through a process of their own selection (and not legally specified).
2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
Again, it's up to the labels to decide. Once they get their cut from the CRIA, the label controls distribution within its internal channels. More popular artists on that label probably get a bigger cut than niche artists, but more importantly, individual artists likely never see much in the way of proceeds from this.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
No. Most importantly, the royalty does not create a stipulation, or even a fiduciary relationship between you, the customer, and the CRIA. The exchange is between the company (Apple, RCA, Samsung, Microsoft, etc.) and the industry consortium.
Even setting that aside, you have no record of a transaction taking place at all. You can't claim to have paid royalties and have received nothing in return granting you any rights (one way to fight this is to demand that a given label supply you with a written document). Absent consideration, all you've essentially done is paid money for nothing--you didn't send the label a contract with your dollar (and you can't, since you're not paying them the dollar anyway, you'd be paying Apple). Your contribution isn't so much because you're pirating music, but because you could be. It's like putting down a deposit, having to pay insurance, or having a membership in a book club. You pay money, but that's not the end of the transaction. The only thing this royalty grants you is a tacit guarantee that Universal will continue to provide digital content.
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
It depends on the system in place. In Canada, I believe the proceeds are turned over to the CRIA which is then responsible for distribution to its members through a process of their own selection (and not legally specified).
2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
Again, it's up to the labels to decide. Once they get their cut from the CRIA, the label controls distribution within its internal channels. More popular artists on that label probably get a bigger cut than niche artists, but more importantly, individual artists likely never see much in the way of proceeds from this.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
No. Most importantly, the royalty does not create a stipulation, or even a fiduciary relationship between you, the customer, and the CRIA. The exchange is between the company (Apple, RCA, Samsung, Microsoft, etc.) and the industry consortium.
Even setting that aside, you have no record of a transaction taking place at all. You can't claim to have paid royalties and have received nothing in return granting you any rights (one way to fight this is to demand that a given label supply you with a written document). Absent consideration, all you've essentially done is paid money for nothing--you didn't send the label a contract with your dollar (and you can't, since you're not paying them the dollar anyway, you'd be paying Apple). Your contribution isn't so much because you're pirating music, but because you could be. It's like putting down a deposit, having to pay insurance, or having a membership in a book club. You pay money, but that's not the end of the transaction. The only thing this royalty grants you is a tacit guarantee that Universal will continue to provide digital content.
macMan228
Mar 26, 08:34 AM
To my knowledge, all these features everyone is complaining about, can be disabled or just worked around, so whats the big deal?
Bring on the Lion, i can handle it :apple:
Bring on the Lion, i can handle it :apple:
Dammit Cubs
Apr 7, 01:09 AM
Wow. I have a mac book air 11 inch (WHICH I ABSOLUTELY LOVE) and this is so tempting. I recently bought a macbook air AND mac mini.
Sometimes I'd wish I waited for these sandy bridges. I love Core IANYTHING.
Sometimes I'd wish I waited for these sandy bridges. I love Core IANYTHING.
CalBoy
Apr 11, 05:00 PM
Apple can create Christmas any day of the year.
Well that's just it; Apple usually relies on two Christmases per year for each of it's major products.
The first is the initial launch and the second is the Christmas shopping season.
The reason for this is two-fold. The first is so supplies are not constrained for an extended period at one time and the second is so Apple can make use of multiple news cycles to get free press.
If the iPhone 5 is launched just before Christmas it would wreak havoc on Apple's ability to supply the market of not only the US, but also the world. Apple usually uses the downtime from late summer to Christmas to shore up production and supplies for Christmas. There just isn't a good basis for this rumor.
Well that's just it; Apple usually relies on two Christmases per year for each of it's major products.
The first is the initial launch and the second is the Christmas shopping season.
The reason for this is two-fold. The first is so supplies are not constrained for an extended period at one time and the second is so Apple can make use of multiple news cycles to get free press.
If the iPhone 5 is launched just before Christmas it would wreak havoc on Apple's ability to supply the market of not only the US, but also the world. Apple usually uses the downtime from late summer to Christmas to shore up production and supplies for Christmas. There just isn't a good basis for this rumor.
AppleKrate
Sep 19, 10:49 AM
The MacBookPro is still too new a release to have the major type of changes you and others are hoping for. All you're going to get for the next year or two is speed bumps and maybe an upgrade in HD capacity, Graphics card, or Optical Drive (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD)
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
Please tell me what is majorly new about the current MacBook Pro besides an intel chip :confused: (and the name of course :rolleyes: )
PS how about an amateur professional? If not, maybe a professional amateur?
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
Please tell me what is majorly new about the current MacBook Pro besides an intel chip :confused: (and the name of course :rolleyes: )
PS how about an amateur professional? If not, maybe a professional amateur?
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:39 AM
Things don't just happen without money. People are increasingly adverse to paying for items like apps or news, or are only willing to pay so much, such that marketing needs to subsidise the product (e.g. pay TV, sport etc.).
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Everything you see that is free is paid for by ads. Everything is made cheaper by them. Just ignore them.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Everything you see that is free is paid for by ads. Everything is made cheaper by them. Just ignore them.
angrynstupid
Apr 27, 08:02 AM
I actually thought looking at a history of where my phone has been on a map was kinda cool. Bummer.
Since I'm neither a criminal nor paranoid, I thought it was kind of cool/interesting too.
Since I'm neither a criminal nor paranoid, I thought it was kind of cool/interesting too.
01civicman
Apr 8, 08:21 AM
Hummm... I would think by them throttling the sales, they get people back into the store over and over again trying to get one. So, take their "hot product" and dish a few out everyday to keep the eager hunters coming back in day after day and hope they buy something else in the mean time.
Also, I can see from the sales incentive standpoint that if you've hit your quota for the day selling 20 ipads in an hour, but have another 40 in stock, hold them for the next day to ensure you have consecutive days of hitting your sales quota making you look better and probably getting other bonuses? I would think they compensate managers based on daily sales and consecutive days of sales above quota.
So... basically, I see BB messing with stock to manipulate their sales and Apple being mad because they are so far behind on keeping up with demand and one of their big partners is holding out and using the iPad as sales bait.
I get your point, but it doesn't work like that. One, selling 20 iPads will not hit budgets (believe me). Two, if there any bonus' to hit, its done quarterly. Again, if you sell 50 iPads in one day, its the exact same as selling 3 over the course of 15 days.
Also, I can see from the sales incentive standpoint that if you've hit your quota for the day selling 20 ipads in an hour, but have another 40 in stock, hold them for the next day to ensure you have consecutive days of hitting your sales quota making you look better and probably getting other bonuses? I would think they compensate managers based on daily sales and consecutive days of sales above quota.
So... basically, I see BB messing with stock to manipulate their sales and Apple being mad because they are so far behind on keeping up with demand and one of their big partners is holding out and using the iPad as sales bait.
I get your point, but it doesn't work like that. One, selling 20 iPads will not hit budgets (believe me). Two, if there any bonus' to hit, its done quarterly. Again, if you sell 50 iPads in one day, its the exact same as selling 3 over the course of 15 days.
bdkennedy1
Apr 11, 12:18 PM
Good. I'm tired of this yearly battle of upgrades.
j26
Nov 29, 06:26 AM
My initial reservations about this story (the Zune/Universal payment) was much like eveybody's elses on these forums - very bad for us and screw 'em. But now that I've had time to think it through I actually think it's a fantastic idea.
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
But do you really think a court will decide that way. Not likely, especially if it's a judge from the wealth maximisation school of thought.
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
But do you really think a court will decide that way. Not likely, especially if it's a judge from the wealth maximisation school of thought.
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 11:55 AM
Lets not forget things like Spotlight that can now run more rigorously without affecting CPU resource much. You will get more intelligent software that can prepare for what you want to do so that when you go to do it it will be much more responsive. In other words just because some tasks cannot be easily broken up to leverage multiple cores doesn't mean that tasks such as those cannot be speculative run by software on idle cores in preparation for you doing the task.
Yes, that's definitely true. And I'd be happy to divert a whole core just to frickin WindowServer. :D
Yes, that's definitely true. And I'd be happy to divert a whole core just to frickin WindowServer. :D
jmbear
Nov 28, 09:47 PM
1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
Where are the recording studios in this future? Nowhere. Artists might still need them for promotions, music videos etc... but that is all bells and whistles. You don't even need the studios for a good music video, just look at how famous this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=okZwbxi7p0A) video has become, its even on MTV. It all comes down to the music, and if its good, people will buy it. Artists provide the content, iTMS the distribution. Record labels' presence will be greatly diminished. They are scared to death.
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
Where are the recording studios in this future? Nowhere. Artists might still need them for promotions, music videos etc... but that is all bells and whistles. You don't even need the studios for a good music video, just look at how famous this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=okZwbxi7p0A) video has become, its even on MTV. It all comes down to the music, and if its good, people will buy it. Artists provide the content, iTMS the distribution. Record labels' presence will be greatly diminished. They are scared to death.
Gatesbasher
Mar 31, 08:26 PM
This is where the Android "community" is going to split.
The ones we've heard from today don't give a crap about "open" or "closed" or Google or anything else other than the fact that Android is not Apple and is stealing some sales from Apple. They'll defend whatever Google does, because all they want is a platform that's not by Apple to take over the mobile space.
The true believers in the "open" propaganda, as ridiculous as it is and as untrue as it's always been, are probably still in a state of shock. By tomorrow they'll split into two warring camps. One will defend everything Google does because they perceive—wrongly of course—that Android is still in some indefinable way more open than iOS, and they'll blow that little invisible kernel of "openness" up until that's all they can see.
The other camp will be viciously angry at Google's betrayal of the True Religion™ and will be flailing around for some other messiah to deliver them from the "Walled Garden" of Apple and now, Android. These are the people who were saying the other day that "Motorola could rot" with their own OS.
Any suggestions on who the zealots will turn to in their hour of despair? I honestly can't think of a candidate, but then I'm not nuts—at least not that way.
The ones we've heard from today don't give a crap about "open" or "closed" or Google or anything else other than the fact that Android is not Apple and is stealing some sales from Apple. They'll defend whatever Google does, because all they want is a platform that's not by Apple to take over the mobile space.
The true believers in the "open" propaganda, as ridiculous as it is and as untrue as it's always been, are probably still in a state of shock. By tomorrow they'll split into two warring camps. One will defend everything Google does because they perceive—wrongly of course—that Android is still in some indefinable way more open than iOS, and they'll blow that little invisible kernel of "openness" up until that's all they can see.
The other camp will be viciously angry at Google's betrayal of the True Religion™ and will be flailing around for some other messiah to deliver them from the "Walled Garden" of Apple and now, Android. These are the people who were saying the other day that "Motorola could rot" with their own OS.
Any suggestions on who the zealots will turn to in their hour of despair? I honestly can't think of a candidate, but then I'm not nuts—at least not that way.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 2, 04:30 PM
I love that i won a mini in the mini-only race. I'll never touch either of my minis again.
boogieman
Aug 26, 03:49 PM
PowerBook G5 next tuesday?
Im guessing hopefully by the years end for the G5.... :) :)
Im guessing hopefully by the years end for the G5.... :) :)
reden
Apr 6, 03:07 PM
Xoom-1.6Lbs vs iPad 2-1.3Lbs