peharri
Sep 18, 07:33 AM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:55 AM
That statement is pure speculation and I have not seen that anywhere *official*. Until it actually happens, it hasn't happened.
It came directly from VZW executives.
Here is an article from Business Week.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-01/verizon-wireless-will-end-unlimited-data-plans-for-iphone.html
First two paragraphs.
It will be there for a while. However, everyone knows what Verizon does best and that is being the most expensive and greedy. They will not allow the unlimited data to continue when no other carrier readily makes it available.
It came directly from VZW executives.
Here is an article from Business Week.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-01/verizon-wireless-will-end-unlimited-data-plans-for-iphone.html
First two paragraphs.
It will be there for a while. However, everyone knows what Verizon does best and that is being the most expensive and greedy. They will not allow the unlimited data to continue when no other carrier readily makes it available.
generik
Aug 28, 10:52 PM
Now mind you, I say this as an investor, not as an enthusiast.
Go sell your Apple shares then, Apple is so going to cry over your few thousand dollars... NOT
Go sell your Apple shares then, Apple is so going to cry over your few thousand dollars... NOT
TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 10:18 AM
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
I know what you mean, and I agree, but Apple has had to work to a pretty tight schedule. I doubt they've had time to redesign the iMac from scratch. Merom will be pretty good performance wise.... especially near the top end. The heat contraints of the iMac might infact force Apple to go the "mobile" route. The Conroes might be good, but they still produce a fair amount of heat.
I'm hoping they'll plonk a bog standard Intel mobo into a nice pretty box and stick the Apple logo on the side for a Conroe based "MacPC". :confused:
I know what you mean, and I agree, but Apple has had to work to a pretty tight schedule. I doubt they've had time to redesign the iMac from scratch. Merom will be pretty good performance wise.... especially near the top end. The heat contraints of the iMac might infact force Apple to go the "mobile" route. The Conroes might be good, but they still produce a fair amount of heat.
I'm hoping they'll plonk a bog standard Intel mobo into a nice pretty box and stick the Apple logo on the side for a Conroe based "MacPC". :confused:
CQd44
Apr 16, 10:26 PM
It's something I observed as well. It's an entertaining phenomenon
Specs only matter if you have them.
My laptop has USB3, but until I get a USB3 flash drive I don't think it'll ever be used to its fullest. :(
Specs only matter if you have them.
My laptop has USB3, but until I get a USB3 flash drive I don't think it'll ever be used to its fullest. :(
shartypants
Mar 29, 12:04 PM
I don't see how you can project that far out, this industry changes too fast.
MacSA
Jul 17, 10:17 AM
I wouldn't give you good odds for WWDC, but you should have your update within less than a month from it.
Merom isn't out at the time of WWDC- it won't be until later in August. It is possible they may let apple take pre-orders if steve wants to really make it a massive attack at WWDC on all parts of the line charging ahead into the next generation, but you never know with him.
Of course the way things are going, for all we know there may really be PB G5s at WWDC, who knows nowadays :rolleyes:
But wasnt Yonah supposed to come out in January this year, and Apple released the iMac early January. So tens of thousands of chips must have been shipping before the official release date, I dont see why the same couldn't be true of these new chips.
Merom isn't out at the time of WWDC- it won't be until later in August. It is possible they may let apple take pre-orders if steve wants to really make it a massive attack at WWDC on all parts of the line charging ahead into the next generation, but you never know with him.
Of course the way things are going, for all we know there may really be PB G5s at WWDC, who knows nowadays :rolleyes:
But wasnt Yonah supposed to come out in January this year, and Apple released the iMac early January. So tens of thousands of chips must have been shipping before the official release date, I dont see why the same couldn't be true of these new chips.
toddybody
Apr 30, 08:06 PM
not as cpu/gpu demanding
Compared to what?
Its MUCH more "cpu/gpu" demanding than say
Olivia Hallinan Biography
supruga Michelle Ghent
Nuit Banai
Michelle L Mefford - Ghent, KY
felicity huffman | iography
Mini Biography Kristanna
Mini Biography Kristanna
Submitted By Michelle Mefford
supruga michelle ghent,
%252BSewing.jpg "Paul Verhoeven#39;s iography")
Paul Verhoeven#39;s iography
Lake Bell Biography
Compared to what?
Its MUCH more "cpu/gpu" demanding than say
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 09:53 AM
Not good. I need an explanation.
Warbrain
Apr 20, 12:35 PM
and btw, google stores location data allll the time.
Every single search is localized in some sense. Google is keeping track of where you are based off GPS or IP address. This is why I don't have an issue with this; I'd rather have the file on my computer than with a company that we aren't sure is going to be on the good side for long.
Every single search is localized in some sense. Google is keeping track of where you are based off GPS or IP address. This is why I don't have an issue with this; I'd rather have the file on my computer than with a company that we aren't sure is going to be on the good side for long.
steve_hill4
Aug 23, 05:36 PM
A little-known company, and that was to create it's product. If apple buys one of their largest competitors, that will raise a few eyebrows.
Think Microsoft strategy here. They settle with Creative for $100 million and Creative join the Made for iPod scheme. If they suceed and get back on their feet, it helps Apple argue they aren't anti-competition, if they fail, Creative fall by the wayside and Apple could perhpas snap them up for a bargain.
Buy Creative now and thy will not only be accused of anti-competitive behaviour, but probably lose any cases over Fairplay.
Think Microsoft strategy here. They settle with Creative for $100 million and Creative join the Made for iPod scheme. If they suceed and get back on their feet, it helps Apple argue they aren't anti-competition, if they fail, Creative fall by the wayside and Apple could perhpas snap them up for a bargain.
Buy Creative now and thy will not only be accused of anti-competitive behaviour, but probably lose any cases over Fairplay.
scoobydoo99
Apr 20, 12:21 PM
You certainly can't make that statement any dumber, that's true.
I'm surprised that some of you don't understand what Steve is saying. So while I am stating the obvious, here goes:
Apple is a corporation. Corporations are required BY LAW to maximize profitability for their shareholders (fiduciary duty.) This is THE ONLY thing they "care" about.
Now, does providing products that customers like help them maximize profits? Of course. But don't ever confuse their efforts to please customers as being altruistic or showing that they "care" about customers. They only care about profit. If keeping customers happy increases profits, they do it. If giving away free bumpers for iPhone4s is good PR and creates customer goodwill, which increases future profits, then they do it. If selling private data to advertisers or government agencies creates more revenue than it costs (in lost customers,) then they do it.
It is all calculated on the bottom line and they are REQUIRED to take the action that maximizes profits, like ALL corporations.
I'm surprised that some of you don't understand what Steve is saying. So while I am stating the obvious, here goes:
Apple is a corporation. Corporations are required BY LAW to maximize profitability for their shareholders (fiduciary duty.) This is THE ONLY thing they "care" about.
Now, does providing products that customers like help them maximize profits? Of course. But don't ever confuse their efforts to please customers as being altruistic or showing that they "care" about customers. They only care about profit. If keeping customers happy increases profits, they do it. If giving away free bumpers for iPhone4s is good PR and creates customer goodwill, which increases future profits, then they do it. If selling private data to advertisers or government agencies creates more revenue than it costs (in lost customers,) then they do it.
It is all calculated on the bottom line and they are REQUIRED to take the action that maximizes profits, like ALL corporations.
Erasmus
Sep 10, 05:39 AM
OK, Now Apple HAVE to release our precious Mini Mac Pro and put one of these in it!
Yep, Apple need a smaller Mac Pro with one processor very soon. I think maybe at Macworld, if not sooner?
Merom is going to stay at about this speed for many years. There are no quad core mobile processors on the Intel Roadmap.
So when we have 2 core Merom iMacs, which will no doubt last us until Santa Rosa half way through next year, and 8 core Mac Pros with dual Clovertowns, do people not see the slight gap???
Perfect for a Mini Mac Pro. Or a beefier iMac. But I would prefer the Mini Mac Pro. Then at least the lineup would be 2-4-8 core, instead of pretty much a quadrupling of power in well threaded applications between highest consumer and lowest pro. Now that's just insane.
So... Merom MBP's on Tuesday or Wednesday. Merom Macbooks in a month. Clovertown Mac Pros and Xserves, PLUS Kentsfield Mini Mac Pro (conroe on all but highest model) all at Macworld 2007. Not too much of a stretch at all, in my opinion, especially when all we are likely to see on the Mac Pros and Xserves is new CPUs dropped in.
It seems I got my iMac Ultra (in some form) so I'm starting lobbying now on Mini Mac Pro. One Conroe CPU socket, 4 RAM slots, 2 PCI Extreme slots, 2 HDD bays. 600W PSU, and enough cooling to allow us to continue to upgrade parts as long as the socket stays the same, which should be a few years yet.
Yep, Apple need a smaller Mac Pro with one processor very soon. I think maybe at Macworld, if not sooner?
Merom is going to stay at about this speed for many years. There are no quad core mobile processors on the Intel Roadmap.
So when we have 2 core Merom iMacs, which will no doubt last us until Santa Rosa half way through next year, and 8 core Mac Pros with dual Clovertowns, do people not see the slight gap???
Perfect for a Mini Mac Pro. Or a beefier iMac. But I would prefer the Mini Mac Pro. Then at least the lineup would be 2-4-8 core, instead of pretty much a quadrupling of power in well threaded applications between highest consumer and lowest pro. Now that's just insane.
So... Merom MBP's on Tuesday or Wednesday. Merom Macbooks in a month. Clovertown Mac Pros and Xserves, PLUS Kentsfield Mini Mac Pro (conroe on all but highest model) all at Macworld 2007. Not too much of a stretch at all, in my opinion, especially when all we are likely to see on the Mac Pros and Xserves is new CPUs dropped in.
It seems I got my iMac Ultra (in some form) so I'm starting lobbying now on Mini Mac Pro. One Conroe CPU socket, 4 RAM slots, 2 PCI Extreme slots, 2 HDD bays. 600W PSU, and enough cooling to allow us to continue to upgrade parts as long as the socket stays the same, which should be a few years yet.
macfan881
Sep 12, 03:29 PM
With The New Get Album artwork is it possible now to update the Artwork to the ipod now? :confused: cause i dont see any of the artwork that i have gotten on my ipod
Sped
Sep 5, 12:44 AM
I have hoped Apple would get into the living room with a PVR, but I wouldn't mind a device that I could use to show purchased movies either. But like others have mentioned, it doesn't seem to make sense when you think about bandwidth versus video quality.
It's hard to imagine anything better than 480p using a wireless method. Adding a gigabit pipe might do the trick but most folks' houses are wired to make that happen. I'm sorry but I just don't see how this is going to work if based on the same conceptual design as itunes + airport express.
It's hard to imagine anything better than 480p using a wireless method. Adding a gigabit pipe might do the trick but most folks' houses are wired to make that happen. I'm sorry but I just don't see how this is going to work if based on the same conceptual design as itunes + airport express.
BLUELION
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Its plain to see what is happening here. But I agree with you I will not concede my rights for any reason what so ever.
I stop listening to anyone who ever utters the words "Constitutional or not..."
Our basic freedoms as Americans aren't worth conceding for any reason whatsoever, no matter how noble the goal may seem from a distance.
I stop listening to anyone who ever utters the words "Constitutional or not..."
Our basic freedoms as Americans aren't worth conceding for any reason whatsoever, no matter how noble the goal may seem from a distance.
milbournosphere
Apr 20, 12:53 PM
The data is stored on YOUR phone and YOUR laptop ... Apple does not have a centralized database with that data - it is all on your devices.
Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction...after reading some more, you are correct. Gotta RTFA next time.:o
Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction...after reading some more, you are correct. Gotta RTFA next time.:o
jholzner
Sep 16, 02:03 PM
A shame about scrapping the idea of a ground up design - I hope that doesn't lead to a lack of innovation. That's what really leads Apple along! Although if they just make a killer phone (I'm sure they will at some point...) it's bound to sell buckets loads!
Uber
I don't think scrapping the ground up design will hurt. The iPod was made mostly from off the shelf parts when it was introd. but it still was awesome. Hopefully they can do the same thing with their phone. My contract doesn't expire until December 2007 but I want one...and I don't even know what it is yet.
Uber
I don't think scrapping the ground up design will hurt. The iPod was made mostly from off the shelf parts when it was introd. but it still was awesome. Hopefully they can do the same thing with their phone. My contract doesn't expire until December 2007 but I want one...and I don't even know what it is yet.
freeny
Sep 5, 12:39 PM
I believe Apple has been waiting for all the planets to align. If there is going to be a movie service there will be a true "video iPod".
They were whipped in the ass last time for the boom box release, they will be looking to gain back face this time around.
They were whipped in the ass last time for the boom box release, they will be looking to gain back face this time around.
Popeye206
Apr 19, 08:51 AM
Too bad Apple couldn't just ask Samsung to behave themselves... Maybe they did?
I don't know about you, but it's pretty obvious to me that the Samsung devices pictured here are a clear and blatant rip-off of Apple's designs and interface. At least other Android devices had some differentiating elements. Not so here. Even a monkey could see Samsung stealing Apple's bananas in this case.
So you know, before you sue, you issue a "Cease" letter explaining your claim and asking the offending company to stop. So in essence, they did ask. It's part of the process.
Really guys.... this is all just normal business. It amazes me when people get up in arms either way. Valid patents and technology innovations need to protected by their owners... otherwise they are fools to let others copy them... especially when you do have the hottest single product out there. Apple worked hard to get where they are and to just let others copy freely would be stupid on Apple's part.
With that said, I'm saying the above as a "fanboy" but as someone in the software industry and value the things I've done in the past and patents we've had.
I don't know about you, but it's pretty obvious to me that the Samsung devices pictured here are a clear and blatant rip-off of Apple's designs and interface. At least other Android devices had some differentiating elements. Not so here. Even a monkey could see Samsung stealing Apple's bananas in this case.
So you know, before you sue, you issue a "Cease" letter explaining your claim and asking the offending company to stop. So in essence, they did ask. It's part of the process.
Really guys.... this is all just normal business. It amazes me when people get up in arms either way. Valid patents and technology innovations need to protected by their owners... otherwise they are fools to let others copy them... especially when you do have the hottest single product out there. Apple worked hard to get where they are and to just let others copy freely would be stupid on Apple's part.
With that said, I'm saying the above as a "fanboy" but as someone in the software industry and value the things I've done in the past and patents we've had.
milo
Sep 5, 03:28 PM
As damienvfx suggestes there are plenty of commercials beyond trailers when you go out to the movies these days, which can easily be a $50+ affair, so why expect to be ad-free...
There have also been some ads (albeit more like trailers) tacked on th the end of some shows I have bought on iTMS.
But as I said, for HOME viewing, is there a precedent for ads?
What ads have you seen on iTunes shows? Were they for other shows, or for other products?
There have also been some ads (albeit more like trailers) tacked on th the end of some shows I have bought on iTMS.
But as I said, for HOME viewing, is there a precedent for ads?
What ads have you seen on iTunes shows? Were they for other shows, or for other products?
Music-Man
Sep 14, 09:01 AM
Any news if Steve will give a keynote in the special event preceeding photokina?
Have a look at the front page.
Have a look at the front page.
boncellis
Sep 5, 06:59 PM
As far as the streaming video possibilities go, I think it would be cool for Apple to include the ability to "project" the entire desktop onto a remote screen, like a TV or projector. The tech is already there, and I think that kind of functionality would be that much cooler and more practical than simply streaming audio/video content. I would love to use my PB's lid-closed mode wirelessly with the TV.
Stridder44
Aug 23, 09:15 PM
thats:
334,448 iPods or
671,141 Nanos or
1,449,275 Shuffles.
Exactly! Not to mention computer sales that will also contribute to this. And now Apple has another company to add to it's list that'll be helping those iPods sales by making iPod accessories.
Because of Apple's actions, Creative can now legitimately force other MP3 player makers to pay too. I think this is what Apple wants.
Interesting...that's a good point.
334,448 iPods or
671,141 Nanos or
1,449,275 Shuffles.
Exactly! Not to mention computer sales that will also contribute to this. And now Apple has another company to add to it's list that'll be helping those iPods sales by making iPod accessories.
Because of Apple's actions, Creative can now legitimately force other MP3 player makers to pay too. I think this is what Apple wants.
Interesting...that's a good point.
