nyfliiboy
Apr 12, 09:01 AM
Looks like ill be going to Android.
ghostlyorb
Apr 30, 07:54 AM
I might have to switch to Amazon now... saving money is what I love.
mrblah
Jul 25, 12:24 AM
What third world country are you living in, where 50% of computer users could never afford a Mac?
Havent looked at PC prices in awhile? Most PC's these days are less than $1000 and come with a monitor. The cheapest iMac is $1300 and doesnt have the same "desirability" that a tower has to people looking for the best bang for their buck (even though they are technically the same). Mini's are $600 and dont come with a monitor, keyboard, or mouse, they mainly appeal to old PC owners wanting to try a mac. PC's are very cheap these days, just take a stroll through dell's site to see what people can get for less than $800 and what Apple will need to do if they expect to compete.
Havent looked at PC prices in awhile? Most PC's these days are less than $1000 and come with a monitor. The cheapest iMac is $1300 and doesnt have the same "desirability" that a tower has to people looking for the best bang for their buck (even though they are technically the same). Mini's are $600 and dont come with a monitor, keyboard, or mouse, they mainly appeal to old PC owners wanting to try a mac. PC's are very cheap these days, just take a stroll through dell's site to see what people can get for less than $800 and what Apple will need to do if they expect to compete.
albarran9
Jan 28, 08:05 AM
NuForce uDAC-2 for my audio-technica ATH-M50's :D
269122
269122
more...
MattInOz
Jul 12, 12:30 AM
Precisely.
If Apple dumped FireWire IEEE1394 for the sake of slimness, it is highly doubtful that they'd re-clutter and fatten it up with Bluetooth (which, after trying for many years (with other devices) I have now considered to be worthless crap). Really - unless one can charge with built-in solar panels (as Citizen (http://www.citizenwatch.com/COA/English/intro1.asp)does with their watches), wireless is a non-issue.
The current iPod has panache. It is "sessy". Neither word describes MS at all...and it is because of this that the Argo will have a tough time of it.
As others have said earlier in this issue, the good that will come out of all of this is that Apple will provide us with a better iPod.
Don't Intel have that new low power low range network chip that does Wi-fi, wireless firewire, wireless usb but only about 10m range they are pushing for home entertainment equipment. Get that build into the iPods (full size to start) and you have wireless that might be worth considering.
Then replace the dock connector with a magsafe power connector. to make charging a snap. sure you still need to get the battery life up a bit on current. It's starting to look like an interesting revision.
Yep MS have cash and exposure in other products to be a big threat to Apples iPod cashflow. Although Apple have the momentum, the options and range to keep themselves as first choice.
Hey I always wonder why Apple don't release iTunes for Playstation, or Nintendo.
If Apple dumped FireWire IEEE1394 for the sake of slimness, it is highly doubtful that they'd re-clutter and fatten it up with Bluetooth (which, after trying for many years (with other devices) I have now considered to be worthless crap). Really - unless one can charge with built-in solar panels (as Citizen (http://www.citizenwatch.com/COA/English/intro1.asp)does with their watches), wireless is a non-issue.
The current iPod has panache. It is "sessy". Neither word describes MS at all...and it is because of this that the Argo will have a tough time of it.
As others have said earlier in this issue, the good that will come out of all of this is that Apple will provide us with a better iPod.
Don't Intel have that new low power low range network chip that does Wi-fi, wireless firewire, wireless usb but only about 10m range they are pushing for home entertainment equipment. Get that build into the iPods (full size to start) and you have wireless that might be worth considering.
Then replace the dock connector with a magsafe power connector. to make charging a snap. sure you still need to get the battery life up a bit on current. It's starting to look like an interesting revision.
Yep MS have cash and exposure in other products to be a big threat to Apples iPod cashflow. Although Apple have the momentum, the options and range to keep themselves as first choice.
Hey I always wonder why Apple don't release iTunes for Playstation, or Nintendo.
SockRolid
Apr 14, 12:55 PM
Whatever "ix.Mac.MarketingName" is, I'll bet a benjamin that Eric Schmidt is clueless about it.
more...
AndroidfoLife
Apr 24, 04:38 PM
Thanks for the anecdote.
The iPhone sets the bar. Google has to flood the market with a lot of junk to achieve higher share. That's hardly impressive. Google is the MS of mobile. Hardly a compliment. License out your beta OS to anyone that can slam together a box, give it away, and away you go.
The iPhone is still the #1 selling handset. Where are the iPhone killers? There aren't any. Because the competition doesn't know how to make one. Because Apple approaches tech from a totally different place.
The iOS platform still dominates, and given the iPad's success, it'll be that way for the foreseeable future.
Android enjoys highest smartphone market share. Yet the OS is pretty brutal and their ecosystem is a mess. So why do they have greater share? Not because they make a superior product, but because the only alternative to an iPhone was an Android-based device, and Eric T. Mole got to work licensing it out to everyone with no regard for design or User Experience. If you flood the market with what, 70+ (probably a lot more) devices and let everyone and their dog make the devices you'll eventually enjoy force of numbers.
Android is given away free to anyone to manufacture, to make as many POS devices as they wish, to sell for peanuts, in massive volume.
That's all it is. Market flooding at every price point and you get some sort of touchscreen and some sort of app store. And given Google's Microsoftian horizontal business model, that's all it'll ever be.
For instance, THIS is the kind of total junk that Google puts their name to:
http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_racer-reviews-3423.php
And guess what: Dell went ahead and copied it. The DELL XCD28. Same junk. But Android market share just went up!
Here's another amazing Android device:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars
Anything to be proud of? But hey, they're dirt cheap. And uh . . . "open" or whatever.
If Google actually *cared* about what they put the Android name to, if they actually gave a damn about the USER, would they allow this? Ask yourself that. That's the difference. There are some things Apple *will not* allow to exist - namely: garbage.
Yes, highest market share. Until you go hunting for the REASON.
Its only in opinions which OS is better. I know Windows is better for me because it allows me to build my own hardware. Not all android phones are dirt cheap. The top selling ones are not the dirt cheap ones it is the ones that compete directly with the iPhone in the high end smart phone. There are a lot of phones out there that top the iPhone. The Atrix, the G2X, Evo and multiple other ones are all better phones then the iPhone 4. The iPhone is a good phone, But is far from the best. It will never turn into a one horse game. There will never be an "iPhone Killer", And android is here to stay.
The iPhone can not meet everyones needs some people need a physical keyboard, Larger screen, SD slot, Smaller screen, HDMI, High end camaras, various things that end the end the Single model of the iPhone will not work for them
The iPhone sets the bar. Google has to flood the market with a lot of junk to achieve higher share. That's hardly impressive. Google is the MS of mobile. Hardly a compliment. License out your beta OS to anyone that can slam together a box, give it away, and away you go.
The iPhone is still the #1 selling handset. Where are the iPhone killers? There aren't any. Because the competition doesn't know how to make one. Because Apple approaches tech from a totally different place.
The iOS platform still dominates, and given the iPad's success, it'll be that way for the foreseeable future.
Android enjoys highest smartphone market share. Yet the OS is pretty brutal and their ecosystem is a mess. So why do they have greater share? Not because they make a superior product, but because the only alternative to an iPhone was an Android-based device, and Eric T. Mole got to work licensing it out to everyone with no regard for design or User Experience. If you flood the market with what, 70+ (probably a lot more) devices and let everyone and their dog make the devices you'll eventually enjoy force of numbers.
Android is given away free to anyone to manufacture, to make as many POS devices as they wish, to sell for peanuts, in massive volume.
That's all it is. Market flooding at every price point and you get some sort of touchscreen and some sort of app store. And given Google's Microsoftian horizontal business model, that's all it'll ever be.
For instance, THIS is the kind of total junk that Google puts their name to:
http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_racer-reviews-3423.php
And guess what: Dell went ahead and copied it. The DELL XCD28. Same junk. But Android market share just went up!
Here's another amazing Android device:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars
Anything to be proud of? But hey, they're dirt cheap. And uh . . . "open" or whatever.
If Google actually *cared* about what they put the Android name to, if they actually gave a damn about the USER, would they allow this? Ask yourself that. That's the difference. There are some things Apple *will not* allow to exist - namely: garbage.
Yes, highest market share. Until you go hunting for the REASON.
Its only in opinions which OS is better. I know Windows is better for me because it allows me to build my own hardware. Not all android phones are dirt cheap. The top selling ones are not the dirt cheap ones it is the ones that compete directly with the iPhone in the high end smart phone. There are a lot of phones out there that top the iPhone. The Atrix, the G2X, Evo and multiple other ones are all better phones then the iPhone 4. The iPhone is a good phone, But is far from the best. It will never turn into a one horse game. There will never be an "iPhone Killer", And android is here to stay.
The iPhone can not meet everyones needs some people need a physical keyboard, Larger screen, SD slot, Smaller screen, HDMI, High end camaras, various things that end the end the Single model of the iPhone will not work for them
SciFrog
Sep 19, 08:59 AM
With these new big units no more need for GPU...
What would be nice is to run OS X and the big units, the GPU with WINE with a couple of fast Nvidia cards...
We just need one of the smart guys here to do a step by step for us...
What would be nice is to run OS X and the big units, the GPU with WINE with a couple of fast Nvidia cards...
We just need one of the smart guys here to do a step by step for us...
more...
s.meezy
Apr 26, 02:43 AM
ZOMG u ppl will believe anything! N94 and phone number are TAPED ONTO the back of the phone... there's a lot going on here, lulz.
#1: Fake Carrier via Cydia
#2: Microsoft Paint
#3: Labeling machine
To everyone in this thread saying Android is garbage, to you, you're right. Plz, there's a difference between fact and opinion...
#1: Fake Carrier via Cydia
#2: Microsoft Paint
#3: Labeling machine
To everyone in this thread saying Android is garbage, to you, you're right. Plz, there's a difference between fact and opinion...
Legion93
May 1, 10:03 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13256676
Osama Bin Laden has been reported dead by US military officials.
US president Obama is to make an unofficial statement in a few minutes.
Osama Bin Laden has been reported dead by US military officials.
US president Obama is to make an unofficial statement in a few minutes.
more...
technicolor
Oct 24, 07:39 PM
Ok its good to know this.. I'll download the Ultimate version of Vista then, not the Home Sweet Home version :D:D:D
F. U. Microsoft.. never gonna take any penny of mine again.. You suck and you always will..
:cool:
F. U. Microsoft.. never gonna take any penny of mine again.. You suck and you always will..
:cool:
seanpholman
Mar 16, 10:04 AM
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)
About 40 in line now at SCP.
Ahh, sounds pointless then. Word has gotten out.
--Sean
About 40 in line now at SCP.
Ahh, sounds pointless then. Word has gotten out.
--Sean
more...
renewed
Sep 15, 03:13 PM
And correct terms, too (myosin/actin)!
That journal looks crazy. Wish it came with the Xbox 360 Bundle.
That journal looks crazy. Wish it came with the Xbox 360 Bundle.
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
more...
LarzStarz
Apr 13, 02:40 PM
"Should I jailbreak my Apple HDTV?"
How about:
"Why does Apple purposefully hold back supply to create news headlines about long waiting lines at their stores?"
How about:
"Why does Apple purposefully hold back supply to create news headlines about long waiting lines at their stores?"
.jpg "arnold schwarzenegger")
MattMJB0188
May 4, 09:51 AM
I don't understand one thing. Why can't Apple confirm this themselves? That way people will at least know what they can do. Either you wait or you move onto to another device.
more...
IJ Reilly
Jan 30, 12:25 PM
sigh...Apple exports from China and imports to America. Just another reason not to buy AAPL.
Is this remark supposed to be taken seriously? I have no idea what you are driving at here.
Is this remark supposed to be taken seriously? I have no idea what you are driving at here.
3rdpath
Oct 24, 08:32 AM
as others have mentioned, i'm a little surprised that only the 17inch model has a 7200rpm drive option. i'm going to check with apple directly to see if i can get a custom 15inch with a 7200 drive. my audio apps don't work well with the anything slower.
having said that, the ram, fw800 and dual layer burner are a nice addition
having said that, the ram, fw800 and dual layer burner are a nice addition
marksman
Apr 28, 11:51 AM
Not surprising the iPhone 3GS was #2.
This is the real data. How are the actual phones selling... That is why when people try to convolute Android vs iOS on phones only it is silly.
Apple is dominating the smartphone markets with their individual products. Opening up to Verizon has taken away one of Android's advantages in the US.
All 4 iPhones are in the Top 10 of smartphones sold since the iPhone came out. In fact they are probably all in the top 6 or 7.
This is the real data. How are the actual phones selling... That is why when people try to convolute Android vs iOS on phones only it is silly.
Apple is dominating the smartphone markets with their individual products. Opening up to Verizon has taken away one of Android's advantages in the US.
All 4 iPhones are in the Top 10 of smartphones sold since the iPhone came out. In fact they are probably all in the top 6 or 7.
DotComName
May 4, 09:40 AM
Also, I'm more concerned with iOS 5 and what it'll bring, than I am with what new specs the iPhone 5 will have.
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 11:55 AM
By the way - openstep is an evolution of nextstep when next went "open source". it may of been put of the GNU license,
Stop it please, you're hurting me... OpenStep is a specification of which GNUStep is a GPL licensed implementation released by the GNU project. Foundation and Cocoa are the NeXTSTEP acquired implementations that Apple is using.
OpenSTEP is not licensed under a GNU project license at all...
Lastly, the Minix kernel came from Posix. So the path Posix->Minix->Linux is valid.
POSIX is not a kernel. It's a standard programming interface that UNIX systems used to make sure that one program written for a UNIX system would compile another as long as the standard was followed.
Minix, while being a POSIX compliant OS, was a complete implementation done by Andrew Tannenbaum for a book he was writing.
Your grasp of all of this history is quite muddied. Seriously, who are you trying to convince here ? You've gotten about every fact wrong about this whole thing. The plain fact remains, I was right all along, your correction was quite wrong when you said :
Bash is under the GPL license - not GNU. Never has been GNU see source link -> http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-106/
BTW - No part of MacOSX is distributed under GNU licensing...
You completely misunderstood my post when I said Bash was part of the GNU project. Bash has always been GNU, always will be. The GPL is very much "GNU licensing".
Enjoy easter yourself and use the days off to work on your grasp of the whole UNIX and open source histories.
GNU evolved into a foundation
From GNU.org (http://www.gnu.org/) :
The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop the GNU operating system, a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software—software which respects your freedom.
Again, the Foundation is called the FSF, from their site, FSF.org (http://www.fsf.org/) :
What we do :
...
We drive development of the GNU operating system and maintain a list of high-priority free software projects to promote replacements for common proprietary applications.
Stop getting it wrong, we're on the Internet, the sites are there to correct you.
Stop it please, you're hurting me... OpenStep is a specification of which GNUStep is a GPL licensed implementation released by the GNU project. Foundation and Cocoa are the NeXTSTEP acquired implementations that Apple is using.
OpenSTEP is not licensed under a GNU project license at all...
Lastly, the Minix kernel came from Posix. So the path Posix->Minix->Linux is valid.
POSIX is not a kernel. It's a standard programming interface that UNIX systems used to make sure that one program written for a UNIX system would compile another as long as the standard was followed.
Minix, while being a POSIX compliant OS, was a complete implementation done by Andrew Tannenbaum for a book he was writing.
Your grasp of all of this history is quite muddied. Seriously, who are you trying to convince here ? You've gotten about every fact wrong about this whole thing. The plain fact remains, I was right all along, your correction was quite wrong when you said :
Bash is under the GPL license - not GNU. Never has been GNU see source link -> http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-106/
BTW - No part of MacOSX is distributed under GNU licensing...
You completely misunderstood my post when I said Bash was part of the GNU project. Bash has always been GNU, always will be. The GPL is very much "GNU licensing".
Enjoy easter yourself and use the days off to work on your grasp of the whole UNIX and open source histories.
GNU evolved into a foundation
From GNU.org (http://www.gnu.org/) :
The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop the GNU operating system, a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software—software which respects your freedom.
Again, the Foundation is called the FSF, from their site, FSF.org (http://www.fsf.org/) :
What we do :
...
We drive development of the GNU operating system and maintain a list of high-priority free software projects to promote replacements for common proprietary applications.
Stop getting it wrong, we're on the Internet, the sites are there to correct you.
jessica.
Jan 25, 08:24 PM
Post Your Last Purchase XV...WOWEEE! (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1053646) at 57 pages and 2265 posts later, it was time.
Last purchase was all grown up stuff, groceries, auto fuel, and my mortgage payment. :eek:
http://www.insidesocal.com/bargain/Groceries.jpg
http://mortgagenomoneydown.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/minimum-down-payment-on-a-house.jpg
Last purchase was all grown up stuff, groceries, auto fuel, and my mortgage payment. :eek:
http://www.insidesocal.com/bargain/Groceries.jpg
http://mortgagenomoneydown.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/minimum-down-payment-on-a-house.jpg
AaronEdwards
Apr 28, 01:36 PM
Not surprising...because it sells for $49?
If I were in the market for a smartphone and could choose a $49 iPhone 3GS vs. a $199+ iPhone 4 vs. a $199+ Android...I would very very seriously consider the 3GS since it is AT LEAST 4x cheaper...and in reality, does 99% of the iPhone 4 (I have the 3GS and as far as I can tell the 4 simply added Facetime and a front camera for facetime use).
That's pretty faulty math there. In reality, it's not 4x cheaper.
Pick AT&T:s cheapest plan, and you would pay $1369 for the 3GS and plan, for a 4 you would pay $1520 for the phone and plan. So you pay 90% of the cost of a 4 with plan and you'll only get an 3GS, a phone that's already passed by the 4, and will shortly be passed by 4S or 5.
I can't understand anyone who would consider buying a 3GS instead of a 4.
If you're unable to pay another $150 to get a 4, then you probably should wait until 5 or 4S arrives, or just start saving money.
If I were in the market for a smartphone and could choose a $49 iPhone 3GS vs. a $199+ iPhone 4 vs. a $199+ Android...I would very very seriously consider the 3GS since it is AT LEAST 4x cheaper...and in reality, does 99% of the iPhone 4 (I have the 3GS and as far as I can tell the 4 simply added Facetime and a front camera for facetime use).
That's pretty faulty math there. In reality, it's not 4x cheaper.
Pick AT&T:s cheapest plan, and you would pay $1369 for the 3GS and plan, for a 4 you would pay $1520 for the phone and plan. So you pay 90% of the cost of a 4 with plan and you'll only get an 3GS, a phone that's already passed by the 4, and will shortly be passed by 4S or 5.
I can't understand anyone who would consider buying a 3GS instead of a 4.
If you're unable to pay another $150 to get a 4, then you probably should wait until 5 or 4S arrives, or just start saving money.
~Shard~
Jul 10, 10:08 AM
Nice to see the suite maturing like this. Pages 3 along with Charts will definitely make iWork 07 an improvement over the '06 version and a lot more solid of a suite in general.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий