miles01110
Apr 23, 08:30 AM
It's only valid in the US and Canada.
d. This Plan is offered and valid only in the United States of America and Canada. This Plan is not offered to persons who have not reached the age of majority. This Plan may not be available in all states or provinces, and is not available where prohibited by law.
From (PDF): http://images.apple.com/legal/applecare/docs/NA_APP_iPad_English_v1.2.pdf section 7d
d. This Plan is offered and valid only in the United States of America and Canada. This Plan is not offered to persons who have not reached the age of majority. This Plan may not be available in all states or provinces, and is not available where prohibited by law.
From (PDF): http://images.apple.com/legal/applecare/docs/NA_APP_iPad_English_v1.2.pdf section 7d
Cartaphilus
Nov 23, 10:57 PM
In the UK, under its purely municipal law, there is a presumption that retail price management agreements are against the public interest, and therefore unenforceable. The law does, however, provide for the presumption to be overcome by evidence to the contrary, and in the case of publishers and booksellers, vertical retail price management has been held enforceable. The UK is, of course, a member of the European Union which takes a stronger stand against retail price management, and pursuant to the articles of the European Commission, it is their standards that apply to covered cross-border transactions.
In the U.S., there have been swings back and forth through much of the 20th century, but current Federal law (since 2007) applies the "Rule of Reason" to retail price management arrangements, and a retail pricing scheme will be enforced if it is not anti-competitive. The Supreme Court recognized that competition often is enhanced by matters other than price (after-sale support, strong warranty, etc.), and it may well be reasonable to require a minimum price to support an overall more competitive position.
Those who find the public policy aspects of this question interesting may wish to read the now definitive opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-480.pdf
In the U.S., there have been swings back and forth through much of the 20th century, but current Federal law (since 2007) applies the "Rule of Reason" to retail price management arrangements, and a retail pricing scheme will be enforced if it is not anti-competitive. The Supreme Court recognized that competition often is enhanced by matters other than price (after-sale support, strong warranty, etc.), and it may well be reasonable to require a minimum price to support an overall more competitive position.
Those who find the public policy aspects of this question interesting may wish to read the now definitive opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-480.pdf
FX4568
Apr 4, 10:24 PM
Phew. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Until you explained it so well I was really worried.
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
.jpg "love wallpapers for mobile")
Porchland
Apr 4, 11:00 AM
Simple solution: Financial Times should put out a browser version of the publication that is optimized for viewing on an iPad and simply require the same login that is does now for its web version.
I don't pay extra for the iPad version of nytimes.com on my iPad, so I use the web version instead (and it's not even optimized for iPad the way the mobile version is optimized for iPhone). I don't get the benefit of the snazzier iPad app, but I'm also not paying for it.
Apple created the iOS platform and allows third parties to develop apps for it as long as you play by Apple's rules. If you don't like Apple's rules, optimize your product to run as a web page for iPhone/iPad or just rely on the web version you have now.
Frankly, I wish more publications would do that: I would be fine to read web-based, iPad-optized versions of the New Yorker, New York Times, Newsweek, etc., if the subscription prices are cheaper than an iPad version and it means the publisher actually makes a web-based subscription available, even if it means I'm giving up some UI coolness, better graphics, etc., but not getting the iPad version.
The market works just fine.
I don't pay extra for the iPad version of nytimes.com on my iPad, so I use the web version instead (and it's not even optimized for iPad the way the mobile version is optimized for iPhone). I don't get the benefit of the snazzier iPad app, but I'm also not paying for it.
Apple created the iOS platform and allows third parties to develop apps for it as long as you play by Apple's rules. If you don't like Apple's rules, optimize your product to run as a web page for iPhone/iPad or just rely on the web version you have now.
Frankly, I wish more publications would do that: I would be fine to read web-based, iPad-optized versions of the New Yorker, New York Times, Newsweek, etc., if the subscription prices are cheaper than an iPad version and it means the publisher actually makes a web-based subscription available, even if it means I'm giving up some UI coolness, better graphics, etc., but not getting the iPad version.
The market works just fine.
more...
Apple OC
Mar 28, 01:22 AM
I never said I wanted the seller to lose his life or be seriously injured. Show me where I said that.
I'm not talking getting hurt either ... maybe $500 dollars damage to your car would be a fair price to pay for your foolish lane change? ... fair enough karma for wishing that on the buyer?
I'm not talking getting hurt either ... maybe $500 dollars damage to your car would be a fair price to pay for your foolish lane change? ... fair enough karma for wishing that on the buyer?
jimthorn
Jul 18, 11:44 AM
I think you can only do that in Text Mode with iChat AV. Audio and Video Modes are for 1-to-1 connections only.
more...
Shaun.P
May 3, 01:35 PM
I'll be going in tomorrow morning to give blood, conveniently my school has organised a Blood Drive at the same time as MacRumors! Hopefully all goes well and someone will benefit from what my organs have to offer.
I will be giving this week as well
Amazing! Make sure to post a picture in the Blood Drive thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1146112) and tell us what you donated.
All donations mentioned in that thread get added to the honour roll (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12496773&highlight=#post12496773).
I will be giving this week as well
Amazing! Make sure to post a picture in the Blood Drive thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1146112) and tell us what you donated.
All donations mentioned in that thread get added to the honour roll (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12496773&highlight=#post12496773).
koston33
May 2, 11:37 AM
Before when I was in notebook layout view, when I was indented two bullet points in and pressed enter, a new bullet is placed on the same indent as the previous line. NOw if I wanted to go back to have a bullet point at the first indent I would just press delete and it would backspace and form bullet at the first indent, but now instead it just goes back to the end of the previous line. Help please.
more...
Chrismcfall
Jun 29, 05:19 PM
Want to get an idea of how much these would cost nowadays!
Any GB would do.
Any GB would do.
jknight8907
Dec 25, 09:23 PM
^they sell gas grills in Texas?! :eek:
"Bobby, in Texas, we use propane!"
"Bobby, in Texas, we use propane!"
more...
edesignuk
Sep 27, 04:05 AM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=151559&highlight=Google ;)
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 6, 11:51 AM
I'd buy that for a dollar!!! :D
more...
JoshuaKaufman
Sep 26, 08:47 PM
Looks great, but as my main email account is not a .mac account and POP doesn't really do it for me, I'll only use it if they provide IMAP access.
The only real reason that I use .mac are its backup and synchronization features which are hardly worth paying $99 a year for. .mac still needs to come a long way to stay competitive and this is reasonable start, but a new interface is only that - a new interface. More space, more features and better functionality are the only way .mac will come out of the dark ages and join the rest of Apple's innovative, first-class products.
The only real reason that I use .mac are its backup and synchronization features which are hardly worth paying $99 a year for. .mac still needs to come a long way to stay competitive and this is reasonable start, but a new interface is only that - a new interface. More space, more features and better functionality are the only way .mac will come out of the dark ages and join the rest of Apple's innovative, first-class products.
mofunk
Nov 24, 08:47 PM
Check on youtube. There are a few reviews on this.
more...
Grade
Apr 3, 05:04 PM
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9607/screenshot20110402at354.png
Can you please share the link?
Can you please share the link?
andy42
Apr 5, 02:22 PM
Wiesmann baby!!!
http://www.iaablog.com/static/iaablog/images/wiesmann-mf5.jpg
http://www.iaablog.com/static/iaablog/images/wiesmann-mf5.jpg
more...
oMc
Dec 13, 07:38 PM
Excuse me, but i'm curious to know what are these software ?
Thank you.
1st : http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7600/33642412.jpg
2nd : http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/6364/10646848.jpg
Thank you.
1st : http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7600/33642412.jpg
2nd : http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/6364/10646848.jpg
el-John-o
Feb 9, 10:27 PM
But see you are not leaving AT&T now, you are leaving T-Mobile.
There are a number of att customers who find the service mediocre at best, but are willing to put up with it, verizon may be better. Still others didn't know att would be that bad but where stuck into contracts, and it worked well enough to justify waiting and not paying the termination fee. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who have no problems with att, but media hype and aggressive advertising has convinced them they do have a problem, so they will switch. I'm sticking with ATT, it has worked great for years and years for me.
There are a number of att customers who find the service mediocre at best, but are willing to put up with it, verizon may be better. Still others didn't know att would be that bad but where stuck into contracts, and it worked well enough to justify waiting and not paying the termination fee. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who have no problems with att, but media hype and aggressive advertising has convinced them they do have a problem, so they will switch. I'm sticking with ATT, it has worked great for years and years for me.
Otaillon
Aug 7, 11:16 PM
http://cl.ly/054a5eb400e758f4b849/content
pissedatmac
Apr 26, 08:53 AM
Hi,
I updated the RDP(i think, it could have been ARD) on a 10.5.7, and since then the ARD is crashing with error below.
-----------------
com.apple.RemoteDesktop.PrivilegeProxy[66932]: dyld: unknown required load command 0x80000022
ReportCrash[66933]: Formulating crash report for process VNCPrivilegeProxy[66932]
com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.RemoteDesktop.PrivilegeProxy[66932]): Exited abnormally: Trace/BPT trap
com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.RemoteDesktop.PrivilegeProxy): Throttling respawn: Will start in 10 seconds
ReportCrash[66933]: Saved crashreport to /Library/Logs/CrashReporter/VNCPrivilegeProxy_2011-04-26-063515_XSERVE.crash using uid: 0 gid: 0, euid: 0 egid: 0
--------------------
Here is whats in the crash report file
--------------------
Process: VNCPrivilegeProxy [67645]
Path: /System/Library/CoreServices/RemoteManagement/AppleVNCServer.bundle/Contents/Support/VNCPrivilegeProxy
Identifier: VNCPrivilegeProxy
Version: ??? (???)
Code Type: X86-64 (Native)
Parent Process: launchd [1]
Date/Time: 2011-04-26 06:48:12.617 -0700
OS Version: Mac OS X Server 10.5.7 (9J61)
Report Version: 6
Anonymous UUID: 320D84E6-F429-490C-BC86-62BD0D53AB2A
Exception Type: EXC_BREAKPOINT (SIGTRAP)
Exception Codes: 0x0000000000000002, 0x0000000000000000
Crashed Thread: 0
Dyld Error Message:
I updated the RDP(i think, it could have been ARD) on a 10.5.7, and since then the ARD is crashing with error below.
-----------------
com.apple.RemoteDesktop.PrivilegeProxy[66932]: dyld: unknown required load command 0x80000022
ReportCrash[66933]: Formulating crash report for process VNCPrivilegeProxy[66932]
com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.RemoteDesktop.PrivilegeProxy[66932]): Exited abnormally: Trace/BPT trap
com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.RemoteDesktop.PrivilegeProxy): Throttling respawn: Will start in 10 seconds
ReportCrash[66933]: Saved crashreport to /Library/Logs/CrashReporter/VNCPrivilegeProxy_2011-04-26-063515_XSERVE.crash using uid: 0 gid: 0, euid: 0 egid: 0
--------------------
Here is whats in the crash report file
--------------------
Process: VNCPrivilegeProxy [67645]
Path: /System/Library/CoreServices/RemoteManagement/AppleVNCServer.bundle/Contents/Support/VNCPrivilegeProxy
Identifier: VNCPrivilegeProxy
Version: ??? (???)
Code Type: X86-64 (Native)
Parent Process: launchd [1]
Date/Time: 2011-04-26 06:48:12.617 -0700
OS Version: Mac OS X Server 10.5.7 (9J61)
Report Version: 6
Anonymous UUID: 320D84E6-F429-490C-BC86-62BD0D53AB2A
Exception Type: EXC_BREAKPOINT (SIGTRAP)
Exception Codes: 0x0000000000000002, 0x0000000000000000
Crashed Thread: 0
Dyld Error Message:
Cynicalone
Mar 25, 10:45 AM
They need to improve the worthless notification system in iOS more than the maps.
mjsanders5uk
May 1, 02:37 PM
As a matter of interest,
Why is the info in Omni Outliner?
Why is the info in Omni Outliner?
abc123
Nov 4, 04:42 AM
i love these threads, i always find so many useful things.
aps that i use everyday are:
sidetrack: i don't know what i'd do without it. i hear that next revision we will start having to pay for it though.
adium: the only way i've managed to get both aim and msn file transfers to work + it looks amazing
menu calendar: i believe that while it is not free for full features you can still use the basic ones without paying. i've somehow managed to anyway. i really like having the date number in my menubar.
clear dock: not really needed but i like it
quicksilver: i can imagine not having this program, it makes life so much easier.
bytecontroller: control itunes from your menubar
gcount: gmail notifier
firefox: i find that it is faster than safari and i've just generally taken a liking to it.
i think that is about it on the free stuff
aps that i use everyday are:
sidetrack: i don't know what i'd do without it. i hear that next revision we will start having to pay for it though.
adium: the only way i've managed to get both aim and msn file transfers to work + it looks amazing
menu calendar: i believe that while it is not free for full features you can still use the basic ones without paying. i've somehow managed to anyway. i really like having the date number in my menubar.
clear dock: not really needed but i like it
quicksilver: i can imagine not having this program, it makes life so much easier.
bytecontroller: control itunes from your menubar
gcount: gmail notifier
firefox: i find that it is faster than safari and i've just generally taken a liking to it.
i think that is about it on the free stuff
shardey
Apr 10, 05:16 PM
My niece just noticed a crack on her iPad 2. She didn't drop it, she takes great care of it and she is a responsible adult. Has anyone else noticed an issue like this?
Post some pictures to help highlight the problem.
Post some pictures to help highlight the problem.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий