DewGuy1999
Jan 30, 12:11 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61KATOa7pCL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Anghammarad
May 3, 08:07 AM
50% higher price in Sweden than US. Even with VAT of 25% added to the US price they are still 23% more expensive.
Swedish price from $1830.
Swedish price from $1830.
Moyank24
Apr 25, 04:44 PM
Moyank24 because she is a woman who won't give me cheap sammiches. Sounds wolfish to me. :D
I'll change my vote if any good evidence shows up.
I am completely and utterly shocked by this vote.
/sarcasm
And forget about cheap sandwiches...you're paying double for lapdances!
I'll change my vote if any good evidence shows up.
I am completely and utterly shocked by this vote.
/sarcasm
And forget about cheap sandwiches...you're paying double for lapdances!
Apple OC
Apr 24, 07:15 PM
the fact is nobody knows the facts ... it could have been a Man trying to disguise himself as a Woman to gain access to the Woman's washroom.
maybe he was not a transgender and was a threat to young girls in the bathroom.
I don't think anybody has all the facts ... he was hardly beaten to the point where this thread is labeled "almost killed"
maybe he was not a transgender and was a threat to young girls in the bathroom.
I don't think anybody has all the facts ... he was hardly beaten to the point where this thread is labeled "almost killed"
michaelrjohnson
Jul 21, 10:25 AM
Exciting to hear.
Hopefully they've entered a period of sustained growth, one that can carry them far into the future.
... though will they ever break through that 5% glass ceiling?
Given that they're at 4.7% (averaged), I'll guess they'll cross 5% within the next calendar year. (Though I suspect it may happen before MWSF)
Hopefully they've entered a period of sustained growth, one that can carry them far into the future.
... though will they ever break through that 5% glass ceiling?
Given that they're at 4.7% (averaged), I'll guess they'll cross 5% within the next calendar year. (Though I suspect it may happen before MWSF)
mazola
Jul 25, 12:01 AM
I wouldn't touch one.
chrmjenkins
Apr 22, 04:30 PM
Josh tweeted
Remember when we saw leaks of the iPhone 4 and everyone said how ugly it was? Yep...
I was among those that thought it was ugly, and that was an actual leaked device.
Save your breath for something a little more detailed than a mockup based on some guy's sketch.
Remember when we saw leaks of the iPhone 4 and everyone said how ugly it was? Yep...
I was among those that thought it was ugly, and that was an actual leaked device.
Save your breath for something a little more detailed than a mockup based on some guy's sketch.
grahamnp
Apr 1, 01:55 AM
That is butt ugly. I should just retain the unified window appearance and make all the modifications inside the window instead.
dethmaShine
Mar 31, 01:10 PM
That kind of sounds like something Bill Gates would say (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP0_uN42P44). :p
(Didn't see the video as of yet)
Absolutely no.
I hate the way windows looks in its default configuration. It is too shiny; too glossy and I just cannot get it to work. I have to go to windows 98 style to get back to normal functioning.
As for my comment, I simply mean that Apple needs to move beyond the grey effect and introduce another colour set or sets of UI elements. I like this. :)
Major Dislike As Of Now
I hate the way they are transitioning to non-Lucida Grande type fonts. See 'Day', 'Week', 'Month' text fonts. I absolutely don't like this.
(Didn't see the video as of yet)
Absolutely no.
I hate the way windows looks in its default configuration. It is too shiny; too glossy and I just cannot get it to work. I have to go to windows 98 style to get back to normal functioning.
As for my comment, I simply mean that Apple needs to move beyond the grey effect and introduce another colour set or sets of UI elements. I like this. :)
Major Dislike As Of Now
I hate the way they are transitioning to non-Lucida Grande type fonts. See 'Day', 'Week', 'Month' text fonts. I absolutely don't like this.
bella92108
Jun 6, 08:45 PM
Well there is always this woman
http://poponthepop.com/images/gallery/nadya-suleman-grin.jpg
LOL, she wouldn't blink an eye @ $1000 app thanks to her "fame" for popping out more kids than she could otherwise take care of, lol.
http://poponthepop.com/images/gallery/nadya-suleman-grin.jpg
LOL, she wouldn't blink an eye @ $1000 app thanks to her "fame" for popping out more kids than she could otherwise take care of, lol.
johnnyjibbs
Mar 31, 11:51 AM
Firstly, I'd be very surprised if this was Gold Master considering how early it is and I was expecting there to be a few UI updates prior to its release given that the Leopard look is quite old now.
But now they've given us this, a hark back to the whole brushed metal fiasco of early Mac OS X, where there was a mixture of ghastly brushed metal and aqua (yes and that brushed metal Finder ;)). The original reasoning behind the brushed metal was that it was supposed to be reserved for things like iTunes, where certain apps were supposed to resemble their physical counterparts (sound familiar?) but then Apple had to keep amending the UI Interface rules to cover off its many own violations!
Something tells me we're not done yet. Expect Address Book to be the next to 'go leather'. And I wouldn't be surprised if that was it.
From what I remember, Leopard looked like Tiger did for most of its development, before a release just prior to Gold Master made everything the dark grey gradient as you see today. It wouldn't surprise me if the end Lion product looks nothing like the Leopard/Snow Leopard look that you see right now.
When Steve said he wanted to see more of the iPad on Mac OS X, at least we now know he wasn't kidding ;)
But now they've given us this, a hark back to the whole brushed metal fiasco of early Mac OS X, where there was a mixture of ghastly brushed metal and aqua (yes and that brushed metal Finder ;)). The original reasoning behind the brushed metal was that it was supposed to be reserved for things like iTunes, where certain apps were supposed to resemble their physical counterparts (sound familiar?) but then Apple had to keep amending the UI Interface rules to cover off its many own violations!
Something tells me we're not done yet. Expect Address Book to be the next to 'go leather'. And I wouldn't be surprised if that was it.
From what I remember, Leopard looked like Tiger did for most of its development, before a release just prior to Gold Master made everything the dark grey gradient as you see today. It wouldn't surprise me if the end Lion product looks nothing like the Leopard/Snow Leopard look that you see right now.
When Steve said he wanted to see more of the iPad on Mac OS X, at least we now know he wasn't kidding ;)
thisisahughes
Apr 13, 04:45 AM
wonder what the price is. Actually, not sure if I want to know.
exactly.
exactly.
doctor-don
Apr 25, 11:34 PM
i hope this is true!
i am a 4G contractor right now here in T-mobile and i'll tell you HSPA+ is not as fast as verizon LTE but hey, there is no cap! right now im testing HSPA+ and im getting 4mbps on mytouch.
i hope this merging will not push thru.. or else, at&t; will only butcher t-mobile good network..
Not to mention what they will do to the T-Mobile employees.
i am a 4G contractor right now here in T-mobile and i'll tell you HSPA+ is not as fast as verizon LTE but hey, there is no cap! right now im testing HSPA+ and im getting 4mbps on mytouch.
i hope this merging will not push thru.. or else, at&t; will only butcher t-mobile good network..
Not to mention what they will do to the T-Mobile employees.
entatlrg
Apr 22, 02:46 AM
Even more entertaining is the fact that Apple is so arrogant they fail to realize how stupid they look.
Suing their biggest vendor.
It doesn't get any more stupid than that.
And you're the know it all because?
Suing their biggest vendor.
It doesn't get any more stupid than that.
And you're the know it all because?
SkyeHack
Jan 30, 12:29 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5401263439_a17e9bec6c_o.jpg
- MacBook Air
- iPad
- iTouch
- Apple Accessories
Am I part of the Apple Family Now?
- MacBook Air
- iPad
- iTouch
- Apple Accessories
Am I part of the Apple Family Now?
bradl
May 2, 01:41 AM
All I have to say that hasn't been said yet is...
.. not bad for someone whom his detractors stated he was unqualified to be POTUS because of lack of military experience..
Funny that it took a small dagger strike at the heart instead of Bush's running in with guns blazing, shooting first and asking questions later. If someone would have thought of that 8 years ago, this would have been a done deal.
Obama is definitely getting another 4 years out of this.
BL.
.. not bad for someone whom his detractors stated he was unqualified to be POTUS because of lack of military experience..
Funny that it took a small dagger strike at the heart instead of Bush's running in with guns blazing, shooting first and asking questions later. If someone would have thought of that 8 years ago, this would have been a done deal.
Obama is definitely getting another 4 years out of this.
BL.
Weaselboy
Apr 14, 01:21 PM
http://i.imgur.com/FWQIv.png
666MB for AT&T; iPhone 4.
Of course it would be 666mb for AT&T...;
;)
Dun dun dun... :D
666MB for AT&T; iPhone 4.
Of course it would be 666mb for AT&T...;
;)
Dun dun dun... :D
pacmans
Oct 26, 08:16 PM
Canon EOS 7D!
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
![]()
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
!� V �!
Apr 25, 02:30 PM
Yes. Usually from the time the launch day is announced to a month or two after it ships. In the past there has been a $10-20 media charge but if 10.7 ships via the app store I guess it will be free or some nominal amount like $1 to satisfy any accounting rules.
Ditto. :apple: Usually sets a timeframe, or Mac model that would have been released shortly before the next major OS upgrade. They do this to lure in developers to the newer version of they OS and to demonstrate to the press that the Mac community in majority have adopted the new release. Anything else is just marketing and supposed accounting. :)
Ditto. :apple: Usually sets a timeframe, or Mac model that would have been released shortly before the next major OS upgrade. They do this to lure in developers to the newer version of they OS and to demonstrate to the press that the Mac community in majority have adopted the new release. Anything else is just marketing and supposed accounting. :)
Full of Win
Apr 21, 10:30 PM
Take the fight to them Sammy! Don't give in to the bully that Apple has become.
JGowan
Jul 28, 07:30 AM
"Three to Five Years"! What a HARD laugh!
The iPod (which started the whole dang thang) has only been OUT for five years and the iTunes Music Store for about three.
I think it is downright presumptous to predict 5 years down the pike just about anything when NOBODY could've predicted just what Apple would accomplish in such a period of time.
The iPod (which started the whole dang thang) has only been OUT for five years and the iTunes Music Store for about three.
I think it is downright presumptous to predict 5 years down the pike just about anything when NOBODY could've predicted just what Apple would accomplish in such a period of time.
eawmp1
Apr 24, 09:54 PM
IMO the Men's washroom ... until he finishes with the transformation ... he is still just a cross dresser
Transgender means she self-identifies as a woman, in a male body.
Cross-dressing would mean he self-identifies as a man, in women's clothing.
Your humble opinion is medically incorrect.
Transgender means she self-identifies as a woman, in a male body.
Cross-dressing would mean he self-identifies as a man, in women's clothing.
Your humble opinion is medically incorrect.
jason2811
Apr 24, 09:52 PM
Apparently it has an A5 chip.
http://www.9to5mac.com/63457/leaked-t-mobile-iphone-has-an-a5-chip-might-be-the-iphone-4s/
http://www.9to5mac.com/63457/leaked-t-mobile-iphone-has-an-a5-chip-might-be-the-iphone-4s/
