Psychic Shopper
Sep 4, 07:20 PM
"This would somewhat explain why the Paris Expo was given the cold shoulder."
Cold shoulder to say the least. The same day as the expo, in London, Apple will hold a press conference. If you are a reporter, where do you go?
Apple distanced itself from the Macworld New York Expo, I wonder if they are doing the same thing with the Paris expo?
Cold shoulder to say the least. The same day as the expo, in London, Apple will hold a press conference. If you are a reporter, where do you go?
Apple distanced itself from the Macworld New York Expo, I wonder if they are doing the same thing with the Paris expo?
davelanger
Mar 30, 11:59 AM
So?
The other company has got Apple trade marked. They are both in common use but are protected when used in the computer industry.
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/trademarks/usage/general.aspx
Apple isnt using Ms for using the term windows, something apple said way before MS. You also dont see apple using MS for using Word, or OFFICE either.
MS can NEVER be orginial they just steal ideas from apple.
Like I said, they could easily call their app store WinApp Store or even Mobile App Store and it would be fine, but they want to be cute and copy apple and just call it app store.
The other company has got Apple trade marked. They are both in common use but are protected when used in the computer industry.
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/trademarks/usage/general.aspx
Apple isnt using Ms for using the term windows, something apple said way before MS. You also dont see apple using MS for using Word, or OFFICE either.
MS can NEVER be orginial they just steal ideas from apple.
Like I said, they could easily call their app store WinApp Store or even Mobile App Store and it would be fine, but they want to be cute and copy apple and just call it app store.
ArcaneDevice
Mar 23, 04:34 PM
Honestly, do you think someone who is Drunk is going to be checking the app for the checkpoints?
Eh, yes.
There is more than one level of being drunk you know? Not everyone stumbles out of the pub and falls over. Those are the guys who are the least of the problem since they will be passed out before they can start the car.
It's those that are arrogant enough to believe that even though they've been drinking more than the limit they can still drive just fine that are the problem. They are the people who can also send text messages they regret in the morning and take camera photos of their ass.
Just because someone has been drinking it doesn't mean they can't fumble through a phone menu; but nobody gets killed by a poorly written text message.
Eh, yes.
There is more than one level of being drunk you know? Not everyone stumbles out of the pub and falls over. Those are the guys who are the least of the problem since they will be passed out before they can start the car.
It's those that are arrogant enough to believe that even though they've been drinking more than the limit they can still drive just fine that are the problem. They are the people who can also send text messages they regret in the morning and take camera photos of their ass.
Just because someone has been drinking it doesn't mean they can't fumble through a phone menu; but nobody gets killed by a poorly written text message.
APPLENEWBIE
Sep 5, 08:08 PM
Showtime may be a two track movie store. One track to rent or purchase movies for the 'big screen' tv, computer monitors. A second track to download movies in a much smaller format specifically for the new "Showtime iPod." That way, movies become very portable and easy/fast download for iPod, and a much longer download for the "Apple Movie Machine" for tv/computer?
Could be a really neat show and tell....
Could be a really neat show and tell....
coder12
May 3, 11:08 AM
What do people prefer? I've heard quite bad things about the Magic Mouse, the majority of people saying they find it uncomfortable etc?
As I already have a good Logitech wireless mouse, would it be a better combination to use that plus the Trackpad?
I'm personally a big fan of the mighty mouse. I have smaller hands, and also use bettertouchtool. I find certain maneuvers difficult with it still (like 3 finger swipes), but obviously I opt'd in for that ;)
They're both very nice pieces of hardware, with separate purposes. I'll be honest and say that if I had the choice between the two, I'd buy the trackpad:
a. Gestures on Lion feel better with it imho.
b. I use the keyboard for almost everything, and moving over to a mouse which I'll need to move farther away from my keyboard is irritating. The trackpad stays in one spot.
c. You already have a nice mouse ;)
As I already have a good Logitech wireless mouse, would it be a better combination to use that plus the Trackpad?
I'm personally a big fan of the mighty mouse. I have smaller hands, and also use bettertouchtool. I find certain maneuvers difficult with it still (like 3 finger swipes), but obviously I opt'd in for that ;)
They're both very nice pieces of hardware, with separate purposes. I'll be honest and say that if I had the choice between the two, I'd buy the trackpad:
a. Gestures on Lion feel better with it imho.
b. I use the keyboard for almost everything, and moving over to a mouse which I'll need to move farther away from my keyboard is irritating. The trackpad stays in one spot.
c. You already have a nice mouse ;)
gnasher729
Jul 20, 03:34 AM
Who is talking about low end Merom. I am talking about higher end with 4mb of Cache.
I highly doubt apple would use a low end merom, when they can go with a higher end.
The MacBook and MacBook Pro will both get 4mb Meroms.
Just FYI: It seems that Merom will ship at speeds from 1.66 to 2.33 GHz, the 1.66GHz and 1.83 GHz have 2 MB cache, and 2GHz and faster all have 4 MB cache. Prices seem to be identical to the current Yonah prices (except the 2.33; there is no 2.33 GHz Yonah). So I would expect that all Yonahs will be replaced with Merom at same clockspeed, and that means 4MB cache except for the low end MacBook and possibly MacMini.
I highly doubt apple would use a low end merom, when they can go with a higher end.
The MacBook and MacBook Pro will both get 4mb Meroms.
Just FYI: It seems that Merom will ship at speeds from 1.66 to 2.33 GHz, the 1.66GHz and 1.83 GHz have 2 MB cache, and 2GHz and faster all have 4 MB cache. Prices seem to be identical to the current Yonah prices (except the 2.33; there is no 2.33 GHz Yonah). So I would expect that all Yonahs will be replaced with Merom at same clockspeed, and that means 4MB cache except for the low end MacBook and possibly MacMini.
Alcibar
Apr 23, 09:06 AM
Some of us principally us the air for what it was designed for computing on the go i.e. travel. When you travel a lot it is nice to be able to kick back and enjoy a game or two. The ultimate 13 in plays all the recent games pretty well and works as a second laptop with my company provided POS.
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
cubbie5150
Feb 11, 11:47 AM
It IS a nice gesture... I had to uninstall it as it doesn't seem to play nice w/ Cyber Duck (app simply won't open w/ Sophos installed)....haven't run into chatter about that issue, so maybe something unique to me [shrug]
mlrproducts
Jul 14, 04:20 PM
Wow, that seems pretty darn reasonable.
I was considering putting a 2.16 Core Duo in my currently Core Solo Mac mini. But now I'd much rather put the 1.83 Core 2 Duo in there for less than $200!
I was considering putting a 2.16 Core Duo in my currently Core Solo Mac mini. But now I'd much rather put the 1.83 Core 2 Duo in there for less than $200!
HecubusPro
Aug 28, 06:30 PM
Not sure if this could be related, but we just tried to order 25 custom macbook pros and were told that such an order could not be carried out at this time. Perhaps something is going to be changing soon? (or maybe they're just out of some memory or something).
A very similar thing was reported earlier last week with a guy who wanted to purchase a whole slew of Mac Mini's.
I needed to order another bunch to use as Mac mini servers (and to add to my great wall of Apple boxes) but I was told by the reseller (name withdrawn so they don�t get in trouble) that they can�t take big orders (again), but after Labor Day they�d be able to ship plenty of the new model.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060824183848.shtml
I would think that's a very good indication that Apple is getting ready to begin selling the C2D MBP's. :D
A very similar thing was reported earlier last week with a guy who wanted to purchase a whole slew of Mac Mini's.
I needed to order another bunch to use as Mac mini servers (and to add to my great wall of Apple boxes) but I was told by the reseller (name withdrawn so they don�t get in trouble) that they can�t take big orders (again), but after Labor Day they�d be able to ship plenty of the new model.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060824183848.shtml
I would think that's a very good indication that Apple is getting ready to begin selling the C2D MBP's. :D
KingYaba
Apr 15, 03:10 PM
Now that it's part of the platform Apple has no excuse for not including it. However, it wouldn't surprise me to see a MBP with this platform that still only has 2.0 connectors.
And no BluRay. ;)
And no BluRay. ;)
0815
Apr 20, 01:58 PM
You're not getting it. You are looking at a sunny-sky situation where nothing bad ever happens. Let's look at it from my perspective, a real-world perspective: my Macbook, which was used to sync my iPhone and my wife's iPhone, was stolen last fall. So who has all of this supposedly "safe" data now? Whoever has that Macbook. Probably nothing will ever happen, but now I have that little thing in the back of my mind thinking, "Hmm, if that guy happens to read about this and happens to still have it, he could theoretically track our normal daily movements." In other words, he'd know our daily routine - you know, most people have a routine and stick to it and don't think a second thing about it. Conceivably, he could come back and strike again because he has a good feel of when we're not there. I'd say the likelihood of this happening is extremely low. But it could happen because of this. (And we know the Macbook was used for a long, long time because of Zumocast - had it on our iPhones and her computer and saw him logged in all the time, starting a couple days after he stole it. Was actually able to recover some family videos that way, actually.)
That's what you don't get. People shouldn't even have to worry about this. That kind of data shouldn't be available, period. PERIOD. And don't tell me to encrypt my iPhone backups, that's water under the bridge. Why doesn't iTunes encrypt them automatically, hmm? There's no need for any of this.
Finally some sensible example where this might cause a problem .... time for the 'remote erase' feature for MacBooks.
That's what you don't get. People shouldn't even have to worry about this. That kind of data shouldn't be available, period. PERIOD. And don't tell me to encrypt my iPhone backups, that's water under the bridge. Why doesn't iTunes encrypt them automatically, hmm? There's no need for any of this.
Finally some sensible example where this might cause a problem .... time for the 'remote erase' feature for MacBooks.
szark
Sep 15, 06:33 PM
What is NIH syndrome?
NIH = not invented here. apple was notorious for this behavior in the 80s and 90s, much to their detriment, and success.
Just to further clarify -- NIH syndrome is when a company chooses not to use technologies invented by other companies in its own products. They prefer to design and build the entire package themselves, in-house.
I'm not that interested in an iPhone. Apple would need to add some very unique features for me to consider buying one.
NIH = not invented here. apple was notorious for this behavior in the 80s and 90s, much to their detriment, and success.
Just to further clarify -- NIH syndrome is when a company chooses not to use technologies invented by other companies in its own products. They prefer to design and build the entire package themselves, in-house.
I'm not that interested in an iPhone. Apple would need to add some very unique features for me to consider buying one.
callme
Mar 29, 01:15 PM
They had 2.9% of the worldwide mobile phone market for 2010.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1543014
Thanks for that, I wondered what the latest figures were.
I'm sure Apple are thrilled with those numbers (I mean it).
At the profit margin they make on iPhones they will be happy with that sort of figure for years to come.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1543014
Thanks for that, I wondered what the latest figures were.
I'm sure Apple are thrilled with those numbers (I mean it).
At the profit margin they make on iPhones they will be happy with that sort of figure for years to come.
Flyinace2000
Sep 26, 07:27 AM
As long as i can buy one on ebay then i am happy.
bassfingers
Apr 22, 10:21 AM
I am so excited about whatever this is. So long as its more successful than game center...
theking79
Apr 30, 04:46 PM
To Quote Hellhammer specs,
"1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
750GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB"
More is here
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=943495&page=14
that top spec 27" is never going to happen, it will have 4GB RAM and a i5 processor with BTO option of a i7
"1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
750GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB"
More is here
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=943495&page=14
that top spec 27" is never going to happen, it will have 4GB RAM and a i5 processor with BTO option of a i7
TheKrillr
Aug 28, 01:21 PM
There are so many rumors about a new ipod coming in the next few weeks/months/etc, most likely announced at Paris (maybe).
That would be an awesome birthday present for me, my birthday is the 12th ;-)
That would be an awesome birthday present for me, my birthday is the 12th ;-)
Erwin-Br
Apr 28, 03:35 PM
So, are we supposed to be proud about this? And if so, why has the same 'accomplishment' earned Microsoft the 'M$' reputation? Double morals?
Eidorian
May 3, 10:12 AM
Dual ports should have been on the notebooks as well.
Philsy
Sep 26, 09:23 AM
Very hard to say, but 3G is not taking to the rest of the world very well, especially the US as they can't get 2/2.5G to work properly yet. This is about the only occasion when the UK really is doing well.
Fair point, but I'd like to think that Apple will be looking to the future; imagine being able to buy music via your phone - couldn't do that with 2G.
Besides, the US is only a small part of the global market... ;)
Fair point, but I'd like to think that Apple will be looking to the future; imagine being able to buy music via your phone - couldn't do that with 2G.
Besides, the US is only a small part of the global market... ;)
EagerDragon
Sep 26, 08:07 PM
The phone needs to be open!
I am tired of getting rip off by the providers, phones need to be able to move from one provider to another.
I am tired of getting rip off by the providers, phones need to be able to move from one provider to another.
DelisleBA.info
Apr 25, 01:17 PM
IDK about you all but I would love to see round edges and a bigger keyboard on the 15 and 17 inch models. When I say bigger I mean including the home, end, backspace, crtl key on right and page up and down keys instead of the dust trap speaker grills they have now.
