toddybody
Apr 6, 10:57 AM
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
Ehhh...youre missing his point (and being a bit rude). The IGP on SB is NOT as capable as nVidia's 320M. Certainly the SB architecture will yield great processing improvements to the MBA (over the C2D)...but graphics will most likely take a hit. That was his concern.
Ehhh...youre missing his point (and being a bit rude). The IGP on SB is NOT as capable as nVidia's 320M. Certainly the SB architecture will yield great processing improvements to the MBA (over the C2D)...but graphics will most likely take a hit. That was his concern.
citizenzen
Mar 17, 10:44 AM
Yet another war, yet another military action which will inevitably cause 'blow-back', started by a man who sold himself to you as a military dove.
While I might agree with some of things you said, I do have to take exception to this point. How did Obama sell himself as a "military dove"?
He campaigned on getting out of Iraq, while escalating our campaign in Afghanistan. And promises to close Gitmo had more to do with due process than it did pacifism.
So please 5P, provide some evidence on how Obama sold himself as a "dove".
And please, let's dispense with your ridiculous "both parties are the same line". Is that a pickle in your pocket, or are you just happy to see Newt Gingrich?
While I might agree with some of things you said, I do have to take exception to this point. How did Obama sell himself as a "military dove"?
He campaigned on getting out of Iraq, while escalating our campaign in Afghanistan. And promises to close Gitmo had more to do with due process than it did pacifism.
So please 5P, provide some evidence on how Obama sold himself as a "dove".
And please, let's dispense with your ridiculous "both parties are the same line". Is that a pickle in your pocket, or are you just happy to see Newt Gingrich?
jmgregory1
Apr 6, 03:33 PM
The idea that Apple needs competitors to keep pushing forward with the iPad or any other product makes no sense. Apple brought the iPad, iPhone, iPod to market and it's the competition that is trying to catch up to Apple. By suggesting that Apple needs others to push forward with new designs/ideas is not giving Apple the credit they deserve for creating these markets (as we know them) in the first place.
Competition between tablets is going to potentially benefit the non-iPad tablets most - as they compete on specs, not the bigger picture ecosystem (because for those running android, there will be no ecosystem difference). BB's PB will have to fight for its own share of the non-Apple, non-Android market as will HP.
Competition between tablets is going to potentially benefit the non-iPad tablets most - as they compete on specs, not the bigger picture ecosystem (because for those running android, there will be no ecosystem difference). BB's PB will have to fight for its own share of the non-Apple, non-Android market as will HP.
Multimedia
Jul 27, 11:48 PM
Ahh so many announcments !!! Kill me now ! I'm waiting for the end of august then I'm buying whatever I can get.You might want to make that til Tuesday September 12 when the Paris Apple Expo opens with an Apple keynote.
"Otellini said the company expects to ship its 1 millionth Core 2 Duo processor in a little less than seven weeks after launch. In comparison, it took Pentium a year to reach that level of ramp-up. (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/27/core2duo/index.php)"
Two million cores shipped by this time in September. Wow!
"Otellini said the company expects to ship its 1 millionth Core 2 Duo processor in a little less than seven weeks after launch. In comparison, it took Pentium a year to reach that level of ramp-up. (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/27/core2duo/index.php)"
Two million cores shipped by this time in September. Wow!
superleccy
Nov 28, 06:34 PM
No no no no no no NO. For all the reasons that everyone has already said.
:mad:
:mad:
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 02:26 PM
That is totally reasonable and understandable, although I do disagree. I can't with good heart support sending my neighbors son/daughter overseas to fight for another people.
Well, we have allies, don't we? I simply consider the UN an attempt to permanently ally the world's nations to the extent that these sort of situations can be dealt with based on broader consensus. We are far from the ideal, but we must keep working towards it and an imperfect UN is better than no UN at all.
I just find it pretty disgusting when we have the VP going on the record talking out his arse about "Unless we are attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked", then a couple years later nary a peep when we start bombing a foreign country that is not even close to a threat to us. Did Biden qualify it with a " we should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions." NOPE!
I'm not going to defend Biden, he puts his foot in his mouth quite a bit - though he is FAR from the only politician in Washingotn with that problem. Besides, unlike Cheney, he is very much playing second fiddle in the administration (actually he's so far down the pecking order only fiddles when someone lends him one, if I can stretch that saying to the breaking point).
It is worth remembering that the Bush Administration sent that clown Bolton as our representative to the UN - a man who opposes that organization's very existence. Incredibly counterproductive. No, I expect hypocrisy from both Democrats and Republicans.
I think it all boils down to whether you buy into the notion that the UN is a global representative body. If you do, then sending troops to enforce UN resolutions is not just fighting for "other people" but fighting for ouselves. If member nations took the concept of the UN more seriously, UN resolutions alone might be enough to stabilize situations like this without the need for major military intervention.
Well, we have allies, don't we? I simply consider the UN an attempt to permanently ally the world's nations to the extent that these sort of situations can be dealt with based on broader consensus. We are far from the ideal, but we must keep working towards it and an imperfect UN is better than no UN at all.
I just find it pretty disgusting when we have the VP going on the record talking out his arse about "Unless we are attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked", then a couple years later nary a peep when we start bombing a foreign country that is not even close to a threat to us. Did Biden qualify it with a " we should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions." NOPE!
I'm not going to defend Biden, he puts his foot in his mouth quite a bit - though he is FAR from the only politician in Washingotn with that problem. Besides, unlike Cheney, he is very much playing second fiddle in the administration (actually he's so far down the pecking order only fiddles when someone lends him one, if I can stretch that saying to the breaking point).
It is worth remembering that the Bush Administration sent that clown Bolton as our representative to the UN - a man who opposes that organization's very existence. Incredibly counterproductive. No, I expect hypocrisy from both Democrats and Republicans.
I think it all boils down to whether you buy into the notion that the UN is a global representative body. If you do, then sending troops to enforce UN resolutions is not just fighting for "other people" but fighting for ouselves. If member nations took the concept of the UN more seriously, UN resolutions alone might be enough to stabilize situations like this without the need for major military intervention.
Nuck81
Dec 10, 11:57 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu2DmNkYMS3bLo917ue-dU60FBiYX3jEkP23araWEdHczbVXiIqK1If61AGujZSdO2mdB9ZmHCD0jM6Ock8OXEQxEHNhAGcovtqNUS8fKYSn3o1FLW2hs3n6ACHz2JDDcf2cQ9H4da7h8/s400/Haters_Gonna_Hate_20.jpg
SuperCachetes
Feb 28, 08:45 PM
No because heterosexuality is the default way the brain works
...And the Oscar for "Greatest Generalization In An Online Forum" goes to...
You.
:rolleyes:
...And the Oscar for "Greatest Generalization In An Online Forum" goes to...
You.
:rolleyes:
ergle2
Sep 15, 12:25 PM
A cancelled Digital RISC CPU.
Although, some of the ideas for the cancelled CPU ended up in the Alpha chips.
NT was originally designed for the i860, which was codenamed the N-10 (hence NT).
Anything for Digital would have been while Cutler was at Digital, I imagine, rather than after he joined Microsoft.
Although, some of the ideas for the cancelled CPU ended up in the Alpha chips.
NT was originally designed for the i860, which was codenamed the N-10 (hence NT).
Anything for Digital would have been while Cutler was at Digital, I imagine, rather than after he joined Microsoft.
benthewraith
Nov 28, 08:18 PM
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks…
It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks…
It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.
thibaulthalpern
Mar 31, 10:14 PM
Probably what bothers me the most about the discourse that Android is open is the underlying logic that is an implicit (or perhaps really explicit, depending on who is touting that discourse) assumption that it is democratic, liberal, progressive, and for "the people" and thus prevents a "draconian future" from happening because instead of letting corporations dictate our digital worlds, the people will a) have a say in it and b) have a choice.
Baloney!
This discourse makes a false link between software being open source and political ideology. The two are not necessarily corresponding. And furthermore, that Android is actually open source is highly debatable but I won't go there.
Why do so many technophiles fall for the discourse that open means choice means freedom mean democracy discourse? It's all BALONEY! Google isn't really interested in protecting your freedom, democracy etc.. It's really interested in surviving and making money. Let's try not to fall AGAIN for that political cover.
In this case, I find Apple much more honest. They don't talk about political ideologies like freedom, democracy etc. All they say is they want to make devices that are friendly and easy to use. They don't couch their products in political ideological terms.
Baloney!
This discourse makes a false link between software being open source and political ideology. The two are not necessarily corresponding. And furthermore, that Android is actually open source is highly debatable but I won't go there.
Why do so many technophiles fall for the discourse that open means choice means freedom mean democracy discourse? It's all BALONEY! Google isn't really interested in protecting your freedom, democracy etc.. It's really interested in surviving and making money. Let's try not to fall AGAIN for that political cover.
In this case, I find Apple much more honest. They don't talk about political ideologies like freedom, democracy etc. All they say is they want to make devices that are friendly and easy to use. They don't couch their products in political ideological terms.
blesscheese
Mar 26, 09:16 AM
Wait until the first revision comes up! as always, the desperates install the new OS that come full of bugs and then complains starts "I lost all my data".
Just my 2cents.
Not to mention that this sort of upgrades just make you buying a new machine to run the system as it should.
I agree...btw, before they release the new OS, shouldn't they fix the flaws in the old one first? Oh well, no chance of that now, "the new OS is far better than the old one..." (shades of M$ hyping Windows 95 as "the best ever," and then to market Win98, talking about how crappy Win95 was).
Is it me, or has Snow Leopard felt more like a marketing tool to get Apple's hands more fully into my wallet? The 10.6.6 update just to put the App Store icon in my dock was a bit over the top.
Just my 2cents.
Not to mention that this sort of upgrades just make you buying a new machine to run the system as it should.
I agree...btw, before they release the new OS, shouldn't they fix the flaws in the old one first? Oh well, no chance of that now, "the new OS is far better than the old one..." (shades of M$ hyping Windows 95 as "the best ever," and then to market Win98, talking about how crappy Win95 was).
Is it me, or has Snow Leopard felt more like a marketing tool to get Apple's hands more fully into my wallet? The 10.6.6 update just to put the App Store icon in my dock was a bit over the top.
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 04:19 PM
No they werent, what apple describes was already shows and build BEFORE iphone. If any apple basicly admits they copied it themselves and should get sued.
No, it wasn't shown before the iPhone, the F700 had a different interface when it was shown.
No, it wasn't shown before the iPhone, the F700 had a different interface when it was shown.
jaxstate
Aug 11, 02:37 PM
Apple will choose Cingular because they lock their phones and T-Mobile don't.:rolleyes:
Nuc
Aug 25, 03:29 PM
Well still waiting. I did talk to one of the support people but got transferred. I did mention that I got hung up on yesterday. He said there were a huge amount of people calling about the recall.
I'm listening to a female repeat herself over and over in two different languages. I can't figure out the second language but it's annoying!
-
-
Ok I'm getting refunded since I went and bought one (Nike+ iPod kit) at footlocker today...
Other than the wait I can't complain since they're nice.
Nuc
I'm listening to a female repeat herself over and over in two different languages. I can't figure out the second language but it's annoying!
-
-
Ok I'm getting refunded since I went and bought one (Nike+ iPod kit) at footlocker today...
Other than the wait I can't complain since they're nice.
Nuc
skunk
Mar 21, 02:58 PM
I see your point. Personally, I'd been hoping Obama might hold ground on issues such as torture/surveillance/getting out of wars, and was fully prepared to accept fiscal policies I would hate (as a conservative--NOT a Republican, mind you) if we'd get some of the aforementioned issues. Gave up on any hope of that when PATRIOT got extended, though...on a few social issues (gay rights) Obama has distinguished himself admirably from his predecessor. However, in the big picture, we've still got a shill for big business and big government/brother, who is overextending the American military with conflicts in which we cannot afford to participate.Strangely enough, I agree with you entirely. :confused:
peharri
Jul 14, 03:36 PM
I think most of your proposed reasons aren't really as practical or useful as people think in practice (that is, most people would never do it, or otherwise gain an advantage); however:
And bluray drives will be INCREDIBLY expensive when these machines ship, not to mention who knows how well they will burn cd's and dvd's (assuming that all bluray drives will be burners, none of them readers only). Many people will want to wait and add a bluray or hd-dvd later, especially since nobody knows which will be the winning format.
This one I can believe. Room for a future HD optical disk format reader. Makes sense. I was envisaging the Mac Pro coming with two drives, but it makes sense it would come with one and have a slot for a new one for a later date. I suspect a standalone BR or HDDVD drive would cost less than one that also has to replace the functionality of a Superdrive.
If this is Apple's reasoning, it also suggests they're being more pragmatic than analysts keep suggesting on the whole DVDng war. Which makes sense. I have a gut feeling that HDDVD and Bluray are to DVD what SACD and DVD-Audio are to CDs.
And bluray drives will be INCREDIBLY expensive when these machines ship, not to mention who knows how well they will burn cd's and dvd's (assuming that all bluray drives will be burners, none of them readers only). Many people will want to wait and add a bluray or hd-dvd later, especially since nobody knows which will be the winning format.
This one I can believe. Room for a future HD optical disk format reader. Makes sense. I was envisaging the Mac Pro coming with two drives, but it makes sense it would come with one and have a slot for a new one for a later date. I suspect a standalone BR or HDDVD drive would cost less than one that also has to replace the functionality of a Superdrive.
If this is Apple's reasoning, it also suggests they're being more pragmatic than analysts keep suggesting on the whole DVDng war. Which makes sense. I have a gut feeling that HDDVD and Bluray are to DVD what SACD and DVD-Audio are to CDs.
sososowhat
Sep 13, 09:50 AM
One could run a Folding@Home process on each core :D
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 09:43 AM
As for your theoretical 24GHz processor, such a thing is simply not possible with today's technology.
Just stating 'I knew that' I just used it as an example. Chundles gets confused easily so I have to make things simple. Hi Chundles :D
Just stating 'I knew that' I just used it as an example. Chundles gets confused easily so I have to make things simple. Hi Chundles :D
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 04:01 PM
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
This is a simple look at a complex process. Adding more ram may be good in a system that doesn't control app usage well, but it's something completely different when the system can control for app processes. If you have a product that works perfectly well with a certain spec, is there a need to add more of a certain thing? What benefit does it offer? Apple is a smart company - why build more cost into hardware if you can make your software make up any potential shortcomings in hardware?
Of course the competition has to market its products as being different in some way compared to Apple and convince you, the buying public, that it means something to have double this or less of that.
Frankly, I think these companies should be trying to come up with the next thing - instead of just trying to compete against the iPad - but they won't do that. They'll wait until Apple releases the next new thing and just copy that. It's pitiful really.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
This is a simple look at a complex process. Adding more ram may be good in a system that doesn't control app usage well, but it's something completely different when the system can control for app processes. If you have a product that works perfectly well with a certain spec, is there a need to add more of a certain thing? What benefit does it offer? Apple is a smart company - why build more cost into hardware if you can make your software make up any potential shortcomings in hardware?
Of course the competition has to market its products as being different in some way compared to Apple and convince you, the buying public, that it means something to have double this or less of that.
Frankly, I think these companies should be trying to come up with the next thing - instead of just trying to compete against the iPad - but they won't do that. They'll wait until Apple releases the next new thing and just copy that. It's pitiful really.
brownpaw
Jun 11, 03:50 PM
I used to work at radioshack too and the resources there suck. Activation will take longer than usual and they can mess up your account/credit. I hated activating phones cause it was a hassle since we were not connected directly with carriers.
Now for Radioshack. Brother-in-Law goes and his credit gets run twice by child who works at Radioshack and signs him up to expensive plan. So they have to call their 3rd party service provider and the manager there and employee make a big mess of his ATT account and turns out the phone they had was from a customer return, not even brand new. He ends up just getting bad credit after 4 hrs in the stuffy dusty shack. We go to apple next week, now he has to put deposit cause his credit was messed up but guess what? thats right apple waived it as they saw the mistake and he gets a brand new phone. :) Radioshack = worse place to get any phone Apple = smart well trained employees
I just talked about these cases closest to me but I'll tell you those Radioshack employees are the worst to buy any cellphone from. you take a risk with your credit, used phone possibly, long activations, and bad locale.
Just wanted to say that generally when people have these types of experiences, they are at RadioShack franchises and not company-run (corporate) stores. I have worked at both in the past, and though it's been about 6 years, I can say that things were definitely very different.
Franchise stores, at the time, did indeed work through 3rd party processors for cell phones so it was easier to mess things up. However, it was all through a web interface so more often than not the problems stemmed from the interface crashing or it not being up to date with the latest promotions, etc, than actual user error.
Corporate stores also ran through a web interface but it was directly through the carrier so it was much more reliable.
The bigger problem with cell phones at RadioShack was consistency. The sales flyers would always talk about this deal or that deal, and oftentimes that deal wasn't even offered to franchise stores.
I think a bit of this has been resolved, and I wouldn't mind getting a phone through RadioShack nowadays if there was a good promotion.
However, as someone else said, RadioShack prices on most other things are ridiculously high. I felt terrible when I saw a guy at our store sell this old man a 30-ft HDMI cable for $300. Not kidding at all. I don't know how they stay in business, their prices on most things are not competitive at all.
sw
Now for Radioshack. Brother-in-Law goes and his credit gets run twice by child who works at Radioshack and signs him up to expensive plan. So they have to call their 3rd party service provider and the manager there and employee make a big mess of his ATT account and turns out the phone they had was from a customer return, not even brand new. He ends up just getting bad credit after 4 hrs in the stuffy dusty shack. We go to apple next week, now he has to put deposit cause his credit was messed up but guess what? thats right apple waived it as they saw the mistake and he gets a brand new phone. :) Radioshack = worse place to get any phone Apple = smart well trained employees
I just talked about these cases closest to me but I'll tell you those Radioshack employees are the worst to buy any cellphone from. you take a risk with your credit, used phone possibly, long activations, and bad locale.
Just wanted to say that generally when people have these types of experiences, they are at RadioShack franchises and not company-run (corporate) stores. I have worked at both in the past, and though it's been about 6 years, I can say that things were definitely very different.
Franchise stores, at the time, did indeed work through 3rd party processors for cell phones so it was easier to mess things up. However, it was all through a web interface so more often than not the problems stemmed from the interface crashing or it not being up to date with the latest promotions, etc, than actual user error.
Corporate stores also ran through a web interface but it was directly through the carrier so it was much more reliable.
The bigger problem with cell phones at RadioShack was consistency. The sales flyers would always talk about this deal or that deal, and oftentimes that deal wasn't even offered to franchise stores.
I think a bit of this has been resolved, and I wouldn't mind getting a phone through RadioShack nowadays if there was a good promotion.
However, as someone else said, RadioShack prices on most other things are ridiculously high. I felt terrible when I saw a guy at our store sell this old man a 30-ft HDMI cable for $300. Not kidding at all. I don't know how they stay in business, their prices on most things are not competitive at all.
sw
leekohler
Feb 28, 12:57 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
What I do is none of your damn business. And your opinion has no bearing on my life. Why you feel the need to tell others what to do is beyond me. Take care of your own house, let me take care of mine.
What I do is none of your damn business. And your opinion has no bearing on my life. Why you feel the need to tell others what to do is beyond me. Take care of your own house, let me take care of mine.
ECUpirate44
Apr 11, 11:27 AM
Makes my recent iPhone 4 purchase look like a good decision. Sorry for those who are waiting for the 5 :o
LagunaSol
Apr 11, 04:24 PM
Browsing the Internet, Calendar, Checking Mail, Listening to songs, Texting, Multitasking, Notifications, Cut-Copy-Paste, ability to open and use Office files, basic tools like Currency converters, To-Do lists etc. These are what i believe encompasses in a "smartphone", and here's the newsflash: Android OS meets them perfectly.
"Perfectly?" Really?
I can do everything you listed above in iOS just as well as Android - and in many cases better - except in the area of notifications. An area in which iOS truly does suck. How Apple has not yet fixed this boggles the mind.
The iPhone was late on MMS, Multitasking, Cut-Copy-Paste, and now it's going to be a notification system.
If you're going to use "late" as a barometer of success, Android was "later" than iOS at doing just about everything else.
Plus, browsing the internet and checking mail is much better on a bigger screen.
Yep, like an...iPad? :p
I feel the App Store is just an added feature, and that's why i'd get an iPod Touch for.
Of course. Those bajillion apps, most of which completely destroy Android in quality, are an unimportant aside.
Android OS already has the "smartphone" features down, and they're just working on the bonus features such as the Android App Store.
If Google thinks like you - that the App Store is merely a "bonus feature" - this war will be won by Apple.
"Perfectly?" Really?
I can do everything you listed above in iOS just as well as Android - and in many cases better - except in the area of notifications. An area in which iOS truly does suck. How Apple has not yet fixed this boggles the mind.
The iPhone was late on MMS, Multitasking, Cut-Copy-Paste, and now it's going to be a notification system.
If you're going to use "late" as a barometer of success, Android was "later" than iOS at doing just about everything else.
Plus, browsing the internet and checking mail is much better on a bigger screen.
Yep, like an...iPad? :p
I feel the App Store is just an added feature, and that's why i'd get an iPod Touch for.
Of course. Those bajillion apps, most of which completely destroy Android in quality, are an unimportant aside.
Android OS already has the "smartphone" features down, and they're just working on the bonus features such as the Android App Store.
If Google thinks like you - that the App Store is merely a "bonus feature" - this war will be won by Apple.
No comments:
Post a Comment