cadillaccactus
Sep 16, 12:33 AM
http://www.gigapxl.org/
floydian0777
Sep 12, 02:16 PM
where did the student pricing go? i guess there was an overall drop, but I was hoping to use my discount one more time before graduating
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.
Spiritgreywolf
Apr 30, 04:38 PM
Okay, all the new processor stuff - awesome. Wonderful that it will have some super-fast ports.
When I got my 27" 2.7GHz Core i7 iMac, I tried boosting some throughput with iSCSI and fatter network packets between my older MBP and my Drobo-FS NAS.
Alas, that was not the case. I was restricted to the network framesize of 1500 because someone at Apple decided to cheap-out and go chintzy on the network chips.
Are they going to do the same thing on this round? Gee - one extra dollar might have made a big difference. As it stands, only my OLDER MBP and an ASUS P6T Mobo-based PC I built can handle bigger frames. :mad:
So tell me Steve - gonna do that again? Cheese-out on something you think *I* don't need? Personally I would e-Bay my 27" iMac and get a new one - but if the Broadcom chipset is chintzed again, a new iMac will never be in my future again...
When I got my 27" 2.7GHz Core i7 iMac, I tried boosting some throughput with iSCSI and fatter network packets between my older MBP and my Drobo-FS NAS.
Alas, that was not the case. I was restricted to the network framesize of 1500 because someone at Apple decided to cheap-out and go chintzy on the network chips.
Are they going to do the same thing on this round? Gee - one extra dollar might have made a big difference. As it stands, only my OLDER MBP and an ASUS P6T Mobo-based PC I built can handle bigger frames. :mad:
So tell me Steve - gonna do that again? Cheese-out on something you think *I* don't need? Personally I would e-Bay my 27" iMac and get a new one - but if the Broadcom chipset is chintzed again, a new iMac will never be in my future again...
miller218
Aug 28, 03:51 PM
there will ALWAYS be updates, if you keep waiting for the next one you'll be waiting forever. Santa rosa isn't going to be THAT amazing of an upgrade. I'd just buy the core duo 2 when they release and then upgrade to leopard later. But that's just me.
What about the Robson flash technology. That sounds like the greatest thing since a laptop with a palmrest on the bottom and an "upside down" logo.
What about the Robson flash technology. That sounds like the greatest thing since a laptop with a palmrest on the bottom and an "upside down" logo.
miller218
Aug 28, 08:24 PM
of course that would be useful and by all means wait another year if you must, but personally i'd rather just buy now and then upgrade later as if it's really that amazing then the sockets are still compatable and an easy upgrade.
Well, you won't be upgrading laptops because the chip is soldered in
I'm sure there isn't a slot to put the flash memory in
Your old chipset won't support it
It all comes down to if you NEED it.
Well, you won't be upgrading laptops because the chip is soldered in
I'm sure there isn't a slot to put the flash memory in
Your old chipset won't support it
It all comes down to if you NEED it.
mytdave
Apr 19, 08:40 AM
Too bad Apple couldn't just ask Samsung to behave themselves... Maybe they did?
I don't know about you, but it's pretty obvious to me that the Samsung devices pictured here are a clear and blatant rip-off of Apple's designs and interface. At least other Android devices had some differentiating elements. Not so here. Even a monkey could see Samsung stealing Apple's bananas in this case.
I don't know about you, but it's pretty obvious to me that the Samsung devices pictured here are a clear and blatant rip-off of Apple's designs and interface. At least other Android devices had some differentiating elements. Not so here. Even a monkey could see Samsung stealing Apple's bananas in this case.
BenRoethig
Aug 28, 12:25 PM
I predict Apple will update from Core 1 to Core 2 within eight days. The only changes beside the CPU is perhaps a doubling of video memory on the iMac and MBPs.
HecubusPro
Aug 28, 11:23 PM
mmmm...nothing like a little troll late in the evening.
Go back to DellRocksTheWorld.com or AmigaForever.com or RollYourOwnPC.com or whatever...
And have a nice day. :)
Hey! I love my old Amiga 500! :p Of course, I'm sure I'll love my C2D MBP even more. :cool:
Go back to DellRocksTheWorld.com or AmigaForever.com or RollYourOwnPC.com or whatever...
And have a nice day. :)
Hey! I love my old Amiga 500! :p Of course, I'm sure I'll love my C2D MBP even more. :cool:
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 08:29 PM
(oops, double clicked submit)
BrettJDeriso
Apr 19, 07:06 AM
Way to bite the hand that feeds you, Steve. What an idiot. Production of Samsung Galaxy S handsets was brought to a crawl last year because of display shortages -shortages caused by tring to satify (oamong other things) Jobs' insatiable appetite for touch-sensitive screens.
Jobs should be kissing Samsung's a__, not suing it.
I suppose it's too much to hope Sammy would cut them off as a customer until this blows over. Of course, that wouldn't be in their best interests.
Jobs should be kissing Samsung's a__, not suing it.
I suppose it's too much to hope Sammy would cut them off as a customer until this blows over. Of course, that wouldn't be in their best interests.
fblack
Sep 10, 06:11 PM
Do you really want to use a monitor from 10 years ago in everyday use? Not likely. I've a 15" CRT from about a decade ago too but it's sitting on a shelf as a spare in case my newer monitor dies.
Most times I've bought a new computer, I've also bought a new monitor. A widescreen 17" monitor back when I bought my iMac was extortionately expensive. I generally figure on spending about �15-1800 every three years on a computer and about 5-6 years of useful life. It's been going up from a G3 iBook to a 17" G5 Mac to a fully kitted out 24" iMac for that money. I can't imagine what it will be in 3 - 6 years time but I guess it'll make a 24" iMac feel just as obsolete as the 500Mhz G3 iBook with a 1024x768 screen feels.
I have to conclude that people who want to use their 10 year old CRT are just incredibly cheap and don't value their screens as much as being able to claim how fast their CPU is. I've been programming for 20+ years professionally and your screen isn't something to skimp on. It's THE most important thing if you value your eyes.
I think you mistook the slant of my post. Notice the big grin face at the end of my sentence in the previous post? I meant it half in jest. It does not mean that as I type I am staring at a 14" screen. As far as my 6 yr old CRT that died it was a 19inch not a tiny screen and certainly hefty at about 60lbs. My 10yr old CRT that has been permanently retired now was in fact used as a backup monitor for my old beige G3. I've had more than one monitor go before and having a backup even if it has small screen real estate can save your bacon if you've got work to do. :p
I would love to have the budget to replace all of my equipment every 3 years like you can but I dont have that luxury. If I can have a piece of equipment last a little longer you may call it cheap from your fancy perch, but I call it frugal. Good budgeting should never be sneered at...:D
Most times I've bought a new computer, I've also bought a new monitor. A widescreen 17" monitor back when I bought my iMac was extortionately expensive. I generally figure on spending about �15-1800 every three years on a computer and about 5-6 years of useful life. It's been going up from a G3 iBook to a 17" G5 Mac to a fully kitted out 24" iMac for that money. I can't imagine what it will be in 3 - 6 years time but I guess it'll make a 24" iMac feel just as obsolete as the 500Mhz G3 iBook with a 1024x768 screen feels.
I have to conclude that people who want to use their 10 year old CRT are just incredibly cheap and don't value their screens as much as being able to claim how fast their CPU is. I've been programming for 20+ years professionally and your screen isn't something to skimp on. It's THE most important thing if you value your eyes.
I think you mistook the slant of my post. Notice the big grin face at the end of my sentence in the previous post? I meant it half in jest. It does not mean that as I type I am staring at a 14" screen. As far as my 6 yr old CRT that died it was a 19inch not a tiny screen and certainly hefty at about 60lbs. My 10yr old CRT that has been permanently retired now was in fact used as a backup monitor for my old beige G3. I've had more than one monitor go before and having a backup even if it has small screen real estate can save your bacon if you've got work to do. :p
I would love to have the budget to replace all of my equipment every 3 years like you can but I dont have that luxury. If I can have a piece of equipment last a little longer you may call it cheap from your fancy perch, but I call it frugal. Good budgeting should never be sneered at...:D
jsw
Oct 28, 07:35 PM
I'm not going to wade through all of the posts here and delete another few dozen off-topic ones, but it's clear that this thread is incapable of staying on-topic, which is a requirement in the news forums, and so it's being closed.
adamfilip
Sep 14, 08:14 AM
New version of Aperture!.. Saweeet
or more likely a new Apple iSLR
16 Megapixels
full frame sensor
Adaptive lens mount supports all Canon and Nikon Lenses
60gb removeable 1.8" hard drive
3" OLED screen
Anti-Dust
Anti-shake
Shoots in a new Apple RAW format
eye tracking for focus
Spot metering
1/8000 shutter with 150,000 shutter life
Full weather sealing
Magnesium body
6fps (up to 25 raw frames)
Depth of Field Preview
Pop up flash
802.11 Wifi
GPS built in
Optional Battery Grip
Scrollwheel navigation for menu system
Apple iScreen Digital Image processor
64 Segment Metering and Spot Metering
Supports Compact Flash
or more likely a new Apple iSLR
16 Megapixels
full frame sensor
Adaptive lens mount supports all Canon and Nikon Lenses
60gb removeable 1.8" hard drive
3" OLED screen
Anti-Dust
Anti-shake
Shoots in a new Apple RAW format
eye tracking for focus
Spot metering
1/8000 shutter with 150,000 shutter life
Full weather sealing
Magnesium body
6fps (up to 25 raw frames)
Depth of Field Preview
Pop up flash
802.11 Wifi
GPS built in
Optional Battery Grip
Scrollwheel navigation for menu system
Apple iScreen Digital Image processor
64 Segment Metering and Spot Metering
Supports Compact Flash
cwt1nospam
Feb 1, 11:07 AM
Yeah, the fact that there are no Mac viruses and Mac trojans are spectacularly unsuccessful means nothing. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And IOS devices are sitting ducks, being locked down to the point where users cannot load un-vetted applications. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Sheesh!
And IOS devices are sitting ducks, being locked down to the point where users cannot load un-vetted applications. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Sheesh!
daneoni
Sep 14, 11:30 AM
Looks like the C2D MBPs will be unveiled here. I mean the 17 MBP was unveiled at NAB, which is another imaging related event. Why do i get the feeling that Adobe might surprise us with CS3 there?..i mean if Apple is sending out invites then something big is happening and no its not an iSLR :rolleyes:
wonderkid
Aug 31, 11:42 AM
...and 5 years later, with no major innovations since iPod Video, it makes sense that to not only counter Microsoft's Zune, but to maintain their market presence and sales (which is starting to slow), that a major innovation is required. I am NOT sold on portable video as a unique selling point, as no one spends a prolonged period of time looking at small screen devices (unless for gaming or limited web surfing), and I am more inclined to believe Apple will launch something radical that is as innovative as the original iPod. Perhaps with a far more sophisticated OS, a touch screen, some form of wireless capability (WiFi/Bluetooth 2.0) for interdevice media transfer/wireless headphones/broadcast/syncing, proper PDA functionality and the ability to use as a VoIP and/or 2/2.5G/3G phone, either internally or via Bluetooth. The number one selling point will be the touch screen and more advanced OS, allowing it to take on various roles. And if it doesn't, I'm going to make one, so there. (I kid you not!)
rish
Sep 17, 03:59 PM
I don't really see this happening, if apple is going to take the risk of entering this competitive market, I see them doing it with a very innovative 'new' product.
Hi people. Take a quick look at this working prototye.
http://www.cameraphonefocus.co.uk/minor_brands/pilotfishsynaptics_onyx_button.php
I understand that Synaptics is a company Apple already has a working relationship with.
It kinda gets the juices flowing when you consider the possibilities. No more crap mobiles, I hope.
Regards
Hi people. Take a quick look at this working prototye.
http://www.cameraphonefocus.co.uk/minor_brands/pilotfishsynaptics_onyx_button.php
I understand that Synaptics is a company Apple already has a working relationship with.
It kinda gets the juices flowing when you consider the possibilities. No more crap mobiles, I hope.
Regards
kingtj
Oct 27, 10:41 AM
Shopping malls are private property, rented out in parcels at extremely high prices, so their tenants can run their shops with a perceived better shot at attracting passers-by than if they had a stand-alone store.
If you owned your own shop and some people kept standing out in front of your store without your permission, handing out political flyers, you'd probably run them off, right? In this case, the owners of the shopping mall are providing a similar service to the merchants paying to be there. It's FAR from a "public space".
As I said, fewer and fewer spaces where public debate can take place. Shopping malls are the same - 'public spaces' that aren't. Soon streets that have been public for years will start to be be privatised to provide 'better value for taxpayers' and the takeover will continue.
Then where can free debate take place? Some postage-stamp size bit of turf you call home?
If you owned your own shop and some people kept standing out in front of your store without your permission, handing out political flyers, you'd probably run them off, right? In this case, the owners of the shopping mall are providing a similar service to the merchants paying to be there. It's FAR from a "public space".
As I said, fewer and fewer spaces where public debate can take place. Shopping malls are the same - 'public spaces' that aren't. Soon streets that have been public for years will start to be be privatised to provide 'better value for taxpayers' and the takeover will continue.
Then where can free debate take place? Some postage-stamp size bit of turf you call home?
starflyer
Mar 29, 11:12 AM
It would be more interesting to see their PROFIT SHARE predictions.
PlaceofDis
Oct 27, 08:48 AM
I have no problem with Greenpeace being at the show as long as they back up their findings with facts and conduct themselves in a civil manner. If Microsoft stepped out of line at the show, I would expect them to be kicked out of the show as well.
agreed. Apple should work hard to be a environmentally safe company, but that should stand for all companies too. i don't see why any one single company should be singled out at this point.
agreed. Apple should work hard to be a environmentally safe company, but that should stand for all companies too. i don't see why any one single company should be singled out at this point.
Dustman
Apr 22, 11:21 AM
Woot Woot! Its a little sad though, about the SB IGP :(
As long as it doesnt shudder with the OS X animations and it plays 1080p smoothly, why does it matter? Do people really game on an Air?
As long as it doesnt shudder with the OS X animations and it plays 1080p smoothly, why does it matter? Do people really game on an Air?
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.
jholzner
Sep 16, 02:03 PM
A shame about scrapping the idea of a ground up design - I hope that doesn't lead to a lack of innovation. That's what really leads Apple along! Although if they just make a killer phone (I'm sure they will at some point...) it's bound to sell buckets loads!
Uber
I don't think scrapping the ground up design will hurt. The iPod was made mostly from off the shelf parts when it was introd. but it still was awesome. Hopefully they can do the same thing with their phone. My contract doesn't expire until December 2007 but I want one...and I don't even know what it is yet.
Uber
I don't think scrapping the ground up design will hurt. The iPod was made mostly from off the shelf parts when it was introd. but it still was awesome. Hopefully they can do the same thing with their phone. My contract doesn't expire until December 2007 but I want one...and I don't even know what it is yet.