RubbishBBspeed
Apr 8, 07:23 PM
Best Buy does this all the time. I purchased a Samsung TV off their Web site for in-store sameday pickup last year, and took my receipt to my local store. They wouldn't give me the TV I already purchased because they were holding all of that model until Sunday because of their Sunday ad flyer. They had at least 10 of that model in stock on their store shelves.
They told me I could come back Sunday to pick it up. Naturally, I refused (this was like Tuesday), called Best Buy Online and had them refund my purchase. Then, purchased from Amazon.
I'll never purchase anything major from them again.
I did the same with pc world in england, I haven't bought anything from there stores in the last 15 years and would reckon I've taken between family and friends probably �40,000 out of there takings by buying and advising people to purchase else where. Sometimes it may seem trivial to take a stand against these stores but the amounts do add up as time goes buy.
Which reminds me, I must write to the CEO this weekend and send photos and a list of all the stuff not bought through them. Just as they post there financial results, which aren't looking that good this year.
They told me I could come back Sunday to pick it up. Naturally, I refused (this was like Tuesday), called Best Buy Online and had them refund my purchase. Then, purchased from Amazon.
I'll never purchase anything major from them again.
I did the same with pc world in england, I haven't bought anything from there stores in the last 15 years and would reckon I've taken between family and friends probably �40,000 out of there takings by buying and advising people to purchase else where. Sometimes it may seem trivial to take a stand against these stores but the amounts do add up as time goes buy.
Which reminds me, I must write to the CEO this weekend and send photos and a list of all the stuff not bought through them. Just as they post there financial results, which aren't looking that good this year.
BJ.SoundWave360
Apr 16, 02:08 AM
Google does search.
Apple does design and creativity.
Google does books. No, as we've seen.
Google does music. No.
Apple.
Apple does design and creativity.
Google does books. No, as we've seen.
Google does music. No.
Apple.
thenewperson
Apr 29, 02:31 PM
They won't make Lion "uninstallable" on it. But it might be "unbearable" for all but the most casual of users. ;)
On a side note, I've noticed there's now a "Show downloads" button to the left of the Search Field:
Image (http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=283487&stc=1&d=1304105242)
Yes!!! I've wanted the Downloads to look like this.
On a side note, I've noticed there's now a "Show downloads" button to the left of the Search Field:
Image (http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=283487&stc=1&d=1304105242)
Yes!!! I've wanted the Downloads to look like this.
SciFrog
Jul 12, 05:19 AM
Welcome back. We need the points... Our medium term outlook not looking so great right now...
more...
SciFrog
May 10, 08:45 PM
But you loose the bigadv unit every time almost no?
steadysignal
Apr 27, 09:39 AM
3.7" ain't going to cut it, sorry
how is that battery life going to be on that larger screen you want?
how is that battery life going to be on that larger screen you want?
more...
tvguru
Sep 12, 08:31 AM
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/win.html
bottom left of page
Hey Chundles get him. :D
bottom left of page
Hey Chundles get him. :D
Schmye Bubbula
Mar 25, 01:00 PM
<pedantry>
Is Finder an App per se or integral to the OS?
</pedantry>
/System/Library/CoreServices/Finder.app
Is Finder an App per se or integral to the OS?
</pedantry>
/System/Library/CoreServices/Finder.app
more...
ten-oak-druid
May 2, 12:13 PM
Oooh. You're a software developer. That makes you an expert.
Except - as someone who is surround by IT professionals - many of which create systems that are governed by strict compliance issues - ALL of them have stated that 2MB is ridiculous for a cache of the intended purpose. And that QA could have missed this - but the fact that they did is really bad.
Look - defend Apple all you want. Don't really care. At the end of the day - a switch that is supposed to turn something off should turn something off. I know it. You know it. And Apple knows it - which is why they are (for WHATEVER reason) making the switch work correctly. End of story.
P.S. - Since Apple does great marketing and pr spin (my profession) - while I don't buy all the conspiracy theories at all - but neither do I "trust" Apple's altruism nor their rhetoric just because "they say so."
Exactly.
If the people claiming this is a non issue are serious then they should all email Steve and tell him to stop addressing it.
I think the problem here is that many on this board cannot distinguish between trolls blindly trying to stir stuff up on an Apple forum and non-trolls discussing a legitimate issue. People need to learn how to separate the two and ignore the trolls if they try to pile onto an unfavorable discussion of Apple on a particular issue.
Except - as someone who is surround by IT professionals - many of which create systems that are governed by strict compliance issues - ALL of them have stated that 2MB is ridiculous for a cache of the intended purpose. And that QA could have missed this - but the fact that they did is really bad.
Look - defend Apple all you want. Don't really care. At the end of the day - a switch that is supposed to turn something off should turn something off. I know it. You know it. And Apple knows it - which is why they are (for WHATEVER reason) making the switch work correctly. End of story.
P.S. - Since Apple does great marketing and pr spin (my profession) - while I don't buy all the conspiracy theories at all - but neither do I "trust" Apple's altruism nor their rhetoric just because "they say so."
Exactly.
If the people claiming this is a non issue are serious then they should all email Steve and tell him to stop addressing it.
I think the problem here is that many on this board cannot distinguish between trolls blindly trying to stir stuff up on an Apple forum and non-trolls discussing a legitimate issue. People need to learn how to separate the two and ignore the trolls if they try to pile onto an unfavorable discussion of Apple on a particular issue.
CaoCao
Apr 22, 08:20 PM
You mean because they passed laws against homosexuality?
While I find that a little simplistic, if you really want to run with that theory that's your choice.
Homosexuality in ancient Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome)
Homosexuality in ancient Rome features dispassionately in many literary works, poems, graffiti and in comments, for example, on the sexual predilections of single emperors: Edward Gibbon famously observed that "of the first fifteen emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct". Surviving graphic representations are, on the other hand, rarer in ancient Rome than in classical Greece. Attitudes toward homosexuality changed over time ranging from the matter-of-fact acceptance of Republican Rome and the pagan Empire to rising condemnation, exampled by the Athenian Sextus Empiricus, who asserted that άρρενομιζία was outlawed in Rome� and in Athens, too!� and Cyprian.
The term homosexuality is anachronistic for the ancient world, since there is no single word in either Latin or ancient Greek with the same meaning as the modern concept of homosexuality, nor was there any sense that a man was defined by his gender choices in love-making; "in the ancient world so few people cared to categorize their contemporaries on the basis of the gender to which they were erotically attracted that no dichotomy to express this distinction was in common use", James Boswell has noted.
...
Later Empire
The rise of statutes legislating against homosexuality begins during the social crisis of the 3rd century, when a series of laws were promulgated regulating various aspects of homosexual relations, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriages. By the sixth century homosexual relations were expressly prohibited for the first time, as Procopius notes.
On a related note, a search of the string "homo" in the article The Decline of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_rome) comes up with zero results.
You gotta do better than that bassfingers. :rolleyes:
homosexuality≠bisexuality
While I find that a little simplistic, if you really want to run with that theory that's your choice.
Homosexuality in ancient Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome)
Homosexuality in ancient Rome features dispassionately in many literary works, poems, graffiti and in comments, for example, on the sexual predilections of single emperors: Edward Gibbon famously observed that "of the first fifteen emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct". Surviving graphic representations are, on the other hand, rarer in ancient Rome than in classical Greece. Attitudes toward homosexuality changed over time ranging from the matter-of-fact acceptance of Republican Rome and the pagan Empire to rising condemnation, exampled by the Athenian Sextus Empiricus, who asserted that άρρενομιζία was outlawed in Rome� and in Athens, too!� and Cyprian.
The term homosexuality is anachronistic for the ancient world, since there is no single word in either Latin or ancient Greek with the same meaning as the modern concept of homosexuality, nor was there any sense that a man was defined by his gender choices in love-making; "in the ancient world so few people cared to categorize their contemporaries on the basis of the gender to which they were erotically attracted that no dichotomy to express this distinction was in common use", James Boswell has noted.
...
Later Empire
The rise of statutes legislating against homosexuality begins during the social crisis of the 3rd century, when a series of laws were promulgated regulating various aspects of homosexual relations, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriages. By the sixth century homosexual relations were expressly prohibited for the first time, as Procopius notes.
On a related note, a search of the string "homo" in the article The Decline of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_rome) comes up with zero results.
You gotta do better than that bassfingers. :rolleyes:
homosexuality≠bisexuality
more...
ChrisBrightwell
Sep 28, 02:00 PM
Is the update available now?Don't think so, but I'm not near a Mac w/ 'net access.
wordoflife
Mar 19, 05:29 PM
Here in England thats a pretty common figure of speech that people use all the time. It doesn't mean literally ages. I forgot this was an American forum, but what does that have to do with anything anyway?
I'm from the US and I even understood what you were saying. It's just figurative language. It looks like people just want something to rant on you about.
I'm from the US and I even understood what you were saying. It's just figurative language. It looks like people just want something to rant on you about.
more...
Eidorian
Oct 2, 02:55 PM
*cough*
1. It's GigaOM.
2. I suggest that more people read GigaOM. Om Malik is great.
1. It's GigaOM.
2. I suggest that more people read GigaOM. Om Malik is great.
shokunin
Sep 28, 05:35 PM
In an age where architect and design firms are just starting to apply to Apple's design principles to the building of homes, Steve Jobs has gone and designed the iPhone of houses.
WTH? Whoever wrote this clearly doesn't have any idea about what has been going on in architecture in, oh, the past 150 years. I met Peter Bohlin last year and we got to talking about his design strategies. He's been doing similar work throughout his career, even before BCJ (then Bohlin Powell) was founded in 1965. Check out Japanese architecture from the past 1,500 years.
+1 to charliex5. Apple inspiring architects, well that's kind of funny, possibly when we have Unibody construction homes.
WTH? Whoever wrote this clearly doesn't have any idea about what has been going on in architecture in, oh, the past 150 years. I met Peter Bohlin last year and we got to talking about his design strategies. He's been doing similar work throughout his career, even before BCJ (then Bohlin Powell) was founded in 1965. Check out Japanese architecture from the past 1,500 years.
+1 to charliex5. Apple inspiring architects, well that's kind of funny, possibly when we have Unibody construction homes.
more...
Slix
Mar 24, 03:58 PM
Happy Birthday OS X! I still love you. :D
Howmanoid
Apr 15, 10:30 PM
Apple's success is in large part driven by the ecosystem that they have built around iPod/iTunes/iPhone/iPad. Good luck to anyone breaking into that anytime soon. The day I can buy a song on Mac/PC, synch it to my Android phone, then stream it around my home to HiFi or TV then we will have a competitor. Apple knows it, the record companies and studios know it, someone needs to tell Google.
more...
ndheah
Jan 15, 01:36 PM
Way, way, way too much money for what you get. I was hoping they would release a simple, thinner laptop that was going to be cheap and finally compete with Dell/Gateway/HP
SuperBrown
Jan 15, 05:59 PM
Compare the MBA to this sony notebook with similar specs:
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644507782&parentCategoryId=16154&XID=O:sony%20tz:dg_vinb_gglsrch
Whoa! Had no idea sub-notebooks cost that much. :eek:
If apple is trying to break into that market then maybe they do have something in MBA.
I think my disappointment (and that of many others) may stem from the fact that they really didn't come out with anything for me.
TV untethered from a computer + price drop + iTunes movie rentals is interesting. So is Time Capsule. Not earth-shaking enough, though, to make me run to the apple store this instant.
And $20 for iPod touch software. I don't own one, but I'd feel like I got screwed if I did.
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644507782&parentCategoryId=16154&XID=O:sony%20tz:dg_vinb_gglsrch
Whoa! Had no idea sub-notebooks cost that much. :eek:
If apple is trying to break into that market then maybe they do have something in MBA.
I think my disappointment (and that of many others) may stem from the fact that they really didn't come out with anything for me.
TV untethered from a computer + price drop + iTunes movie rentals is interesting. So is Time Capsule. Not earth-shaking enough, though, to make me run to the apple store this instant.
And $20 for iPod touch software. I don't own one, but I'd feel like I got screwed if I did.
Wizard of Woz
Jan 15, 08:32 PM
Ahahaha. While some of you have some true criticisms, (and correct IMO) of the keynote, some of you are acting like spoilt little children.
Personally I enjoyed the keynote, except for the $20 iPod touch upgrade, which is a bit of a slap in the face.
The MBA is a complimentary machine to me. I have a C2D 20' iMac on my desk, but need something ultra-portable and light to carry at school. Something that could fit in a tiny little satchel - even a MB is too big - therefore the MBA is perfect for me. It's a machine to take notes, write reports etc on. I'd simply transfer work off using my 2GB Flash drive.
I would like to see an app that could use the touch gestures to draw diagrams - that would be great for Science, Maths etc.
Personally I enjoyed the keynote, except for the $20 iPod touch upgrade, which is a bit of a slap in the face.
The MBA is a complimentary machine to me. I have a C2D 20' iMac on my desk, but need something ultra-portable and light to carry at school. Something that could fit in a tiny little satchel - even a MB is too big - therefore the MBA is perfect for me. It's a machine to take notes, write reports etc on. I'd simply transfer work off using my 2GB Flash drive.
I would like to see an app that could use the touch gestures to draw diagrams - that would be great for Science, Maths etc.
rerelease
Apr 25, 02:57 PM
I actually really dislike the borderless look. I hope they don't do this. A larger screen is one thing I really don't need. If I want a big screen, I'll get an iPad.
Same here. It's completely unwarranted, there's virtually no space to be gained and it looks aesthetically weaker compared to the iPhone 4.
Same here. It's completely unwarranted, there's virtually no space to be gained and it looks aesthetically weaker compared to the iPhone 4.
Patdt13
Apr 13, 05:40 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/417Enp3t-4L._AA300_.jpg
Surprisingly good.
Surprisingly good.
Preclaro_tipo
Mar 28, 03:32 PM
I never said it was perfect. If you have many apps as I do that DON'T have automatic updates then it is a royal pain in the ass to go to their site(assuming you even know where it is), download it again, unpackage the dmg, and place it in my applications folder. Sure, if you only have a few apps then it isn't THAT bad but I have upwards to 20 apps that I have to do this with. It's a chore. With the Mac App Store I can take a quick glance, click update all if there are any updates and be done with it.
If I understand some of you on this thread correctly then it is my opinion that you've missed the point, slightly.
I don't think that the merits or demerits of the mac app store are the core point here. The store may be good, excellent, bad, poor, draconian, onerous or whatever but Apple is going to award programming and application awards to only those apps that are distributed through their application store.
Even if you think the store is great, hell even if the store IS GREAT, don't you also feel that it isn't the ONLY way to get quality, well made applications.
Apple is only promoting application which it profits from AND which conform to its Terms of Service.
The offensive part for me is just how unapologetic they seem to be showing bias for what makes them money, not with what may be driving the platform or solving user needs/wants.
I anticipate that some may remind me about Apple's responsibility to shareholders and about being a profitable business and therefore say that it is obvious that they support the apps from which they make a profit. I just think that is an oversimplification of situation and I think this does more to hurt the image of the platform, rather than improve it. It does more to hurt developer interest than it does improve developer interest in the mac platform. Long term, I'd rather see them building an enthusiasm for their products (including the mac app store) for their own merits.
If I understand some of you on this thread correctly then it is my opinion that you've missed the point, slightly.
I don't think that the merits or demerits of the mac app store are the core point here. The store may be good, excellent, bad, poor, draconian, onerous or whatever but Apple is going to award programming and application awards to only those apps that are distributed through their application store.
Even if you think the store is great, hell even if the store IS GREAT, don't you also feel that it isn't the ONLY way to get quality, well made applications.
Apple is only promoting application which it profits from AND which conform to its Terms of Service.
The offensive part for me is just how unapologetic they seem to be showing bias for what makes them money, not with what may be driving the platform or solving user needs/wants.
I anticipate that some may remind me about Apple's responsibility to shareholders and about being a profitable business and therefore say that it is obvious that they support the apps from which they make a profit. I just think that is an oversimplification of situation and I think this does more to hurt the image of the platform, rather than improve it. It does more to hurt developer interest than it does improve developer interest in the mac platform. Long term, I'd rather see them building an enthusiasm for their products (including the mac app store) for their own merits.
Illusion986
Apr 15, 03:14 PM
Real or Not....I like it
wenger2k
Oct 20, 12:09 PM
I believe Apple always in reality wanted to go with AT&T - I think they talked to both companies so they could create a form of competition to get what they wanted out of the deal. So why did they want AT&T - it was really simple it was that AT&T used GSM and UMTS that allowed them to make a single device that they could then roll out to a large part of the rest of the world with out a lot of reengineering. This has turned out to be a good decision for them.
If you're so sure this has been such a great thing for AT&T look at their stock price vs apple's and verizon for that matter during this time. While it has represented a huge amount of revenue for AT&T it has also increased their cost by orders of magnitude. Its also forced them to upgrade substantial parts of their network far ahead of plan which has also come at significant unplanned expense. They're currently rolling out the 850mhz and the 7.2gb HSPA overlay framework at least a year ahead of their original plans - all of this is reportedly because essentially Apple made them.
The majority of AT&T's network issues are likely caused by the massive increase in bandwidth consumption which can almost all be attributed to the iPhone. Had Verizon gotten the iphone they'd be in a similar situation.
As for CDMA iPhones, Apple has already announced that they'll be offering the iphone with Bell Canada and its been widely reported that they will offer iPhones with both China Unicom and China Mobile which will force the creation of a CDMA/EVDO iPhone so the technical barrier to entry for Verizon no longer exists. Reality of course is that Verizon represents a big enough customer that creation of a CDMA hardware version would be a minimal barrier if Apple didn't continue to see more benefit from the prime vendor relationship that they have with AT&T than they would get by breaking out and offering the product with Verizon. My guess is that if the volume of complaints about AT&T's network don't start going down soon Apple will be forced to expand to other carriers.
If you're so sure this has been such a great thing for AT&T look at their stock price vs apple's and verizon for that matter during this time. While it has represented a huge amount of revenue for AT&T it has also increased their cost by orders of magnitude. Its also forced them to upgrade substantial parts of their network far ahead of plan which has also come at significant unplanned expense. They're currently rolling out the 850mhz and the 7.2gb HSPA overlay framework at least a year ahead of their original plans - all of this is reportedly because essentially Apple made them.
The majority of AT&T's network issues are likely caused by the massive increase in bandwidth consumption which can almost all be attributed to the iPhone. Had Verizon gotten the iphone they'd be in a similar situation.
As for CDMA iPhones, Apple has already announced that they'll be offering the iphone with Bell Canada and its been widely reported that they will offer iPhones with both China Unicom and China Mobile which will force the creation of a CDMA/EVDO iPhone so the technical barrier to entry for Verizon no longer exists. Reality of course is that Verizon represents a big enough customer that creation of a CDMA hardware version would be a minimal barrier if Apple didn't continue to see more benefit from the prime vendor relationship that they have with AT&T than they would get by breaking out and offering the product with Verizon. My guess is that if the volume of complaints about AT&T's network don't start going down soon Apple will be forced to expand to other carriers.