adbe
Apr 5, 02:17 PM
Companies have a right then to make money on it and Apple cannot actively try to cut off the ability of another company to make money off the Iphone legally, its called restraint of trade, a federal law.
Yes they can. There is no protection under law for making money off the ineptitude of other companies. Apple is entitled, and expected to fix bugs. When those bugs get fixed, an avenue for jail breaking gets closed. Companies that see their revenue stream dry up are just screwed. That's life.
Jail breaking happens because Apple screwed the pooch on security. That's all.
Yes they can. There is no protection under law for making money off the ineptitude of other companies. Apple is entitled, and expected to fix bugs. When those bugs get fixed, an avenue for jail breaking gets closed. Companies that see their revenue stream dry up are just screwed. That's life.
Jail breaking happens because Apple screwed the pooch on security. That's all.
bed
Mar 30, 10:36 PM
Auto Save/Restore like I said is just Time Machine in a different direction,
Auto Save / Versions is nothing like Time Machine or the technology it uses behind the scenes. Sure versions uses a similar UI for restoring, so this makes it 'the same'? See http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/01/insider_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_auto_save_file_versions_and_time_machine.html
Auto Save / Versions is nothing like Time Machine or the technology it uses behind the scenes. Sure versions uses a similar UI for restoring, so this makes it 'the same'? See http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/01/insider_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_auto_save_file_versions_and_time_machine.html
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 11, 02:42 AM
Has anyone ever considered that the media mac would not be a hardware upgrade to the mini but a software one via itunes 7
or is it just me?
I think you need both. I can't imagine that Apple want us to get a DVR on top of a Media Mac, so a Mediad Mac should have a built in TV-tuner. I wouldn't be surprised if this gadget also double as an Airport Extreme.
or is it just me?
I think you need both. I can't imagine that Apple want us to get a DVR on top of a Media Mac, so a Mediad Mac should have a built in TV-tuner. I wouldn't be surprised if this gadget also double as an Airport Extreme.
dampfnudel
Mar 27, 12:29 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
If iOS 5 is delayed, it's possible that the iPhone 5 release will be later than June, perhaps September. A slightly improved version of the iPad 2 could also be released around that time, to be sold alongside the current version. September's Apple event could be a lot more than just new iPods.
If iOS 5 is delayed, it's possible that the iPhone 5 release will be later than June, perhaps September. A slightly improved version of the iPad 2 could also be released around that time, to be sold alongside the current version. September's Apple event could be a lot more than just new iPods.
andythursby
Apr 18, 05:04 PM
Do you really think the Galaxy tab and iPhone 3g/3gs aer<sic> "identical"?
The galaxy tab looks like a cheap knockoff of the 3G, look at the pics comparing them in the article. As I stated, at first look my mum thought the samsung was an iPhone. To the general public they look extremely similar, thus why this is happening.
The galaxy tab looks like a cheap knockoff of the 3G, look at the pics comparing them in the article. As I stated, at first look my mum thought the samsung was an iPhone. To the general public they look extremely similar, thus why this is happening.
URFloorMatt
Mar 27, 02:31 PM
Heh. No LTE, no NFC, no bigger screen, no antenna fix, and now no iOS upgrade? What's the point in releasing an iPhone at all this year?
amac4me
Nov 26, 11:53 AM
Sweet :)
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 06:30 PM
Can't Android users upgrade to the latest OS? 2.3.3 is the latest phone OS.
Heh. No.
Remember the line from Animal Farm? "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." Actually, Google's promises are a lot like Communism's promises when you think about it. ;)
Heh. No.
Remember the line from Animal Farm? "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." Actually, Google's promises are a lot like Communism's promises when you think about it. ;)
macaddict06
Jul 21, 03:31 PM
I'm thinking many people are going to be upset after WWDC because they didn't get what they wanted - there is too much expected here. WWDC is aimed at developers. The only reason they would roll out an iPod now instead of the norm of September is because they are putting games on it or making it a Ulta-portable. To rephrase it, there will be no iPod update at WWDC. New colors of tube socks? Maybe.
I agree with the other post about what is certain and what is not. However, I am not sure I see an update coming for the ACDs. They are hot, the Pro enclosure (G5 --> MacPro) is likely not to change, and they are selling well.
I think expecting Apple to dump everything they have been working on now is simply myopic. They will stagger releases as always, and no worries children, the Steve is a benevolent provider.
I agree with the other post about what is certain and what is not. However, I am not sure I see an update coming for the ACDs. They are hot, the Pro enclosure (G5 --> MacPro) is likely not to change, and they are selling well.
I think expecting Apple to dump everything they have been working on now is simply myopic. They will stagger releases as always, and no worries children, the Steve is a benevolent provider.
MacFly123
Mar 30, 04:06 AM
No offense taken, but seriously how is the web interface to my digital locker so offensive?
screenshot (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5224/5571848363_7544628f92_b.jpg).
Not that I'd normally be accessing my media via a desktop website. That's why Amazon also offer a nice and visually friendly (https://ssl.gstatic.com/android/market/com.amazon.mp3/ss-1-320-480-160-2-251c9c92d6a55c8108001da1d17520acb8db9c80) app for your mobile devices :).
I'm not going to give a full critique to Amazon's UI and UX design, but when you look at Apple's UIs and Apple's apps next to these Amazon one's do you not notice a major difference in simplicity, fit and finish, and polish???
I'm not saying you can't use the Amazon stuff, but Apple has powerfully demonstrated many times over now for years, that user experience and beautiful design ABSOLUTELY DOES make a big impact!
Take a look at the UI of iBooks, or the new iMovie and Garage Band, or Contacts, or all of the iWork apps on iPad, etc. etc. BEAUTIFUL UIs and very creative, cultural, simplistic and elegant! Also WebOS has some beautiful UI design.
screenshot (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5224/5571848363_7544628f92_b.jpg).
Not that I'd normally be accessing my media via a desktop website. That's why Amazon also offer a nice and visually friendly (https://ssl.gstatic.com/android/market/com.amazon.mp3/ss-1-320-480-160-2-251c9c92d6a55c8108001da1d17520acb8db9c80) app for your mobile devices :).
I'm not going to give a full critique to Amazon's UI and UX design, but when you look at Apple's UIs and Apple's apps next to these Amazon one's do you not notice a major difference in simplicity, fit and finish, and polish???
I'm not saying you can't use the Amazon stuff, but Apple has powerfully demonstrated many times over now for years, that user experience and beautiful design ABSOLUTELY DOES make a big impact!
Take a look at the UI of iBooks, or the new iMovie and Garage Band, or Contacts, or all of the iWork apps on iPad, etc. etc. BEAUTIFUL UIs and very creative, cultural, simplistic and elegant! Also WebOS has some beautiful UI design.
Vegasman
Apr 5, 06:57 PM
And while this little Apple - Toyota "thingy" is happening, Microsoft announces a joint press announcement with Toyota:
http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-and-toyota-announce-joint-press-event-for-april-6/
http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-and-toyota-announce-joint-press-event-for-april-6/
KnightWRX
Apr 11, 06:15 AM
Nobody with maths skills beyond that of a ten year old should be using "/".
As a programmer, I find this comment highly insulting. Tell that to my compiler.
As a programmer, I find this comment highly insulting. Tell that to my compiler.
-Ryan-
Mar 30, 07:54 PM
WOW. In my years of OS X development and beta releases, this is the first time I believe Apple has released a developer preview with little to no beta releases, and pushed right into a half arsed possible GM build without the numerous beta's for 10.X refinements. For developers and companies who have been accustomed to Apple pushing bi-weekly beta's as the GM release approaches. This may not bold well for developers and companies transitioning their products/applications in time and with little "bumps" in the road.
This also makes me believe Apple has certainly, finally, officially drawn a line with regard to their main focus: iOS. It truly is about mobile devices for Cupertino, with iPhones and iPads and numerous iOS beta releases that have pushed OS X off center stage since Leopard. Gone are the excellent days of a dedicated LCD display line with three size variants, gone are the days when desktop PowerPC towers were affordable, and soon the professionals who spent thousands of dollars and hours investing in Mac products for their work will be pushed out the door for the general mass consumer. This is a sad sign for us, for those that supported a struggling yet profitable Apple dedicated to professionals, consumers, quality products and improved operating systems.
Given that Apple sold over 4 million Macs last quarter, that must equate to around $7 billion in revenue. Macs still make up around a quarter of Apples revenue, so while iPhones might be where the most money is coming in, Apple can't ignore $7 billion per quarter...
This also makes me believe Apple has certainly, finally, officially drawn a line with regard to their main focus: iOS. It truly is about mobile devices for Cupertino, with iPhones and iPads and numerous iOS beta releases that have pushed OS X off center stage since Leopard. Gone are the excellent days of a dedicated LCD display line with three size variants, gone are the days when desktop PowerPC towers were affordable, and soon the professionals who spent thousands of dollars and hours investing in Mac products for their work will be pushed out the door for the general mass consumer. This is a sad sign for us, for those that supported a struggling yet profitable Apple dedicated to professionals, consumers, quality products and improved operating systems.
Given that Apple sold over 4 million Macs last quarter, that must equate to around $7 billion in revenue. Macs still make up around a quarter of Apples revenue, so while iPhones might be where the most money is coming in, Apple can't ignore $7 billion per quarter...
AppleInLVX
May 4, 03:56 PM
How hard would it be for wifi/app store to be baked into every Mac going forward? That is, if you wipe the machine, turn it on, and the first thing it does (after the logo) is detect Wifi, connect and offer the app store along with basic disc utilities right on the memory chip?
Mind you, it wouldn't help existing macs... hrm.
Mind you, it wouldn't help existing macs... hrm.
Stevamundo
Nov 29, 05:30 PM
i never had any problems with the Boot Camp Partition until this
mac ran fine and i need to use Windows for certain programs
Did you even bother to read this link that someone posted for you cav23j? http://openforum.sophos.com/t5/Sophos-Anti-Virus-for-Mac-Home/Slow-down-when-scanning-Work-around-now-available/td-p/295
mac ran fine and i need to use Windows for certain programs
Did you even bother to read this link that someone posted for you cav23j? http://openforum.sophos.com/t5/Sophos-Anti-Virus-for-Mac-Home/Slow-down-when-scanning-Work-around-now-available/td-p/295
cvaldes
Apr 7, 01:33 PM
All Apple did was created a premium brand. Technology was cheap and affordable in the MP3 market. You could pick up an MP3 player for under a $100 bucks until Apple came into the market with its $300 dollar iPod.
And you still can buy MP3 players that are far cheaper than what Apple offers.
Apple did not come to dominate this market with cost competition. They did it by providing a better overall consumer experience. If you judge by specs, you'd buy a Sansa instead of an iPod. However Joe Consumer doesn't care about specs.
And you still can buy MP3 players that are far cheaper than what Apple offers.
Apple did not come to dominate this market with cost competition. They did it by providing a better overall consumer experience. If you judge by specs, you'd buy a Sansa instead of an iPod. However Joe Consumer doesn't care about specs.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
shigzeo
Apr 24, 10:24 PM
I think Apple is simply futureproofing here, and we won't see Retina displays for 3+ years, when it would be more feasible.
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
It makes no difference at all. If the video card can render the 2D graphics at native retina resolution, that is all that matters. Keeping the same ratio of X and Y pixels means that the game (as has always been the case) determines what resolution you play in. I doubt we'll see games go that high for at least a few years.
The high resolution is great for everything else: reading, editing photos, etc., but requires a graphics card that can output very high 2D resolution with no corollary retardation.
Games are completely different and shouldn't be a concern by any serious gamer, at all. They simply don't relate to the monitor's resolution as much as they do the ratio of x and y pixels in order to keep lower resolutions from distorting.
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
It makes no difference at all. If the video card can render the 2D graphics at native retina resolution, that is all that matters. Keeping the same ratio of X and Y pixels means that the game (as has always been the case) determines what resolution you play in. I doubt we'll see games go that high for at least a few years.
The high resolution is great for everything else: reading, editing photos, etc., but requires a graphics card that can output very high 2D resolution with no corollary retardation.
Games are completely different and shouldn't be a concern by any serious gamer, at all. They simply don't relate to the monitor's resolution as much as they do the ratio of x and y pixels in order to keep lower resolutions from distorting.
ergle2
Sep 16, 05:59 AM
Since Fry's is already selling Sony ATAPI Blu-ray burners for $750, why doesn't Apple see the selling opportunity as an offering on the Mac Pro BTO page? They dont even offer a $120 Plextor SATA DVD Burner on that page yet. Seems like they are being extremely conservative about adopting the next generation of Para-Superdrives. It's a conundrum to me. :confused: :eek:
For whatever reason, Apple seems to not want to endorse Blu-ray nor HD-DVD yet by not offering either one. Guess they're not sure themselves which they think will be best for us in the long run or which one will win in the marketplace? I am confused about what's going on on this front. :confused:
Speaking personally, I'm not terribly interested in either right now.
Having said that, is there a (big enough) market for it? Stand-alone player sales have been pretty lacklustre, with HD-DVD outperforming Blu-Ray, but even it isn't doing wonderfully. The large capacity of the writable disc would be nice but the black media is too expensive to be worthwhile right now.
I guess it's possible they won't until they have playback software ready for OS X -- which would likely mean around the time of Leopard, I guess? It might make more sense then, unless you think Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD) are going to be big this "Holiday Season"? That would certainly change everything...
Next year might be the one to go for, esp. if the PS3 looks being the big seller for Christmas 2007... it also gives them time to pick which to offer, be it HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (or offer both?) depending upon the fortunes of either/both. I doubt their comments on supporting Blu-Ray thus far are terribly binding (tho the MS-based environment used by HD-DVD might be a deal-killer...).
For whatever reason, Apple seems to not want to endorse Blu-ray nor HD-DVD yet by not offering either one. Guess they're not sure themselves which they think will be best for us in the long run or which one will win in the marketplace? I am confused about what's going on on this front. :confused:
Speaking personally, I'm not terribly interested in either right now.
Having said that, is there a (big enough) market for it? Stand-alone player sales have been pretty lacklustre, with HD-DVD outperforming Blu-Ray, but even it isn't doing wonderfully. The large capacity of the writable disc would be nice but the black media is too expensive to be worthwhile right now.
I guess it's possible they won't until they have playback software ready for OS X -- which would likely mean around the time of Leopard, I guess? It might make more sense then, unless you think Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD) are going to be big this "Holiday Season"? That would certainly change everything...
Next year might be the one to go for, esp. if the PS3 looks being the big seller for Christmas 2007... it also gives them time to pick which to offer, be it HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (or offer both?) depending upon the fortunes of either/both. I doubt their comments on supporting Blu-Ray thus far are terribly binding (tho the MS-based environment used by HD-DVD might be a deal-killer...).
nidserz
Apr 10, 02:57 AM
sorry but business calculator is not a scientific one and thus not valid for this argument.
LOL um... ok? It's a calculator...
LOL um... ok? It's a calculator...
Popeye206
Apr 5, 02:17 PM
Could care less either way. Although I'd love Apple to give us more ways to customize our screens for iOS devices, Apple has always protected their UI... it's that consistency that makes Apple devices so clean and easy.
However, maybe they are going to give us some more tools in iOS5 to customize without a jail break and don't want to see a trend get started before they release a better way.
Either way... I don't really care. I love what I have.
However, maybe they are going to give us some more tools in iOS5 to customize without a jail break and don't want to see a trend get started before they release a better way.
Either way... I don't really care. I love what I have.
techpr
May 4, 05:36 PM
I'm guessing greedy Apple will probably keep 30% of the sales too! :rolleyes:
or the 100%
or the 100%
cdallen
Mar 30, 06:13 AM
Why? It�s just a reference to the battleground / spectator status of the decolonized countries during the cold war. (The "second world" being the now-defunct Soviet Bloc.)
From the almighty Wikipedia:
"French demographer, anthropologist and historian Alfred Sauvy, in an article published in the French magazine L'Observateur, August 14, 1952, coined the term Third World, referring to countries that were unaligned with either the Communist Soviet bloc or the Capitalist NATO bloc during the Cold War. His usage was a reference to the Third Estate, the commoners of France who, before and during the French Revolution, opposed priests and nobles, who composed the First Estate and Second Estate, respectively. "
Anyone who needs to quote wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to contribute!
Now thats a FACT!
From the almighty Wikipedia:
"French demographer, anthropologist and historian Alfred Sauvy, in an article published in the French magazine L'Observateur, August 14, 1952, coined the term Third World, referring to countries that were unaligned with either the Communist Soviet bloc or the Capitalist NATO bloc during the Cold War. His usage was a reference to the Third Estate, the commoners of France who, before and during the French Revolution, opposed priests and nobles, who composed the First Estate and Second Estate, respectively. "
Anyone who needs to quote wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to contribute!
Now thats a FACT!
Macman1993
Apr 26, 02:07 PM
Some will be bothered about IOS not being the most dominant. I personally don't care, I just want the best mobile OS.
