JRoDDz
Mar 17, 08:53 AM
Bull. I had a girlfriend in high school get fired from OfficeMax for being $100 off where she had been working for almost a year. Unfortunately some guy came in that day, paid for two computers and a printer with $100 bills (total was something like $2500, as this was the late 90's). She counted it twice, but apparently one was missed. Corporate policy stated that she could only be off by less than $5 at the end of her shift.
She didn't pocket the money and her manager knew that she didn't, but she still lost her job. Company policy.
Would I like to get an iPad for half price? Absolutely, but ONLY if it was because the company was selling it for half price. I pay what I am supposed to pay.
It's ok. The original poster isn't worried about his fellow man. He's just happy that he got a discounted iPad. This is the reason this country is going down the crapper. Nobody cares about anyone else. Stick it to the man. yeah so what if this kid got fired. It's all about me me me. :(
She didn't pocket the money and her manager knew that she didn't, but she still lost her job. Company policy.
Would I like to get an iPad for half price? Absolutely, but ONLY if it was because the company was selling it for half price. I pay what I am supposed to pay.
It's ok. The original poster isn't worried about his fellow man. He's just happy that he got a discounted iPad. This is the reason this country is going down the crapper. Nobody cares about anyone else. Stick it to the man. yeah so what if this kid got fired. It's all about me me me. :(
benjayman2
Apr 8, 10:44 PM
what theme is that for your lockscreen .. looks great
typophone 4 and typophone weather
It works well with the current jb 4.3.1 since there is little black bar that shows up on lockscreen wallpapers that are not plain black.
typophone 4 and typophone weather
It works well with the current jb 4.3.1 since there is little black bar that shows up on lockscreen wallpapers that are not plain black.
twoodcc
Aug 14, 04:20 PM
well i added 2 more GPUs to my folding mix. i got a gtx 465 folding in the same rig as a gtx 260. it took awhile, but finally have them both folding with the gpu3 client. we'll see how it does
eric55lv
Jan 10, 04:23 PM
banned forever i say
yeah from any electrocis trade show and expo
yeah from any electrocis trade show and expo
emoeric
Dec 13, 11:07 AM
Haha, nope.
This is the company that released an EDGE phone as it's first model. No way they're jumping to LTE this early in the game.
Before my impending question...I agree with Warbrain here. The proof is across the board when it comes to Apple and their products. The didn't adopt 3g when it was out for a while and also didnt adopt wireless N technology for routers for a long time. Apple likes to perfect the technology first.
Now, onto my question. Sorta belongs here... My white iphone 3GS 32gb just bit the dust. I have squaretrade and they are allowing me a replacement phone. sweet! The trick is do I get the iphone that is out right now, wait til january to see if they update the skin/ casing of the existing iphone4 (due to a verizon announcement and in turn update AT&T iphone as well) or do I postpone and wait until summer 2011?
I find waiting until 2011 almost impossible and wonder if they are going to announce Iphone 5. Or will they do an Iphone4GS, with even faster network speeds, bigger screen, blah blah blah. Will the update be critical (iphone 5 rumors of location based computing, paying with the swipe of a phone)?
I find the second option to be most feasible, but would like to test out the online community.
Thanks!
-Eric
This is the company that released an EDGE phone as it's first model. No way they're jumping to LTE this early in the game.
Before my impending question...I agree with Warbrain here. The proof is across the board when it comes to Apple and their products. The didn't adopt 3g when it was out for a while and also didnt adopt wireless N technology for routers for a long time. Apple likes to perfect the technology first.
Now, onto my question. Sorta belongs here... My white iphone 3GS 32gb just bit the dust. I have squaretrade and they are allowing me a replacement phone. sweet! The trick is do I get the iphone that is out right now, wait til january to see if they update the skin/ casing of the existing iphone4 (due to a verizon announcement and in turn update AT&T iphone as well) or do I postpone and wait until summer 2011?
I find waiting until 2011 almost impossible and wonder if they are going to announce Iphone 5. Or will they do an Iphone4GS, with even faster network speeds, bigger screen, blah blah blah. Will the update be critical (iphone 5 rumors of location based computing, paying with the swipe of a phone)?
I find the second option to be most feasible, but would like to test out the online community.
Thanks!
-Eric
JSage
Mar 19, 06:13 PM
How did this thread become an argument between different dialects? Stop trolling and enjoy using the phones that you have.
ctdonath
Sep 29, 09:07 AM
Thats not apart of what a home should be. Homes are for eating, sleeping, loving, and relaxing. A screening room is for... Well, none of those.
Nicely put. I follow the "no TV in the bedroom" rule for similar reasons (that room is for two things); will now extend the rule accordingly and start planning for the next house with suitable layout.
Nicely put. I follow the "no TV in the bedroom" rule for similar reasons (that room is for two things); will now extend the rule accordingly and start planning for the next house with suitable layout.
macalig
Oct 28, 04:22 PM
Hello guys,
I found some more info about open source 10.4.8 kernel. :D
http://macgeek.freeflux.net
http://semthex.freeflux.net
Check it out...
I found some more info about open source 10.4.8 kernel. :D
http://macgeek.freeflux.net
http://semthex.freeflux.net
Check it out...
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 08:08 PM
The only thing that I'm missing is to restart the Timer (or use another one). Invalidating my Timer only pauses it, even = nil or releasing it, my Timer just continues where it left.
What makes you think that ? Once you invalidate a timer, it's done and gone. Look, I implemented a timer that updates on screen with minutes:seconds and it gets reset properly when I invalidate it (take a peek at the screenshot).
A screenshot like this goes a long way. Console output with NSLog to know what gets called and when is even better.
If you posted up the full code of your viewController, we might even be able to point you in the right direction. The more you are specific, the better we can help.
I'm thinking you don't quite grasp what an NSTimer object is. It's not an actual timer as in a chicken timer. It's just an object that's inserted into the run loop, waits for a specificied interval and then calls a method (depending either the NSInvocation or the target/selector you used when creating it). If you set its repeat to YES, it will call this method over and over again at the specified interval.
This specified method (in my screenshot that would be updateLabel) has to do some processing to display minutes:seconds on a label.
What makes you think that ? Once you invalidate a timer, it's done and gone. Look, I implemented a timer that updates on screen with minutes:seconds and it gets reset properly when I invalidate it (take a peek at the screenshot).
A screenshot like this goes a long way. Console output with NSLog to know what gets called and when is even better.
If you posted up the full code of your viewController, we might even be able to point you in the right direction. The more you are specific, the better we can help.
I'm thinking you don't quite grasp what an NSTimer object is. It's not an actual timer as in a chicken timer. It's just an object that's inserted into the run loop, waits for a specificied interval and then calls a method (depending either the NSInvocation or the target/selector you used when creating it). If you set its repeat to YES, it will call this method over and over again at the specified interval.
This specified method (in my screenshot that would be updateLabel) has to do some processing to display minutes:seconds on a label.
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.
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
STTMac
Apr 15, 01:29 PM
This a very bad render fake picture kind.... Where did you see any apple product with that ugly back edge??? If you open the metadata of the picture with aperture you'll see.... well a BIG nothing no signature from any camera that may be used to take the picture... So pixel mix, noise on the render, bad shadow from the light source... the list may keep going... Try harder dude this is a very bad FAKE!!!
You put in a bad light the iPhone much bad that your light from the render...:confused:
You put in a bad light the iPhone much bad that your light from the render...:confused:
MCIowaRulz
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
Maybe the reason why they are having problems with licensing is because of gTunes:D
http://www.androidfreeware.net/download-gtunes-music.html
http://www.androidfreeware.net/download-gtunes-music.html
tristangage
Apr 22, 03:41 AM
Essentially just like Facebook's "Like" feature, then? People seem to like it on Facebook; would it be useful here?
But then people on Facebook just complain about how there's no Dislike button. I think it'd be interesting to see how the current state works, rather than tweak it from speculation on how things might turn out.
But then people on Facebook just complain about how there's no Dislike button. I think it'd be interesting to see how the current state works, rather than tweak it from speculation on how things might turn out.
Rogue.
Apr 25, 12:32 PM
Obviously a fake, the keyboard keys are square on mac keyboards. This photo has been stretched.
HMFIC03
Apr 5, 03:59 PM
:eek: Looks like the beginnings of NASCAR styled advertising that is blasted everywhere.
App Dev's and Apple should stick to the minimalist apple principles - clean interfaces, w/o out the commercial crapola.
App Dev's and Apple should stick to the minimalist apple principles - clean interfaces, w/o out the commercial crapola.
Nekbeth
Apr 27, 08:19 PM
I going to do that balamw, I'll show you what I got so far in little while.
Knight , I don't know how you do it. Check my photo log, mine keeps on running.
Knight , I don't know how you do it. Check my photo log, mine keeps on running.
reallynotnick
Apr 25, 04:30 PM
As an owner of a 4.3in EVO (came from the original iPhone), I have to say I welcome a larger screen on the iPhone, though I admit 4.3in is quite large. I figure 3.7-4in is the sweet spot.
kiljoy616
Jul 22, 11:54 PM
Oh my god...
did Apple seriously just make pointing fingers apart of their campaign?
I thought they were above that!
I understand that it's unfair that the other companies do that and all, but Apple really doesn't need to stoop to their level, do they?
They are still a company not a dam Religion so no they are not above it all.
Or do you think that other companies already are not preparing some kind of marketing around the problem.
That said, this generation of iphone will have this problem and that just something we have to live with if we want the look of the iphone.
did Apple seriously just make pointing fingers apart of their campaign?
I thought they were above that!
I understand that it's unfair that the other companies do that and all, but Apple really doesn't need to stoop to their level, do they?
They are still a company not a dam Religion so no they are not above it all.
Or do you think that other companies already are not preparing some kind of marketing around the problem.
That said, this generation of iphone will have this problem and that just something we have to live with if we want the look of the iphone.
solvs
Jan 12, 11:34 PM
Bloggers are not professionals anyways.
Some of them are trying to be, but as most of the rest of the posters here are trying to say, things like this just make it harder for them to be taken as such.
Some of them are trying to be, but as most of the rest of the posters here are trying to say, things like this just make it harder for them to be taken as such.
mcmlxix
Apr 5, 04:50 PM
�iAd Gallery is a free download.� I would certainly hope so.
Could you imagine a TV channel that is nothing but ads? In a way QVC/HSN are a little bit like that. I just hope iAD Gallery won�t be hawking porcelain figurines, food dehydrators, and authentic, genuine, faux diamonelle rings.
Oh yeah�what would I do oo oo for a Klondike Bar.
Could you imagine a TV channel that is nothing but ads? In a way QVC/HSN are a little bit like that. I just hope iAD Gallery won�t be hawking porcelain figurines, food dehydrators, and authentic, genuine, faux diamonelle rings.
Oh yeah�what would I do oo oo for a Klondike Bar.
arn
Apr 27, 03:19 AM
fwiw, here's some data from this news thread: http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/26/android-jumps-past-ios-in-overall-u-s-smartphone-usage/
The top rated posts:
Macman1993
13 hours ago at 12:07 pm
Some will be bothered about IOS not being the most dominant. I personally don't care, I just want the best mobile OS.
Rating: 15 Positives / 2 Negatives
brendu
13 hours ago at 12:12 pm
One interesting thing to note. Apple held 25% of recent acquirers with 2 phone models. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS. They are also on only 2 carriers, and have only been with Verizon for part of the time leading up to the march survey. Android however is on dozens of handsets and all four US carriers. I would say apple is doing amazingly well when you consider those specifics. I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
Rating: 12 Positives / 0 Negatives
komodrone
13 hours ago at 12:39 pm
"...in total penetration" THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. yeah I signed up for an account just to post this.
Rating: 10 Positives / 0 Negatives
Eddyisgreat
13 hours ago at 12:15 pm
If the iPhone were buy one get two free as well then I bet those numbers would be different :D
Rating: 9 Positives / 1 Negatives
VanMac
13 hours ago at 12:09 pm
Competition is good :) Keeps Apple on their toes Don't need another MS Monopoly.......
Rating: 12 Positives / 4 Negatives
Slix
13 hours ago at 12:14 pm
iPhones are still better.
Rating: 12 Positives / 5 Negatives
supmango
13 hours ago at 12:12 pm
I really hope that Apple sees trends like this and realizes it's time to change their game plan. No more once a year phones. Time to kick the innovation level up a few notches. Time for over the air OS updates, over the air app installs, wireless syncing and everything else Android has offered for some time now.
iOS does over the air app installs. Other than that, yes I agree that Apple needs to do those things. Oh, and I use Android because it's the only option on my carrier (its the least repulsive option anyway). But it sucks, and doesn't seem to be getting any better. I think the only reason it is seeing growth like it is is because of cheap hardware, and, as in my case, being the only real option on certain networks.
Rating: 6 Positives / 0 Negatives
Millah
2 hours ago at 11:13 pm
inevitable as android devices are available everywhere and in every price segment. remember, half of all American workers earn $505 or less per week.
The funny thing is, almost every single Android owner I know are people who could care less about "smartphones," really don't know much about technology, and only bought one because it was very cheap or free when they upgraded, and they were told that it could "run apps like the iPhone." These are people who had cheap free phones before they upgraded. And realistically, the majority of people are like that. But when we compare the industry profit percentages, it paints a much different picture. Which goes to show that market share is irrelevant especially in the cell phone business where cheap free phones are dominant. Its going to be interesting when Apple tries to go after this segment. I'm sure they'll come up with something clever.
Rating: 5 Positives / 0 Negatives
Michael Scrip
12 hours ago at 01:13 pm
Deceptive Report... Let's not forget, Apple iOS encompasses more then just iPhones. If you included the iPad and iPod Touch which both run Apple iOS then Apple's market share is still ahead of Android.
It's not *that" deceptive... they did include "US smartphone usage" in the headline. Here's why... Apple's smartphone is called "the iPhone" And then you've got "Android" which is a tons of phones from many manufacturers. When comparing smartphone numbers... it's the iPhone vs. many Android phones. You're right... if you wanna have a platform battle... iOS vs Android... you'd have to include iPods and iPads. But this is a comparison of phones...
Rating: 5 Positives / 0 Negatives
righttime
13 hours ago at 12:27 pm
Wow. A platform that is available on all four major carriers and has dozens of phones, passed the iPhone (which *just* became available on its second carrier) in overall usage. So I guess Google should be patting themselves on the back for this historic achievement.
Rating: 5 Positives / 0 Negatives
There isn't a huge amount of activity, but take it for what it's worth. Also, I think this was before we fixed the IE issue. It should work in IE now.
arn
The top rated posts:
Macman1993
13 hours ago at 12:07 pm
Some will be bothered about IOS not being the most dominant. I personally don't care, I just want the best mobile OS.
Rating: 15 Positives / 2 Negatives
brendu
13 hours ago at 12:12 pm
One interesting thing to note. Apple held 25% of recent acquirers with 2 phone models. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS. They are also on only 2 carriers, and have only been with Verizon for part of the time leading up to the march survey. Android however is on dozens of handsets and all four US carriers. I would say apple is doing amazingly well when you consider those specifics. I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
Rating: 12 Positives / 0 Negatives
komodrone
13 hours ago at 12:39 pm
"...in total penetration" THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. yeah I signed up for an account just to post this.
Rating: 10 Positives / 0 Negatives
Eddyisgreat
13 hours ago at 12:15 pm
If the iPhone were buy one get two free as well then I bet those numbers would be different :D
Rating: 9 Positives / 1 Negatives
VanMac
13 hours ago at 12:09 pm
Competition is good :) Keeps Apple on their toes Don't need another MS Monopoly.......
Rating: 12 Positives / 4 Negatives
Slix
13 hours ago at 12:14 pm
iPhones are still better.
Rating: 12 Positives / 5 Negatives
supmango
13 hours ago at 12:12 pm
I really hope that Apple sees trends like this and realizes it's time to change their game plan. No more once a year phones. Time to kick the innovation level up a few notches. Time for over the air OS updates, over the air app installs, wireless syncing and everything else Android has offered for some time now.
iOS does over the air app installs. Other than that, yes I agree that Apple needs to do those things. Oh, and I use Android because it's the only option on my carrier (its the least repulsive option anyway). But it sucks, and doesn't seem to be getting any better. I think the only reason it is seeing growth like it is is because of cheap hardware, and, as in my case, being the only real option on certain networks.
Rating: 6 Positives / 0 Negatives
Millah
2 hours ago at 11:13 pm
inevitable as android devices are available everywhere and in every price segment. remember, half of all American workers earn $505 or less per week.
The funny thing is, almost every single Android owner I know are people who could care less about "smartphones," really don't know much about technology, and only bought one because it was very cheap or free when they upgraded, and they were told that it could "run apps like the iPhone." These are people who had cheap free phones before they upgraded. And realistically, the majority of people are like that. But when we compare the industry profit percentages, it paints a much different picture. Which goes to show that market share is irrelevant especially in the cell phone business where cheap free phones are dominant. Its going to be interesting when Apple tries to go after this segment. I'm sure they'll come up with something clever.
Rating: 5 Positives / 0 Negatives
Michael Scrip
12 hours ago at 01:13 pm
Deceptive Report... Let's not forget, Apple iOS encompasses more then just iPhones. If you included the iPad and iPod Touch which both run Apple iOS then Apple's market share is still ahead of Android.
It's not *that" deceptive... they did include "US smartphone usage" in the headline. Here's why... Apple's smartphone is called "the iPhone" And then you've got "Android" which is a tons of phones from many manufacturers. When comparing smartphone numbers... it's the iPhone vs. many Android phones. You're right... if you wanna have a platform battle... iOS vs Android... you'd have to include iPods and iPads. But this is a comparison of phones...
Rating: 5 Positives / 0 Negatives
righttime
13 hours ago at 12:27 pm
Wow. A platform that is available on all four major carriers and has dozens of phones, passed the iPhone (which *just* became available on its second carrier) in overall usage. So I guess Google should be patting themselves on the back for this historic achievement.
Rating: 5 Positives / 0 Negatives
There isn't a huge amount of activity, but take it for what it's worth. Also, I think this was before we fixed the IE issue. It should work in IE now.
arn
shen
Oct 19, 04:50 PM
I'm sure you could -- go ahead, try me. :)
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
vista has zero buzz. i have been in this industry for a little too long, and generally a new win OS creates three specific attitudes in people:
1) the gamers/geeks "this will be the greatest thing ever! have you seen all the cool (insert useless feature here) and can you imagine what games will be able to do on this thing?!?"
2) the average person "i don't know, they say it won't crash, and last week i lost everything when (insert virus name here) hit me and this one is supposed to be better about that stuff."
3) the IT department "we will not be installing any of this platform until it has been tested for compatibility and security for our environment. maybe a year."
so far on Vista, the gamers have made a few "maybe it will be good" comments. the average joe hasn't said word one. the IT depts i know all have said they won't touch it with a 10 meter cattle prod.
but we have a 4th user, the MS diehard who is running the beta and RC stuff and keep trying to work up enthusiasm. and nobody cares.
but as you point out, they WILL sell million of copies. all OEM. if they didn't have their OEM channel so locked down with anti-competative measures, they would have perished after that dog release of windows ME......
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
vista has zero buzz. i have been in this industry for a little too long, and generally a new win OS creates three specific attitudes in people:
1) the gamers/geeks "this will be the greatest thing ever! have you seen all the cool (insert useless feature here) and can you imagine what games will be able to do on this thing?!?"
2) the average person "i don't know, they say it won't crash, and last week i lost everything when (insert virus name here) hit me and this one is supposed to be better about that stuff."
3) the IT department "we will not be installing any of this platform until it has been tested for compatibility and security for our environment. maybe a year."
so far on Vista, the gamers have made a few "maybe it will be good" comments. the average joe hasn't said word one. the IT depts i know all have said they won't touch it with a 10 meter cattle prod.
but we have a 4th user, the MS diehard who is running the beta and RC stuff and keep trying to work up enthusiasm. and nobody cares.
but as you point out, they WILL sell million of copies. all OEM. if they didn't have their OEM channel so locked down with anti-competative measures, they would have perished after that dog release of windows ME......
citizenzen
Apr 15, 03:13 PM
From the article ...
After passage in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and singing by Gov. Jerry Brown, both of which seem likely, California would become the first state to make curricula include notable gay Americans along with the contributions of women and various ethnic groups.
Shaun Travers, a San Diego activist, told San Diego 6: "It's very important that we represent all of California and that includes the LGBT community. Our people and our history."
But opponents said the move would add non-essential material to already-short instruction time.
Hmmm ... they don't seem to share that same concern when it comes to teaching Creationism in science class. :rolleyes:
After passage in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and singing by Gov. Jerry Brown, both of which seem likely, California would become the first state to make curricula include notable gay Americans along with the contributions of women and various ethnic groups.
Shaun Travers, a San Diego activist, told San Diego 6: "It's very important that we represent all of California and that includes the LGBT community. Our people and our history."
But opponents said the move would add non-essential material to already-short instruction time.
Hmmm ... they don't seem to share that same concern when it comes to teaching Creationism in science class. :rolleyes: