aus_dave
Aug 17, 09:07 PM
I guess it looks a bit like it - never seen it before. I started with just the shark but then I thought he needed some prey (was going to go with a scuba diver but thought that was in bad taste :)).
�algiris
Apr 6, 11:46 AM
12 PB in hard drives?
Dbrown
Apr 21, 09:53 PM
Except iOS is not a exclusively a smartphone OS. Again, if you are a developer, the metric that matters is how many devices are using the particular platform.
iOS for iphone is an exclusive smartphone OS. Or are you telling me that ipod touch and ipad run the same exact OS?
Why would you ever make a comparison like that? That's like comparing "laptop OS" versus "desktop OS". They're the same thing. Doesn't make a difference what device it's on, it's still the same OS. Is is that tough for you to understand?
Laptops and desktops run the same exact OS. There are no apps that are made specifically for a laptop or desktop. There are iphone apps that wont run on an ipod touch. There are ipad apps that wont run on an ipod touch or an iphone. If they were the same OS then that wouldnt happen.
Give me ONE compelling reason why you would ever compare just the phones segment.
Because it's common sense.
iOS for iphone is an exclusive smartphone OS. Or are you telling me that ipod touch and ipad run the same exact OS?
Why would you ever make a comparison like that? That's like comparing "laptop OS" versus "desktop OS". They're the same thing. Doesn't make a difference what device it's on, it's still the same OS. Is is that tough for you to understand?
Laptops and desktops run the same exact OS. There are no apps that are made specifically for a laptop or desktop. There are iphone apps that wont run on an ipod touch. There are ipad apps that wont run on an ipod touch or an iphone. If they were the same OS then that wouldnt happen.
Give me ONE compelling reason why you would ever compare just the phones segment.
Because it's common sense.
techfreak85
Jan 2, 10:39 AM
alright! thanks! let us know if you have any problems or issues and we'll try to help you out.
we just got passed by another team, so we are now #61. and we will get passed again in less than a month. we have got to get more people involved!
Or current people getting bonus points. I'm busy today, but maybe I could write up something tonight, time permitting.
we just got passed by another team, so we are now #61. and we will get passed again in less than a month. we have got to get more people involved!
Or current people getting bonus points. I'm busy today, but maybe I could write up something tonight, time permitting.
more...
fenixx
Oct 5, 04:51 PM
mmm, leopard anticipation building!
bri1212
Dec 24, 08:40 AM
Do we all like price fixing ?
Apple products are too often kept at RRP - not sure if its always by agreements with apple - "don't discount more than 10% or lose authorised reseller status"
Obviously good for apple products, but not for the consumer.
My understanding of price fixing, is when two competing manufacturers sell the same type of product and agree to only sell at a certain price, usually to keep the product at an unnaturally higher price then necessary. An example of this would be if Apple, contacted Samsung, and discussed making their tablet computer for sale at a certain price, to keep the price igher so that both companies would make more profit.
However, this is not the case with the Ipad. Most electronic products are given a manufacturers retail price, and you as the retail store, do not have the right to sell at a larger than agreed upon discount. The way some companies get around this is by packaging products and accessories together. This is done by every major manufacturer, from Apple, Sony, Samsung, Sharp, Nintendo, Microsoft, etc... Go check the Tv's in Best Buy, and then check Fry's, and then some other retailers, they will all be the same price essentially. Look at the PSP's or PS3 or the Wii. All are price controlled by the manufacturer. there is nothing illegal about this. By using the term price fixing, your intimating that they are illegally controlling the price, but this is not the case.
Apple products are too often kept at RRP - not sure if its always by agreements with apple - "don't discount more than 10% or lose authorised reseller status"
Obviously good for apple products, but not for the consumer.
My understanding of price fixing, is when two competing manufacturers sell the same type of product and agree to only sell at a certain price, usually to keep the product at an unnaturally higher price then necessary. An example of this would be if Apple, contacted Samsung, and discussed making their tablet computer for sale at a certain price, to keep the price igher so that both companies would make more profit.
However, this is not the case with the Ipad. Most electronic products are given a manufacturers retail price, and you as the retail store, do not have the right to sell at a larger than agreed upon discount. The way some companies get around this is by packaging products and accessories together. This is done by every major manufacturer, from Apple, Sony, Samsung, Sharp, Nintendo, Microsoft, etc... Go check the Tv's in Best Buy, and then check Fry's, and then some other retailers, they will all be the same price essentially. Look at the PSP's or PS3 or the Wii. All are price controlled by the manufacturer. there is nothing illegal about this. By using the term price fixing, your intimating that they are illegally controlling the price, but this is not the case.
more...
PCMacUser
Feb 23, 04:03 PM
Hi Guys and Girls,
Just thought I'd mention that the highly respected PC website "Tom's Hardware Guide" has just posted an absolutely GLOWING review of the Mac Mini on its website today...
http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20050216/index.html
Just thought I'd mention that the highly respected PC website "Tom's Hardware Guide" has just posted an absolutely GLOWING review of the Mac Mini on its website today...
http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20050216/index.html
appleguy123
Jul 9, 02:39 AM
Walmart is the cheapest and that's only by $3.
more...
LethalWolfe
Nov 13, 11:21 AM
Most of the comments here I feel are due to the old saying!
"A BAD CRAFTSMAN ALWAYS BLAMES HIS TOOLS"
I know allot of people that do amazing stuff with FCP, Motion & Shake (myself included) :p
The conversation isn't really about the tools but the tool maker.
Lethal
"A BAD CRAFTSMAN ALWAYS BLAMES HIS TOOLS"
I know allot of people that do amazing stuff with FCP, Motion & Shake (myself included) :p
The conversation isn't really about the tools but the tool maker.
Lethal
Blue Velvet
Mar 2, 12:24 PM
The biggest problem I see with SS is that it's an unsustainable Ponzi Scheme which requires constant growth in population in order to sustain costs incurred by smaller and smaller groups of people.
This is why you are wrong:
Nonetheless, some critics are attempting to undermine confidence in Social Security with wild and blatantly false accusations. They allege that the trust funds have been �raided� or disparage the trust funds as �funny money� or mere �IOUs.� Some even label Social Security a �Ponzi scheme� after the notorious 1920s swindler Charles Ponzi. All of these claims are nonsense.
Every year since 1984, Social Security has collected more in payroll taxes and other income than it pays in benefits and other expenses. (The authors of the 1983 Social Security reform law did this on purpose in order to help pre-fund some of the costs of the baby boomers� retirement.) These surpluses are invested in U.S. Treasury securities that are every bit as sound as the U.S. government securities held by investors around the globe; investors regard these securities as among the world�s very safest investments.
Investing the trust funds in Treasury securities is perfectly appropriate. The federal government borrows funds from Social Security to help finance its ongoing operations in the same way that consumers and businesses borrow money deposited in a bank to finance their spending. In neither case does this represent a �raid� on the funds. The bank depositor will get his or her money back when needed, and so will the Social Security trust funds.
As far back as 1938, independent advisors to Social Security firmly endorsed the investment of Social Security surpluses in Treasury securities, saying that it does �not involve any misuse of these moneys or endanger the safety of these funds.�
Moreover, Social Security is the �polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme,� says the man who quite literally wrote the book about Ponzi�s famous scam, Boston University professor Mitchell Zuckoff. The Social Security Administration�s historian has a piece on this topic as well.
Unlike the frauds of Ponzi � and, more recently, Bernard Madoff � Social Security does not promise unrealistically large financial returns and does not require unsustainable increases in the number of participants to remain solvent. Instead, for the past 75 years it has provided a foundation that workers can build on for retirement as well as social insurance protection to families whose breadwinner dies and workers who become disabled.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/social-security-sense-and-nonsense/
See, also: Social Security a Ponzi scheme? No way. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009010715)
This is why you are wrong:
Nonetheless, some critics are attempting to undermine confidence in Social Security with wild and blatantly false accusations. They allege that the trust funds have been �raided� or disparage the trust funds as �funny money� or mere �IOUs.� Some even label Social Security a �Ponzi scheme� after the notorious 1920s swindler Charles Ponzi. All of these claims are nonsense.
Every year since 1984, Social Security has collected more in payroll taxes and other income than it pays in benefits and other expenses. (The authors of the 1983 Social Security reform law did this on purpose in order to help pre-fund some of the costs of the baby boomers� retirement.) These surpluses are invested in U.S. Treasury securities that are every bit as sound as the U.S. government securities held by investors around the globe; investors regard these securities as among the world�s very safest investments.
Investing the trust funds in Treasury securities is perfectly appropriate. The federal government borrows funds from Social Security to help finance its ongoing operations in the same way that consumers and businesses borrow money deposited in a bank to finance their spending. In neither case does this represent a �raid� on the funds. The bank depositor will get his or her money back when needed, and so will the Social Security trust funds.
As far back as 1938, independent advisors to Social Security firmly endorsed the investment of Social Security surpluses in Treasury securities, saying that it does �not involve any misuse of these moneys or endanger the safety of these funds.�
Moreover, Social Security is the �polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme,� says the man who quite literally wrote the book about Ponzi�s famous scam, Boston University professor Mitchell Zuckoff. The Social Security Administration�s historian has a piece on this topic as well.
Unlike the frauds of Ponzi � and, more recently, Bernard Madoff � Social Security does not promise unrealistically large financial returns and does not require unsustainable increases in the number of participants to remain solvent. Instead, for the past 75 years it has provided a foundation that workers can build on for retirement as well as social insurance protection to families whose breadwinner dies and workers who become disabled.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/social-security-sense-and-nonsense/
See, also: Social Security a Ponzi scheme? No way. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009010715)
more...
i.mac
Apr 27, 11:08 PM
Why does it take a media storm for Apple to open up on an issue ? It would be so much better if they more forthcoming and frank before an issue snowballs.
You have no clue.
You're not an enginner.
You have no clue.
You're not an enginner.
AndrewR23
Apr 8, 01:05 AM
Is there any way for me to change the "a" in my name to a capital A? Please mods? It bothers me :rolleyes:
more...
BillyShears
Oct 31, 12:11 PM
I wonder if the Shuffle will ever have more than 2 gigabytes. It's form factor seems to limit it, not because there'll never 2 gigabyte storage that small (there will), but because you can't select songs. I wonder how useful a 10 gig Shuffle would be. (Maybe it would be useful... since I don't listen to music on "shuffle" very often, it doesn't appeal to me, so maybe I'm missing something.)
But on the other hand, what can Apple do? They won't be able to make it much smaller (still needs controls and headphone jack).
That leaves them with the only option being to make it cheaper.
Feature-wise, I guess wireless syncing, as it gets smaller the dock is going to be smaller and smaller (the current version looks flimsy, like it wouldn't stand up or something.) But there's not much you can do with something with no screen.
They have to do one (or more) of the following:
i will love you forever and
more...
will love you forever quotes.
i love you forever gif.
more...
i love you forever pictures.
quot;love you foreverquot; embroidered
Item 988656371 (6599 – Love You Forever)
But on the other hand, what can Apple do? They won't be able to make it much smaller (still needs controls and headphone jack).
That leaves them with the only option being to make it cheaper.
Feature-wise, I guess wireless syncing, as it gets smaller the dock is going to be smaller and smaller (the current version looks flimsy, like it wouldn't stand up or something.) But there's not much you can do with something with no screen.
They have to do one (or more) of the following:
nizmoz
Dec 28, 08:38 AM
Well said. I was going to start typing a similar post but glad you did. The person that replied to the OP above saying IT people are clueless is 100% wrong as you are the one that is clueless. I run a IT department and there is no way MACs would ever become the Computer of choice over any Windows machine that has way more software for the enterprise than a MAC will ever see. And using Bootcamp is a waste of funds as PCs are cheaper. It always takes someone who has no clue about how IT works to say something like that.
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
more...
edesignuk
Feb 14, 02:40 AM
Uh, I don't know if this has been asked before, but, about edesignuk's job at dealing with threads that get off track... What if it's edesignuk himself who gets it off track? What happens then?
Please don't hurt me! I'm scared of the mods. I mean no disrespect! It's just a question, I swear! I wasn't implying anything!
Then I imagine I get a swift kick up the butt, and land back on my previously titled demi-god ass before I know it! :eek:
...I'll be good...:D
Please don't hurt me! I'm scared of the mods. I mean no disrespect! It's just a question, I swear! I wasn't implying anything!
Then I imagine I get a swift kick up the butt, and land back on my previously titled demi-god ass before I know it! :eek:
...I'll be good...:D
srl7741
Sep 13, 02:26 PM
Found a nice new image that looks pretty good. Source (http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/downloads/date/any/)
.
.
more...
Wayfarer
Apr 30, 09:18 PM
I like Castle for the new service. The whole Castle in the Cloud theme. It works.
This instantly made me think of Laputa: Castle in the sky as well as the Laputa in gulliver's travels.
I think apple should go for this over iCloud. It's a brilliant idea to brand a cloud related service as a castle. It just fits. They can even claim that it's "magic as a castle in the sky"
Thank you for referencing one of the greatest films ever!
http://www.hardydev.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/laputa-castle.jpg
A floating castle should be the logo. :D
This instantly made me think of Laputa: Castle in the sky as well as the Laputa in gulliver's travels.
I think apple should go for this over iCloud. It's a brilliant idea to brand a cloud related service as a castle. It just fits. They can even claim that it's "magic as a castle in the sky"
Thank you for referencing one of the greatest films ever!
http://www.hardydev.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/laputa-castle.jpg
A floating castle should be the logo. :D
wilburdl
Nov 22, 12:19 AM
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20061120/iPhone_270x409_270x409.jpg (Credit: Ministry of Tech)
That chill in the air means two things: the holidays are approaching, and the height of sports gambling season is upon us. The upcoming slate of college bowl games, the Super Bowl, and March Madness always warms the heart of even the casual gambler.
But this year, techies can get in on the fun. A sports betting site called Bodog.com is taking bets on the launch date for Apple's long-rumored iPhone. Bodog's using the money line system to gauge whether Apple will introduce the iPhone by the end of April or whether it will introduce the product at January's MacWorld conference.
For example, if you think Apple's going to launch the iPhone by April 30, you need to wager $150 to win $100. That means Bodog considers that likelihood as the favorite, while a launch after that date (or no launch) would win $110 on a $100 bet. Based on the odds quoted by Bodog, it's even more likely that Apple will annouce the "impending release" of the iPhone at January's MacWorld. A wager of $280 on that possibility is required to take home $100.
We think Bodog should consider additional wagers, such as: Will Steve Jobs come out at MacWorld wearing his traditional black mock turtleneck or something different, like the button-down shirt he sported at Apple's Showtime event earlier this year? But, as usual, nobody asked. Since nobody's asking for our sports picks either, Crave likes Ohio State over USC in the Fiesta Bowl, San Diego's high-powered offense exposing Rex Grossman and the Bears in the Super Bowl, and North Carolina to bring the hardware back to Chapel Hill.
source: http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9664161-1.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
That chill in the air means two things: the holidays are approaching, and the height of sports gambling season is upon us. The upcoming slate of college bowl games, the Super Bowl, and March Madness always warms the heart of even the casual gambler.
But this year, techies can get in on the fun. A sports betting site called Bodog.com is taking bets on the launch date for Apple's long-rumored iPhone. Bodog's using the money line system to gauge whether Apple will introduce the iPhone by the end of April or whether it will introduce the product at January's MacWorld conference.
For example, if you think Apple's going to launch the iPhone by April 30, you need to wager $150 to win $100. That means Bodog considers that likelihood as the favorite, while a launch after that date (or no launch) would win $110 on a $100 bet. Based on the odds quoted by Bodog, it's even more likely that Apple will annouce the "impending release" of the iPhone at January's MacWorld. A wager of $280 on that possibility is required to take home $100.
We think Bodog should consider additional wagers, such as: Will Steve Jobs come out at MacWorld wearing his traditional black mock turtleneck or something different, like the button-down shirt he sported at Apple's Showtime event earlier this year? But, as usual, nobody asked. Since nobody's asking for our sports picks either, Crave likes Ohio State over USC in the Fiesta Bowl, San Diego's high-powered offense exposing Rex Grossman and the Bears in the Super Bowl, and North Carolina to bring the hardware back to Chapel Hill.
source: http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9664161-1.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
bretm
Nov 19, 12:07 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
It goes to show you that they can still make a profit with $100 off. I guess the price gouging by Apple continues.
They're not making a profit by any means. Since it seems the Marshalls that had them had only 5 or so, it's just a way to get you in the store. The real investigation might be a bait and switch kind of thing. Although there was only bait. But at what point is the advertising side illegal? What if they only had one for sale and took out huge billboard ads? Obviously the purchase of one iPad and one billboard would be cheap advertising to get lots of people in the store hoping to get a cheap iPad.
I'm certain TJ MAXX ran this by their legal team...
If they are willing to sell the product at a $100 loss, that's their choice. You may not have a warranty, etc, because they aren't "authorized" by Apple as a price-controlled reseller, but that doesn't mean it's illegal for them to sell it.
I sold my iPad on craigslist at a loss. I'm not authorized to do that and Steve doesn't care.
Without a reciept or without a reciept from an authorized dealer, Apple would still have to provide warranty service from the manufacture date.
It goes to show you that they can still make a profit with $100 off. I guess the price gouging by Apple continues.
They're not making a profit by any means. Since it seems the Marshalls that had them had only 5 or so, it's just a way to get you in the store. The real investigation might be a bait and switch kind of thing. Although there was only bait. But at what point is the advertising side illegal? What if they only had one for sale and took out huge billboard ads? Obviously the purchase of one iPad and one billboard would be cheap advertising to get lots of people in the store hoping to get a cheap iPad.
I'm certain TJ MAXX ran this by their legal team...
If they are willing to sell the product at a $100 loss, that's their choice. You may not have a warranty, etc, because they aren't "authorized" by Apple as a price-controlled reseller, but that doesn't mean it's illegal for them to sell it.
I sold my iPad on craigslist at a loss. I'm not authorized to do that and Steve doesn't care.
Without a reciept or without a reciept from an authorized dealer, Apple would still have to provide warranty service from the manufacture date.
MacRumors
Oct 5, 04:38 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
A recent posting on an Apple developer's blog (http://www.musingsfrommars.org/) Musings from Mars depicts new Safari features built into the latest developer preview of Leopard. As of this posting, MacRumors cannot independently verify the claims, however the blogger posts multiple video clips of the features. The blogger highlights the following features:
Tabbed Browsing Enhancements
Following the lead of other browsers, Apple has implemented a customizable tab-bar so that users can re-order tabs via drag-and-drop. Apple has also extended the concept to be able to make a window from a tab by dragging a tab off of the tab bar.
Search Improvements
The Safari search option is now integrated into the browser window much like Firefox's implementation. However search results are displayed all at once by default rather than Firefox's one-at-a-time approach.
Resizable TEXTAREAs
Safari will allow the user to resize a text area (via a drag corner) in an HTML form and dynamically redraw the web page to fit the new size.
Leopard was previewed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060807161421.shtml) at this year's Worldwide Developer Conference, and should ship next spring.
A recent posting on an Apple developer's blog (http://www.musingsfrommars.org/) Musings from Mars depicts new Safari features built into the latest developer preview of Leopard. As of this posting, MacRumors cannot independently verify the claims, however the blogger posts multiple video clips of the features. The blogger highlights the following features:
Tabbed Browsing Enhancements
Following the lead of other browsers, Apple has implemented a customizable tab-bar so that users can re-order tabs via drag-and-drop. Apple has also extended the concept to be able to make a window from a tab by dragging a tab off of the tab bar.
Search Improvements
The Safari search option is now integrated into the browser window much like Firefox's implementation. However search results are displayed all at once by default rather than Firefox's one-at-a-time approach.
Resizable TEXTAREAs
Safari will allow the user to resize a text area (via a drag corner) in an HTML form and dynamically redraw the web page to fit the new size.
Leopard was previewed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060807161421.shtml) at this year's Worldwide Developer Conference, and should ship next spring.
LightSpeed1
Mar 26, 08:24 PM
I know that's not supposed to be funny, but man...that's funny.
Diatribe
Feb 14, 12:48 PM
Just to let know everybody that i just sent my first complain about edesignuk as a moderator.
Yeah, seriously, what is this all about?
Do you just need attention or what?
Yeah, seriously, what is this all about?
Do you just need attention or what?
iStudentUK
Jan 10, 03:45 AM
In the UK, you are contracted to the retailer you bought it from. They are responsible for the product for six years. We have good laws in place to protect the consumer. I find it hard to understand why people never use their rights under laws such as the Sales of Goods Act.
A warranty is an insurance policy. Apple Care in the UK is not a policy from Apple, but a third party insurance company that they are contracted with. Can't remember the name of the company.
Apple are pretty good at repairing out of guarantee/Apple Care products, even when these times have lapsed. Had a power supply and logic board in my 4 year old iMac replaced for free. Sales of Goods Act is your best friend. :)
Whilst I always love to see people using the Sale of Goods Act to get what they deserve, can I make one small correction to avoid confusion?
The SOGA can offer protection for up to 6 years, but not automatically. The goods should be of "satisfactory quality" and this does not mean everything should last 6 years. The question the judge asks is- how long would the 'reasonable man' expect this item to last? For an iPad easily 2 years (Apple offer Applecare that long) maybe 3 if you are lucky. I don't think an iPad should be expected to last 6 years though.
Remember almost everything you buy is subject to SOGA, and I can't ask my local stationers to replace my black biro after 5 years if it stops working!
A warranty is an insurance policy. Apple Care in the UK is not a policy from Apple, but a third party insurance company that they are contracted with. Can't remember the name of the company.
Apple are pretty good at repairing out of guarantee/Apple Care products, even when these times have lapsed. Had a power supply and logic board in my 4 year old iMac replaced for free. Sales of Goods Act is your best friend. :)
Whilst I always love to see people using the Sale of Goods Act to get what they deserve, can I make one small correction to avoid confusion?
The SOGA can offer protection for up to 6 years, but not automatically. The goods should be of "satisfactory quality" and this does not mean everything should last 6 years. The question the judge asks is- how long would the 'reasonable man' expect this item to last? For an iPad easily 2 years (Apple offer Applecare that long) maybe 3 if you are lucky. I don't think an iPad should be expected to last 6 years though.
Remember almost everything you buy is subject to SOGA, and I can't ask my local stationers to replace my black biro after 5 years if it stops working!
*LTD*
Mar 25, 11:53 AM
If Apple thinks they can do it better, all the more power to them.
That's been their entire motivation all along. If they decide it's something they want to do, there's no reason not to support it.
That's been their entire motivation all along. If they decide it's something they want to do, there's no reason not to support it.
No comments:
Post a Comment