kdarling
Oct 22, 08:00 PM
The site does update the information. Zoom in and click on the "deadspots" The date reported is shown. I clicked on 25 for Verizon and 25 for AT&T they were all reported in 2008 or 2009.
Cool. I'll have to see if there's a way to report a fixed dead spot. Just no time right now.
Cool. I'll have to see if there's a way to report a fixed dead spot. Just no time right now.
techfreak85
Apr 21, 11:20 PM
Is this going to be used ultimately to rate posters (kind of like the Apple site for one example)?
How is abuse of this going to be addressed?
If all it�s used for is the post itself, I don�t see any value for this.
What are MR�s (Arn�s and the other Gods) thoughts on what they want to do with this?
If it was more of a "thanks" system, I envision that it could show which members have thanked the post and could also show in the user info how many thanks the member has received total.
How is abuse of this going to be addressed?
If all it�s used for is the post itself, I don�t see any value for this.
What are MR�s (Arn�s and the other Gods) thoughts on what they want to do with this?
If it was more of a "thanks" system, I envision that it could show which members have thanked the post and could also show in the user info how many thanks the member has received total.
ChazUK
Apr 24, 06:03 AM
One thing I willask about all of this children/peadophile spin is why are these theoretical parents putting their children at risk giving their children such "connected" devices?
It's simply asking for trouble.
It's simply asking for trouble.
DaveDaveDave
Apr 29, 03:24 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.
There's a huge difference between merging in concepts of the UI, user-friendly software distribution, media access and what you describe.
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
There's a huge difference between merging in concepts of the UI, user-friendly software distribution, media access and what you describe.
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
mmcc
Mar 29, 08:46 AM
Yes, the App Store can give you exposure, but you still have to market and sell your solution for people to find you or want you. Plus, the AppStore is one outlet and your other outlets should never be abandoned.
Yes, but you can't have it both ways. A successful Mac App Store from your perspective means more Apple customers use it to find apps. In my experience to date, this means those other "outlets" become less and less profitable. Marketing is a numbers game and a major disruption like the Mac App Store can quickly shift those numbers to the negative. In my case it is no longer profitable to maintain some of those "other outlets".
Here's a specific example: Google AdWords. Before the Mac App Store opened, many customers gravitated first to Google search to find an app. I would pay for AdWords placement and if I got a click-through I could be assured that my website exclusively captured the attention. Yes, my app still had to be good enough to capture a sale but at least there were no other competitors there -- and no freebie alternatives (except for demos/trials).
The same strategy no longer works with the Mac App Store. First, the traffic in Google search is reduced as more Apple customers gravitate to the Mac App Store first. My conversions costs showed a clear trend upward as soon as the Mac App Store opened (other competitors in my app space have also dropped away from AdWords indicating similar escalating conversion costs). Furthermore, if I try to drive customers to the Mac App Store to buy, to increase my exposure therein, I incur the AdWord conversion costs, plus the 30% to Apple and a reduced price in the Mac App Store to compete in the race to the bottom. Clearly AdWords is a losing strategy in this case.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced.
That's fine if the volume was worthwhile. What I am saying is that impulse buy volume is NOT there at any price to even approach what I was making in my market space before. I've been in the #1 spot for my category and it was not a windfall.
I say again, the Mac App Store has depressed the sales volume and gross in my category for everyone. This is not a success in the sense of encouraging a vibrant and growing Mac software market. I felt that before the Mac App Store opened that the Mac software market was reaching a critical mass and that developers found it increasingly attractive. The Mac App Store has crushed that IMO and I am not sure it will return unless Apple makes huge percentage gains in the traditional PC market (and recent trends show it is leveling off).
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
How exactly would you suggest to market in the Mac App Store? I can't buy ad placement. Lowering my price to 99 cents hasn't given me exposure. I need some (ethical) ideas. :p
Yes, but you can't have it both ways. A successful Mac App Store from your perspective means more Apple customers use it to find apps. In my experience to date, this means those other "outlets" become less and less profitable. Marketing is a numbers game and a major disruption like the Mac App Store can quickly shift those numbers to the negative. In my case it is no longer profitable to maintain some of those "other outlets".
Here's a specific example: Google AdWords. Before the Mac App Store opened, many customers gravitated first to Google search to find an app. I would pay for AdWords placement and if I got a click-through I could be assured that my website exclusively captured the attention. Yes, my app still had to be good enough to capture a sale but at least there were no other competitors there -- and no freebie alternatives (except for demos/trials).
The same strategy no longer works with the Mac App Store. First, the traffic in Google search is reduced as more Apple customers gravitate to the Mac App Store first. My conversions costs showed a clear trend upward as soon as the Mac App Store opened (other competitors in my app space have also dropped away from AdWords indicating similar escalating conversion costs). Furthermore, if I try to drive customers to the Mac App Store to buy, to increase my exposure therein, I incur the AdWord conversion costs, plus the 30% to Apple and a reduced price in the Mac App Store to compete in the race to the bottom. Clearly AdWords is a losing strategy in this case.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced.
That's fine if the volume was worthwhile. What I am saying is that impulse buy volume is NOT there at any price to even approach what I was making in my market space before. I've been in the #1 spot for my category and it was not a windfall.
I say again, the Mac App Store has depressed the sales volume and gross in my category for everyone. This is not a success in the sense of encouraging a vibrant and growing Mac software market. I felt that before the Mac App Store opened that the Mac software market was reaching a critical mass and that developers found it increasingly attractive. The Mac App Store has crushed that IMO and I am not sure it will return unless Apple makes huge percentage gains in the traditional PC market (and recent trends show it is leveling off).
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
How exactly would you suggest to market in the Mac App Store? I can't buy ad placement. Lowering my price to 99 cents hasn't given me exposure. I need some (ethical) ideas. :p
roadbloc
Apr 8, 05:57 PM
I'd say 10.6 had a ton of new features; they just weren't in the UI.
Care to elaborate? I didn't notice any apart from a few UI tweaks.
Care to elaborate? I didn't notice any apart from a few UI tweaks.
IJ Reilly
Oct 21, 04:58 PM
Microsoft only paid a dividend when their share growth stagnated.
Apple on the other hand has had stellar share growth recently so there is really no need to pay dividends.
It isn't a question of "need." It's still a good idea, for the reasons I've stated.
Also, AAPL has not had "stellar" growth this year. It was actually down for the YTD until recently.
Apple on the other hand has had stellar share growth recently so there is really no need to pay dividends.
It isn't a question of "need." It's still a good idea, for the reasons I've stated.
Also, AAPL has not had "stellar" growth this year. It was actually down for the YTD until recently.
relativist
Apr 9, 05:25 PM
I checked next weeks circular on slickdeals.net and no mention of iPad2. I'm starting to think it would be better to buy it anywhere else. From what I remember it took about 2-3 months at most after the iPad 1 was announced that it became readily available.
BornAgainMac
Oct 19, 10:37 AM
It is nice for Apple to get above that 5% in something besides iPods. I wonder if Microsoft will ever have more than 5% in mp3 player sales?
iShater
Jul 28, 01:02 PM
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
That is true. I'm surprised nobody has brought even diesel based hybrids here yet. I recall hearing VW was planning on it, but I don't remember where I read that.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
That is true. I'm surprised nobody has brought even diesel based hybrids here yet. I recall hearing VW was planning on it, but I don't remember where I read that.
evilgEEk
Oct 3, 01:49 PM
I still believe that there will be some type of announcement, on something, before Thanksgiving.
I agree. One last big announcement before the Holiday Season.
I'm really excited about the iTV. That and Leopard is what I'll be eager to hear about.
I agree. One last big announcement before the Holiday Season.
I'm really excited about the iTV. That and Leopard is what I'll be eager to hear about.
MattSepeta
May 4, 03:55 PM
Exactly. Physicians can't be sitting there going through every single life hazard.
"Do you walk across the street?"
"Yes"
"You should look both ways."
"No ****!"
"Do you go to the mall?"
"Yes"
"You should keep children under the age of 5 close at your side at all times."
"No ****!"
Which brings me back to my initial reply. A "Firearm" has ZERO possibility of injuring your child, until someone behaves irresponsibly. I am fine with a doctor providing a pamphlet of common household hazards and steps to prevent them, but I get the feeling this is not the case. I can too easily imagine the doctor going off on a tangent about firearms deaths statistics, etc...
But again, the most important part: If you dont want your doctor "politicing" you, GO TO A NEW DOCTOR. There should NEVER be laws against what you can or can not say.
"Do you walk across the street?"
"Yes"
"You should look both ways."
"No ****!"
"Do you go to the mall?"
"Yes"
"You should keep children under the age of 5 close at your side at all times."
"No ****!"
Which brings me back to my initial reply. A "Firearm" has ZERO possibility of injuring your child, until someone behaves irresponsibly. I am fine with a doctor providing a pamphlet of common household hazards and steps to prevent them, but I get the feeling this is not the case. I can too easily imagine the doctor going off on a tangent about firearms deaths statistics, etc...
But again, the most important part: If you dont want your doctor "politicing" you, GO TO A NEW DOCTOR. There should NEVER be laws against what you can or can not say.
Flowbee
Jan 12, 03:05 PM
not me. the video was sooo hilarious. CES = the most prominent electronics show in the world with the MOST HIGH TECH tech you can find. and they allow for a 14.99 POS hack to ruin almost every booth.
And I could have ruined every booth with a $1.99 slingshot and a pocket full of small stones.
You can't demonstrate tech products in an open environment while at the same time disabling their features and ensuring that nobody will tamper with them. How do you let people try out your new TV if you've had to disable the IR?
If pranks like these become more common, companies and trade shows will start to put severe restrictions on who's allowed to attend their events. And that's a bad thing. It's pretty safe to say that Gizmodo, Engadget, and all the other tech blogs would continue to cover CES product announcements whether they're invited to the event or not, so the big manufacturers don't have much to lose by the blogs not being there.
And I could have ruined every booth with a $1.99 slingshot and a pocket full of small stones.
You can't demonstrate tech products in an open environment while at the same time disabling their features and ensuring that nobody will tamper with them. How do you let people try out your new TV if you've had to disable the IR?
If pranks like these become more common, companies and trade shows will start to put severe restrictions on who's allowed to attend their events. And that's a bad thing. It's pretty safe to say that Gizmodo, Engadget, and all the other tech blogs would continue to cover CES product announcements whether they're invited to the event or not, so the big manufacturers don't have much to lose by the blogs not being there.
Patrick J
Apr 29, 03:19 PM
WTF is so great about 'gestures'? There's nothing quite so miserable as barely bumping the fraking trackpad while typing and causing the text cursor to go flying off somewhere else or any other way of accidentally activating some of these gestures (the more you have the more likely you'll accidentally activate them at some point unintentionally). And while Apple trackpads feel better than many out there, nothing beats a mouse for certain operations, IMO. I'd take a mouse any day over a trackpad. Old fashioned? That's like saying a '65 Mustang with a 4-speed on the floor is old fashioned next to a modern Mitsubishi Lancer with paddle shifters. I'll take the Mustang ANY DAY over that.
Definitely disagree with you. I have my trackpad configured with loads of shortcuts, and I feel really limited with a normal Windows 2 button mouse.
Apart from the generic OS X defaults, I close, open, and refresh tabs, open links in new tabs, and switch to previous/next tabs, all without moving the cursor one inch.
For example, just a quick flick with 4 fingers in one direction or the other switches to the corresponding tab. Much faster then going up to the tab bar.
On my Magic Mouse, I have similar shortcuts.
This makes working on my Mac (and specially Safari) much faster, easier, and more efficient.
Definitely disagree with you. I have my trackpad configured with loads of shortcuts, and I feel really limited with a normal Windows 2 button mouse.
Apart from the generic OS X defaults, I close, open, and refresh tabs, open links in new tabs, and switch to previous/next tabs, all without moving the cursor one inch.
For example, just a quick flick with 4 fingers in one direction or the other switches to the corresponding tab. Much faster then going up to the tab bar.
On my Magic Mouse, I have similar shortcuts.
This makes working on my Mac (and specially Safari) much faster, easier, and more efficient.
eawmp1
May 4, 04:08 PM
Sorry, during which year of medical school do doctors receive gun safety training? How many hours of coursework on home safety do they complete? The typical MD is no more qualified to discuss these matters than any bozo on the street with more than an ounce of common sense. If they really want to help their patients child-proof their homes effectively, providing a helpful checklist would far more effective than interrogating parents.
Which brings me back to my initial reply. . I am fine with a doctor providing a pamphlet of common household hazards and steps to prevent them, but I get the feeling this is not the case. I can too easily imagine the doctor going off on a tangent about firearms deaths statistics, etc...
But again, the most important part: If you dont want your doctor "politicing" you, GO TO A NEW DOCTOR. There should NEVER be laws against what you can or can not say.
My, we do get defensive about our guns, don't we? :rolleyes:
Asking a question about potential hazard in the home does not constitute an attempt to "interrogate" or "politic." A verbal inventory is often reinforced by a written checklist. However, if the answer to "Do you have a firearm in the house?" is "yes", the follow up is "make sure there is a trigger lock, or that it is locked up where the child cannot access it."
I agree that "a "Firearm" has ZERO possibility of injuring your child, until someone behaves irresponsibly." However, the irresponsibility is the parent leaving the firearm and ammunition where a child can access it. That is a preventable irresponsibility.
Which brings me back to my initial reply. . I am fine with a doctor providing a pamphlet of common household hazards and steps to prevent them, but I get the feeling this is not the case. I can too easily imagine the doctor going off on a tangent about firearms deaths statistics, etc...
But again, the most important part: If you dont want your doctor "politicing" you, GO TO A NEW DOCTOR. There should NEVER be laws against what you can or can not say.
My, we do get defensive about our guns, don't we? :rolleyes:
Asking a question about potential hazard in the home does not constitute an attempt to "interrogate" or "politic." A verbal inventory is often reinforced by a written checklist. However, if the answer to "Do you have a firearm in the house?" is "yes", the follow up is "make sure there is a trigger lock, or that it is locked up where the child cannot access it."
I agree that "a "Firearm" has ZERO possibility of injuring your child, until someone behaves irresponsibly." However, the irresponsibility is the parent leaving the firearm and ammunition where a child can access it. That is a preventable irresponsibility.
SandynJosh
Apr 16, 11:24 PM
Apple does censor things they do not want certain content on the appstore. Show a nip and you get axed I highly disagree with that enable a type of parental control don't chose for me
Want to see a nip? Just turn on iPhone Safari and you can jump on the internet and see the whole tit. Apple has a right to offer a store that is kid friendly, and in the end may make them more money than if they let hookers walk the aisles.
iTunes is a safe place. It's free of smut and malware. Everyone can go there and have a good time, like Disneyland.
Want to see a nip? Just turn on iPhone Safari and you can jump on the internet and see the whole tit. Apple has a right to offer a store that is kid friendly, and in the end may make them more money than if they let hookers walk the aisles.
iTunes is a safe place. It's free of smut and malware. Everyone can go there and have a good time, like Disneyland.
Optimus Frag
May 4, 06:44 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I've no real need for an iPad and as such, no need for a tablet. But having had a go with the 'competitor's' including the so called iPad killer, Xoom, I think Apple have already won. These iPad ads are just confirming that to the public.
I've no real need for an iPad and as such, no need for a tablet. But having had a go with the 'competitor's' including the so called iPad killer, Xoom, I think Apple have already won. These iPad ads are just confirming that to the public.
arn
Oct 2, 04:39 PM
The problem is that I don't see how it can be iTunes compatible without Apple's involvement. (See above post on Real Harmony). iTunes will only query ITMS for validating a DRMed file, not DoubleTwist or Amazon. Without iTunes things get a lot less compelling.
B
perhaps true... but depends on how it works. if it's just tied to an email address, if they can encode that same email address into the files, it would probably work. Alternatively, it could also mean that someone could come out with a non-iTunes media player that doesn't validate against a server.
arn
B
perhaps true... but depends on how it works. if it's just tied to an email address, if they can encode that same email address into the files, it would probably work. Alternatively, it could also mean that someone could come out with a non-iTunes media player that doesn't validate against a server.
arn
jonnysods
Apr 15, 04:39 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Suckaz. Closed system works best.
Suckaz. Closed system works best.
tuartboy
Jan 9, 03:46 PM
I would have put an image of a keynote on the compressor window, BUT GOOGLE IMAGES RETURNED RESULTS FOR THE STINKING MWSF 07 VIDEO AND RUINED THE SURPRISE! :mad: :mad: :mad:
goober1223
Apr 6, 09:38 AM
And what was the motivation of the third party app makers? To make a fast buck out of serving ads to people more interested in the ad than the product. That is bad for advertisers and probably the real reason the app was rejected.
Who know whether clicks inside this app count as regular impressions? Unlike any third party, Apple is in a position to refund any advertisers for clicks on these ads. If they are doing that then I don't see anything wrong with them releasing this niche product.
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
Who know whether clicks inside this app count as regular impressions? Unlike any third party, Apple is in a position to refund any advertisers for clicks on these ads. If they are doing that then I don't see anything wrong with them releasing this niche product.
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
drsmithy
Nov 17, 12:47 AM
Agreed. AMD has traditionally been significantly faster and cheaper than Intel.
Maybe if your idea of "traditionally" ignores most of the last quarter-century or so...
Maybe if your idea of "traditionally" ignores most of the last quarter-century or so...
Rot'nApple
Mar 24, 10:50 PM
Your response makes it rather obvious how much thought and research you put into it.
Couldn't that be said of your original post???
How much thought and research went into "Downhill since Tiger."?
At least an elaboration on a point or two why you think that might have ward off the other poster's comment. Not arguing against your opinion. Everyone has one. But your lack of specificity certainly opened you up... Just say'n. :cool:
/
/
/
/
Couldn't that be said of your original post???
How much thought and research went into "Downhill since Tiger."?
At least an elaboration on a point or two why you think that might have ward off the other poster's comment. Not arguing against your opinion. Everyone has one. But your lack of specificity certainly opened you up... Just say'n. :cool:
/
/
/
/
Branskins
Apr 29, 05:59 PM
Considering the Finder, where a slider had 3+ options to select, the user would eventually get frustrated. They could have kept it and added the same blue colour to the text or option being selected.
Why do we assume that the person using it is an idiot? What was so confusing about it? It takes two seconds to get use to it.
I think inverted scrolling has the potential to confuse people more and is probably harder to get use to.
Why do we assume that the person using it is an idiot? What was so confusing about it? It takes two seconds to get use to it.
I think inverted scrolling has the potential to confuse people more and is probably harder to get use to.
0 comments:
Post a Comment