Wilbah
May 5, 12:09 PM
iphone user since day 1.. I was verizon prior.. I live in central NJ, commute into NYC.. my service is so awful that I no longer talk on the phone.. seriously, my communication habits have changed.
At home, I drop literally half of my calls inside and out, on the road, a little less but still a joke by any standard. If you check the map, I live in a high coverage, full 3G zone, it's not like I live in the sticks....
When I first upgraded to the 3GS from my 2G, I noticed a marked improvement so I thought maybe it was the original 2G phone, but now, over the last few weeks the service has gotten so bad that I am ready to dump it and move on. I really just need a phone that works and doesn't give me high blood pressure every time I pick it up to get on a call.
The problem is that the iPhone and some of the apps I utilize have become integral parts of my workflow, so it won't be an easy change.
Yesterday I called AT&T for the first time in months and just yelled at everyone I could until I was good and satisfied. I've already gotten them to give me refunds (several time) it's not about the money anymore.
I just really wish they'd invest some of the loads of cash they're taking to upgrade their network, especially in the busiest metro areas that are the hardest hit. Or perhaps maybe even invent a new method relieve pressure on their network (something along the lines of the micro-cell but more widespread)?
They should also RUSH the micro cell to all markets immediately, and GIVE it to people! Seriously.. for the money we pay, they should GIVE the microcell away to anyone on AT&T who will take it. It will relieve pressure on their network and possibly save them from additional towers.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
At home, I drop literally half of my calls inside and out, on the road, a little less but still a joke by any standard. If you check the map, I live in a high coverage, full 3G zone, it's not like I live in the sticks....
When I first upgraded to the 3GS from my 2G, I noticed a marked improvement so I thought maybe it was the original 2G phone, but now, over the last few weeks the service has gotten so bad that I am ready to dump it and move on. I really just need a phone that works and doesn't give me high blood pressure every time I pick it up to get on a call.
The problem is that the iPhone and some of the apps I utilize have become integral parts of my workflow, so it won't be an easy change.
Yesterday I called AT&T for the first time in months and just yelled at everyone I could until I was good and satisfied. I've already gotten them to give me refunds (several time) it's not about the money anymore.
I just really wish they'd invest some of the loads of cash they're taking to upgrade their network, especially in the busiest metro areas that are the hardest hit. Or perhaps maybe even invent a new method relieve pressure on their network (something along the lines of the micro-cell but more widespread)?
They should also RUSH the micro cell to all markets immediately, and GIVE it to people! Seriously.. for the money we pay, they should GIVE the microcell away to anyone on AT&T who will take it. It will relieve pressure on their network and possibly save them from additional towers.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
MacQuest
Jul 12, 05:55 AM
Haven't read through all the posts, but I've always believed and said [since Intel's unveiling of it's Core line-up roadmap a few months ago, even before re-naming it Core 2] that Woodcrest would be used in Mac Pros.
CONROE WILL BE USED IN A NEW LINE OF CONSUMER TARGETED [gamers and people who like the option of being able to upgrade, even if they probably won't] MAC TOWERS. Go ahead, let the "this is just another headless iMac rumor again" flame-fest start :rolleyes:. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SCREEN BUILT IN TO AN ALL IN ONE DESIGN, IT'S NOT AN IMAC DAMNIT!!! :mad:
"Mac [whatever]", or maybe just "Mac", will probably have 1-2 models in the $1000 - $1500 range. If there's 3 models, which I doubt because they'll probably want to keep a $500 price difference between this and the lowest Mac Pro model @ $2000 [assuming Apple keeps the current pricing of the PowerMac line-up], it'll be a $1000 - $1700 range. These might sport the same aluminim alloy enclosure as the Mac Pro, but I'm betting that they'll use a different material, and possibly form-factor all-together to further distinguish this consumer tower line from the Mac Pro line.
I would really like to see a consumer priced, Conroe powered Mac tower [maybe it'll be a mini tower] with the same black finish as the current black MacBook.
That would be cool because then we would have 3 consumer Macs [not including the MacBooks]; 2 in white, the Mac mini [yes, I'm aware that it has a silver trim :rolleyes:] and the iMac, and 1 in black [this new Mac consumer tower]. Maybe they'll offer it in white too... as long as the white doesn't turn yellow as reported with the white MacBooks [which has already been resolved], that would be cool too, but I doubt this option... but maybe. :p
Oh the possibilities!!! :D
EDIT:
Just read the AppleInsider article and saw this:
"The new systems, which will succeed the Power Mac G5 at the forefront of the company's product matrix, will also be available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost..."
The key part of that statement is "available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost". I'll bet that THAT will be the consumer priced, Conroe powered tower that I'm talking about, will NOT be Woodcrest powered, and won't be called Mac Pro [possibly Mac Pro mini, but I don't quite think so], as they won't be "Pro" class workstations powered by Intel's server class chips.
Just my 2 cents... ;)
CONROE WILL BE USED IN A NEW LINE OF CONSUMER TARGETED [gamers and people who like the option of being able to upgrade, even if they probably won't] MAC TOWERS. Go ahead, let the "this is just another headless iMac rumor again" flame-fest start :rolleyes:. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SCREEN BUILT IN TO AN ALL IN ONE DESIGN, IT'S NOT AN IMAC DAMNIT!!! :mad:
"Mac [whatever]", or maybe just "Mac", will probably have 1-2 models in the $1000 - $1500 range. If there's 3 models, which I doubt because they'll probably want to keep a $500 price difference between this and the lowest Mac Pro model @ $2000 [assuming Apple keeps the current pricing of the PowerMac line-up], it'll be a $1000 - $1700 range. These might sport the same aluminim alloy enclosure as the Mac Pro, but I'm betting that they'll use a different material, and possibly form-factor all-together to further distinguish this consumer tower line from the Mac Pro line.
I would really like to see a consumer priced, Conroe powered Mac tower [maybe it'll be a mini tower] with the same black finish as the current black MacBook.
That would be cool because then we would have 3 consumer Macs [not including the MacBooks]; 2 in white, the Mac mini [yes, I'm aware that it has a silver trim :rolleyes:] and the iMac, and 1 in black [this new Mac consumer tower]. Maybe they'll offer it in white too... as long as the white doesn't turn yellow as reported with the white MacBooks [which has already been resolved], that would be cool too, but I doubt this option... but maybe. :p
Oh the possibilities!!! :D
EDIT:
Just read the AppleInsider article and saw this:
"The new systems, which will succeed the Power Mac G5 at the forefront of the company's product matrix, will also be available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost..."
The key part of that statement is "available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost". I'll bet that THAT will be the consumer priced, Conroe powered tower that I'm talking about, will NOT be Woodcrest powered, and won't be called Mac Pro [possibly Mac Pro mini, but I don't quite think so], as they won't be "Pro" class workstations powered by Intel's server class chips.
Just my 2 cents... ;)
marksman
Mar 18, 02:57 AM
Big Thumbs up AT&T. I am glad they are just taking it to enroll people into the 2gig plan and add tethering, saves people the trouble of having to do it themselves!
Plus I won't have to subsidize their data usage from their stealing bandwidth and access from AT&T.
I can't wait though, in a few weeks / months, though, when we start seeing people complaining how AT&T screwed them and changed their dataplan even though they did nothing wrong and weren't using MyFi and AT&T is horrible and a crook.
It is coming...
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base. It is probably pretty easy for them to determine it. I suspect Apple has included some kind of method for them to determine it. People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
Plus I won't have to subsidize their data usage from their stealing bandwidth and access from AT&T.
I can't wait though, in a few weeks / months, though, when we start seeing people complaining how AT&T screwed them and changed their dataplan even though they did nothing wrong and weren't using MyFi and AT&T is horrible and a crook.
It is coming...
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base. It is probably pretty easy for them to determine it. I suspect Apple has included some kind of method for them to determine it. People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
lukewho
Sep 12, 06:35 PM
I have no need for a separate tv; would like to just use my cinema display or iMac's screen...I am generally fine just sticking with DVDs and the occassional iTunes TV episode impulse-buy when I have some TV-jones. But I would occassionally like to watch me some live television - without having to make room for a separate TVbox in my cramped studio apartment. This new iTV box does nothing to fix this gap in technology, right? Basically, It puts my computer's media onto the TV, but not TV media onto my computer. I have heard about possibility of tuner cards, but don't know much about them. So, without having to pay-per-episode or per movie from the iTunes store what are some suggestions?
handsome pete
Apr 12, 11:05 PM
Obviously I know a lot more about it than you. Of course, there are multiple industries that use editing software... but that doesn't matter. You're just puffing out your chest and being snotty.
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
CaoCao
Mar 24, 08:24 PM
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
I didn't realize that the Catholic Church had an irrational fear of homosexuals. Since the Catholic Church has an irrational fear of homosexuals could you please help me figure out the growing outreach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_International) to homosexuals?
From the article:
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
I didn't realize that there was black behavior
While one can't change their orientation one does chose their actions.
It is also quite unpopular to be a member of the KKK. Shall we similarly go out of our way to show compassion and tolerance for their most deeply held convictions? Or am I perhaps being cruel and unfair to the guy in the sheet when I call him an a-hole and suggest he shape up his attitude or don't act surprised when civilized human beings don't like him very much.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
Could you cite examples of mainline Catholicism lynching homosexuals, burning cross on their lawns, bombing their houses etc?
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
I didn't realize that the Catholic Church had an irrational fear of homosexuals. Since the Catholic Church has an irrational fear of homosexuals could you please help me figure out the growing outreach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_International) to homosexuals?
From the article:
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
I didn't realize that there was black behavior
While one can't change their orientation one does chose their actions.
It is also quite unpopular to be a member of the KKK. Shall we similarly go out of our way to show compassion and tolerance for their most deeply held convictions? Or am I perhaps being cruel and unfair to the guy in the sheet when I call him an a-hole and suggest he shape up his attitude or don't act surprised when civilized human beings don't like him very much.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
Could you cite examples of mainline Catholicism lynching homosexuals, burning cross on their lawns, bombing their houses etc?
matticus008
Mar 20, 08:41 PM
@eric_n_dfw
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
emotion
Sep 20, 06:02 PM
In other words, Macs won't be recording a digital TV stream for a couple of years at least.
Unless you're in Europe and you can get Digital Terrestrial TV (DTT). In the UK this is known as Freeview.
The fact that regions differ will mean it's unlikely Apple will go that route.
Unless you're in Europe and you can get Digital Terrestrial TV (DTT). In the UK this is known as Freeview.
The fact that regions differ will mean it's unlikely Apple will go that route.
beaster
Sep 12, 06:29 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If you cant see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV then you need a better TV or a better HD source. Also, 99% of the planet would be hard pressed to see much of a difference between 1080i and 720p, all else equal. Both have almost the idential # of pixels displayed per second. 720p is usually considered superior for fast-moving video, like sports (which is why ESPN, ABC, and FOX standardized on it). 1080i might have the edge on talk shows/news/etc. Now you may in fact be seeing a difference on your setup due to your particular display and/or source content, but in an apples to apples comparison, 720p and 1080i are neck and neck.
-Sean
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If you cant see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV then you need a better TV or a better HD source. Also, 99% of the planet would be hard pressed to see much of a difference between 1080i and 720p, all else equal. Both have almost the idential # of pixels displayed per second. 720p is usually considered superior for fast-moving video, like sports (which is why ESPN, ABC, and FOX standardized on it). 1080i might have the edge on talk shows/news/etc. Now you may in fact be seeing a difference on your setup due to your particular display and/or source content, but in an apples to apples comparison, 720p and 1080i are neck and neck.
-Sean
cult hero
Apr 13, 12:08 AM
Hard to take anyone seriously as a professional who uses Adobe. Avid, sure, but the industry has moved to Final Cut Pro, at least the part of the industry I interface with.
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Dude, didn't you get the memo? All the cool kids around here hate on Apple. Duh. (Why they hang around a site dedicated to Apple products is beyond me.)
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Dude, didn't you get the memo? All the cool kids around here hate on Apple. Duh. (Why they hang around a site dedicated to Apple products is beyond me.)
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 01:40 PM
There seems to be plenty of people who appear not to care about the environment, which is an extremely sad point of view.
In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".
Get a ****ing life.
If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.
I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.
I couldnt agree more, but...
Statements like that of Greenpeace take the focus from the big issues. Our extreme use of fossile fuel or cutting down the rain forest is a much MUCH more urgent problem.
From an enviromental impact perspective, the your choice of computer is pretty much as a fart in hurricane. We can make a much bigger difference by e.g. get more fuel efficient car.
In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".
Get a ****ing life.
If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.
I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.
I couldnt agree more, but...
Statements like that of Greenpeace take the focus from the big issues. Our extreme use of fossile fuel or cutting down the rain forest is a much MUCH more urgent problem.
From an enviromental impact perspective, the your choice of computer is pretty much as a fart in hurricane. We can make a much bigger difference by e.g. get more fuel efficient car.
balamw
Feb 11, 07:56 PM
Calendar that automatically synch with Google calendar. No extra fees for Mobile Me..and works absolutely perfectly! Unlike Mobile Me..which I had.
Same for Gmail..instant notification!
If you don't need to access an Exchange server, you can do this with Google Sync on the iPhone.
http://www.google.com/support/mobile/bin/answer.py?answer=138740&topic=14252
EDIT: I'm not keeping track, but did they ever get around to fixing the memory storage on the droid so you can have more than 256 MB of apps? The microSD is kind of useless if you can't you know use it.
B
Same for Gmail..instant notification!
If you don't need to access an Exchange server, you can do this with Google Sync on the iPhone.
http://www.google.com/support/mobile/bin/answer.py?answer=138740&topic=14252
EDIT: I'm not keeping track, but did they ever get around to fixing the memory storage on the droid so you can have more than 256 MB of apps? The microSD is kind of useless if you can't you know use it.
B
Evangelion
Jul 12, 06:41 AM
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera.
I have a digital camera, yet it didn't come with Photoshop Elements. Strange huh?
I have a digital camera, yet it didn't come with Photoshop Elements. Strange huh?
TheT
Oct 7, 10:39 AM
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
spicyapple
Sep 26, 12:55 AM
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
blueflame
Aug 29, 10:52 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
AlphaDogg
Apr 5, 06:26 PM
My only dislike of OS X: You can't cycle between windows that are open with command+tab, you can only cycle between applications. In windows, you can cycle between the open windows with alt+tab.
Porchland
Sep 20, 09:46 AM
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
takao
Mar 15, 08:20 PM
If they really can afford to take them off the grid, then why are they running? Perhaps they are sewlling the enegry to other countries and don't want to lose the revenue? Or maybe the German government is unwilling to remove a domestic power-producing option in favor of fuels they have to import from elsewhere?
An intersting situation.
germany is an electricity exporting country so they were "makin' teh moneys" ;)
some now other infos i have gathered: 2 of those power plants which 'had been shut down' actually have been powered down since more than half a year anyway (as initially planed in the 2002 nuclear law compromise contract) but haven't been started up for the CDU/FDP coaltion plan to prolong their use
2 reactors are already confirmed by the local governments as being shut of for good (Isar1,Neckarwestheim I) and the chances for Brunsb�ttel and Biblis ,which haven't exactly spotless records, are more or less considered also to be 0% unless a miracle happens
Baden-W�rttembergs ministers Stefan Mappus seems to have been moved rather personally: last year he was one of the main supporters of prolonging the running times of the reactors and lobbying for more nuclear power: now he already took one plant off for good and during the speech in the local goverment of BW he showed to be obviously rather moved talking about "many strong personal beliefs shaken" "the question of responsibility of nuclear power ... even for me personally" etc.
it might very well be that this event could be the final nail in the coffin for nuclear power in the CDU. A majority party simply can't support a position which 80+% of all german voters oppose.
edit: a note to add: in germany similar to other countries the local governments of the 'states' are responsible for allowing power suppliers to operate nuclear plants...
in the 2002 nuclear law building new commercial nuclear power plants was forbidden by law ... not that after 1986 building a new plant turned incredible difficult/next to impossible anyway
An intersting situation.
germany is an electricity exporting country so they were "makin' teh moneys" ;)
some now other infos i have gathered: 2 of those power plants which 'had been shut down' actually have been powered down since more than half a year anyway (as initially planed in the 2002 nuclear law compromise contract) but haven't been started up for the CDU/FDP coaltion plan to prolong their use
2 reactors are already confirmed by the local governments as being shut of for good (Isar1,Neckarwestheim I) and the chances for Brunsb�ttel and Biblis ,which haven't exactly spotless records, are more or less considered also to be 0% unless a miracle happens
Baden-W�rttembergs ministers Stefan Mappus seems to have been moved rather personally: last year he was one of the main supporters of prolonging the running times of the reactors and lobbying for more nuclear power: now he already took one plant off for good and during the speech in the local goverment of BW he showed to be obviously rather moved talking about "many strong personal beliefs shaken" "the question of responsibility of nuclear power ... even for me personally" etc.
it might very well be that this event could be the final nail in the coffin for nuclear power in the CDU. A majority party simply can't support a position which 80+% of all german voters oppose.
edit: a note to add: in germany similar to other countries the local governments of the 'states' are responsible for allowing power suppliers to operate nuclear plants...
in the 2002 nuclear law building new commercial nuclear power plants was forbidden by law ... not that after 1986 building a new plant turned incredible difficult/next to impossible anyway
firestarter
Mar 13, 04:15 PM
Well here is a solution to your "problem" at least.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
The biggest limiting factor is cost, but when you factor in the cost of the environmental impact, it becomes cheap in comparison.
Thanks, that's an interesting technology!
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
I wouldn't be so smug if I was you. Looks like Austria uses over 60% imported oil and gas for electricity manufacture (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_at_en.pdf)... that Persian Gulf political turmoil must be pretty exciting for you guys, yes? Probably costly too.
You're also reliant on those nice people in Russia to keep their natural gas pipelines open (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–Ukraine_gas_disputes), aren't you... being land-locked and all.
I grew up in a country where even a right wing government won't entertain the idea of nuclear power,where one of it's major allies (the U.S.) are not allowed to bring naval vessels into territorial waters because they will not reveal if nuclear weapons/propulsion are involved.Which has just suffered a major earthquake and as far as I know is the only country that is a nuclear free zone.To New Zealanders this policy is totally sacrosanct.Guess what they are doing fine.
Is that also a country with a tiny population and an abundance of hydro and geothermal sources? (Not really comparable to Japan or most of Western Europe).
A country where the power system is so good, they managed to cut off all power to their largest city for a month and a half? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Auckland_power_crisis)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
The biggest limiting factor is cost, but when you factor in the cost of the environmental impact, it becomes cheap in comparison.
Thanks, that's an interesting technology!
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
I wouldn't be so smug if I was you. Looks like Austria uses over 60% imported oil and gas for electricity manufacture (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_at_en.pdf)... that Persian Gulf political turmoil must be pretty exciting for you guys, yes? Probably costly too.
You're also reliant on those nice people in Russia to keep their natural gas pipelines open (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–Ukraine_gas_disputes), aren't you... being land-locked and all.
I grew up in a country where even a right wing government won't entertain the idea of nuclear power,where one of it's major allies (the U.S.) are not allowed to bring naval vessels into territorial waters because they will not reveal if nuclear weapons/propulsion are involved.Which has just suffered a major earthquake and as far as I know is the only country that is a nuclear free zone.To New Zealanders this policy is totally sacrosanct.Guess what they are doing fine.
Is that also a country with a tiny population and an abundance of hydro and geothermal sources? (Not really comparable to Japan or most of Western Europe).
A country where the power system is so good, they managed to cut off all power to their largest city for a month and a half? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Auckland_power_crisis)
red0n
Jun 9, 05:12 PM
I have never had a single call dropped. Here in Orlando I get full service and data speeds of about 450Kb p/s!
Haha
Haha
louis Fashion
Apr 9, 12:04 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
Hey the more games the better. Who knows they might have the next great thing.....
Hey the more games the better. Who knows they might have the next great thing.....
Apple OC
Mar 13, 04:10 PM
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
Maybe your energy needs are not as high?
307,006,550 USA Population
127,560,000 Japan Population
8,364,095 Austria Population
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
Maybe your energy needs are not as high?
307,006,550 USA Population
127,560,000 Japan Population
8,364,095 Austria Population
joemama
Sep 20, 06:04 PM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
No comments:
Post a Comment