kdarling
Apr 20, 09:49 AM
No they wouldn't. They have to prove likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion. Actual confusion is evidence of likelihood of confusion, but it's not necessary.
Yes sir, that's why I explicitly said "could" have to provide proof, because I read of cases where evidence of actual confusion ended up being one of the methods used.
Thank you, as always, for making the clarification in any case.
Yes sir, that's why I explicitly said "could" have to provide proof, because I read of cases where evidence of actual confusion ended up being one of the methods used.
Thank you, as always, for making the clarification in any case.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
mlayer
Apr 6, 02:29 PM
This is what happens when a company is forced to do a launch in a reactive manner, not based on whether the product is baked and fully conceived. That's not a big deal for Google since they're in this for the long haul. For MMI it's not so great. They're doing the right thing by focusing on the next iteration of the product. The best and perhaps only way the Android tablets will beat Apple is to thoroughly undercut them on price. Until then it's the iPad as the class of the market and everyone else (Honeycomb tablets, RIM, HP) has to divvy up the rest of the pie.
bibbz
Jun 14, 08:51 PM
Nice to meet you Jersey.
Are the gift cards good indefinitely?
Yes
ok definitely not going to radio shack... they changed the time from 7AM to 1PM and are now giving out pins which will put your name on a list and they will call you as they are received to the store.... definitely not guaranteed!
wrong, read my posts from today.
Radio Shack employees are clueless and have very little information about the Iphone 4 preorder. It looks like they are only taking names and they'll call you when they get them, whenever that is.
wrong, read my posts from today.
Are the gift cards good indefinitely?
Yes
ok definitely not going to radio shack... they changed the time from 7AM to 1PM and are now giving out pins which will put your name on a list and they will call you as they are received to the store.... definitely not guaranteed!
wrong, read my posts from today.
Radio Shack employees are clueless and have very little information about the Iphone 4 preorder. It looks like they are only taking names and they'll call you when they get them, whenever that is.
wrong, read my posts from today.
DakotaGuy
Aug 11, 02:43 PM
Hence cdma is and will always be a small local network that can be used in small pockets on this planet.
I would not consider the entire United States to be just a small pocket on the planet.
I would not consider the entire United States to be just a small pocket on the planet.
khollister
Mar 22, 01:37 PM
Yeah a 50% smaller screen for the same price and less battery life is certainly going to crush the iPad2.
Plus RIM's usually obtuse software - I hate my company BlackBerry
Plus RIM's usually obtuse software - I hate my company BlackBerry
iliketyla
Mar 31, 02:33 PM
Let the Apple fanboys begin patting each other on the back, and taking something and running wild with it.
By the end of this thread, it'll be impossible to decipher what the original story was about.
By the end of this thread, it'll be impossible to decipher what the original story was about.
wonderspark
Apr 5, 05:18 PM
So many things that FCP / FCS can improve upon here - they need the equivalent of Adobe's Mercury Engine, leveraging Grand Central, QTX, and a full Cocoa build for all the FCS apps...
At present we have to re-encode a lot of our footage (7D / Minicam etc), and you don't need to do that in Premiere, it just plays on the timeline - however editing in that is quite frankly an exercise in sheer frustration and strange bugs.
Come on, please be true! The days of pressing CMD+R I would love to see over! Especially when you are rendering an audio effect that actual renders in a microsecond, yet won't play realtime... Sigh.
Personally, I love CS5, even on the Mac Pro with 5870/GTX285. Hopefully this won't jinx myself, but I've had no bugs or frustrations, and I edit full HD movies with it.
I'm looking forward to this version of FCS, because I've only played around in it with others' systems, and it didn't blow my skirt up. It will be nice to have both suites, if the new FCS proves worthy. I know a lot of FCS users, and I look forward to joining them, so get this thing right, Apple.
At present we have to re-encode a lot of our footage (7D / Minicam etc), and you don't need to do that in Premiere, it just plays on the timeline - however editing in that is quite frankly an exercise in sheer frustration and strange bugs.
Come on, please be true! The days of pressing CMD+R I would love to see over! Especially when you are rendering an audio effect that actual renders in a microsecond, yet won't play realtime... Sigh.
Personally, I love CS5, even on the Mac Pro with 5870/GTX285. Hopefully this won't jinx myself, but I've had no bugs or frustrations, and I edit full HD movies with it.
I'm looking forward to this version of FCS, because I've only played around in it with others' systems, and it didn't blow my skirt up. It will be nice to have both suites, if the new FCS proves worthy. I know a lot of FCS users, and I look forward to joining them, so get this thing right, Apple.
smiddlehurst
Mar 31, 02:53 PM
Thats not at all what this article is saying. The Android project is still going to be "open source".
Umm, not by Andy Rubin's own definition it's not:
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
The problem here is Google aren't playing fair with their partners and they really ought to get grief over it. Good lord, remember the absolute storm of hate that went Apple's way when the subscription details were announced? This is actually far worse for those that depend on the Android OS yet geeks are scrambling to praise Google for doing it....
Now here's the thing... at the end of the day this is probably the right move for Android from a consumer point of view. It's likely to make it easier to get a device that you can update and that isn't drowning in crapware. The problem is they should have done it a year ago when the problem first became obvious. They haven't, they've got a LOT of companies heavily invested in Android and now they're radically changing the rules.
Frankly I wonder if something has gone seriously wrong within Google. Remember when 2.1 came out there were strong hints that they were working on separating the core OS from the GUI to allow far easier, almost device independent updates? We've heard virtually nothing about that since. Honeycomb is, by their own admission, a cludge, albeit a cludge with a lot of potential. I can't help but wonder if they've failed to come up with a software solution that'd let them handle fragmentation and keep a true open philosophy and are falling back on this as plan B. I'd also love to know if Amazon making moves into the App Store space and now launching Cloud Player before Google have an equivalent service have them worried. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's conditions in those new partnership deals to make things like introducing new App Stores in the default build a lot harder.
Umm, not by Andy Rubin's own definition it's not:
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
The problem here is Google aren't playing fair with their partners and they really ought to get grief over it. Good lord, remember the absolute storm of hate that went Apple's way when the subscription details were announced? This is actually far worse for those that depend on the Android OS yet geeks are scrambling to praise Google for doing it....
Now here's the thing... at the end of the day this is probably the right move for Android from a consumer point of view. It's likely to make it easier to get a device that you can update and that isn't drowning in crapware. The problem is they should have done it a year ago when the problem first became obvious. They haven't, they've got a LOT of companies heavily invested in Android and now they're radically changing the rules.
Frankly I wonder if something has gone seriously wrong within Google. Remember when 2.1 came out there were strong hints that they were working on separating the core OS from the GUI to allow far easier, almost device independent updates? We've heard virtually nothing about that since. Honeycomb is, by their own admission, a cludge, albeit a cludge with a lot of potential. I can't help but wonder if they've failed to come up with a software solution that'd let them handle fragmentation and keep a true open philosophy and are falling back on this as plan B. I'd also love to know if Amazon making moves into the App Store space and now launching Cloud Player before Google have an equivalent service have them worried. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's conditions in those new partnership deals to make things like introducing new App Stores in the default build a lot harder.
Lesser Evets
Mar 26, 05:11 AM
APRIL 1st--scheduled date of Gold Master.
The joke is that it won't be a stable OS for another year. Or longer.
The joke is that it won't be a stable OS for another year. Or longer.
iJohnHenry
Mar 21, 02:38 PM
It is in fact somewhat problematic. At present, the government is basically run by moneyed interests that supply the funding needed for the candidates to get into office
Exactly, he's doing the best he can, given the situation he is in.
Perhaps sysiphus could do a better job, without being a broken man as a result? ;)
Exactly, he's doing the best he can, given the situation he is in.
Perhaps sysiphus could do a better job, without being a broken man as a result? ;)
bendejo
Jul 27, 10:57 AM
Since the WWDC is focused on developers, wouldn't it make the most sense for Apple to do all of the chip transition announcements plus the Leopard preview at WWDC and wait until MW SanFran or hold a special event for the video iPod/iTunes movie announcements? After all, developers want to know what to expect in the forthcoming OS and what the processing abilities for the full range of hardware will be so they can devise applications to fully exploit the specs on the OS and the various hardware configs. iPod and iTunes announcements may be neat, but they would seem to be less relevant to the WWDC audience.
ghostlyorb
Mar 26, 07:48 AM
I can't wait to get my hands on Lion! It looks pretty cool!
ahuman7341
Aug 5, 05:57 PM
BitTorrent seems very NO!
The main reson I don't like the idea of it is the security issues. I Also think Apple will be aware of the security issues so I doubt that software update will use BitTorrent. Although Apple may have a client that comes with leopard or in iTunes.
The main reson I don't like the idea of it is the security issues. I Also think Apple will be aware of the security issues so I doubt that software update will use BitTorrent. Although Apple may have a client that comes with leopard or in iTunes.
MatthewCobb
Aug 27, 04:28 PM
That is interesting because I ordered a Macbook on Tuesday (the 22nd) and mine is also scheduled to ship on the 31st. It is suspiciously strange and hopefully it means that we'll get Meroms because I was waiting for the Merom MBP when I decided to just order a Yonah MB.
I ordered a MB on 15 August from my work. Apple registered the order on 23 August (it was faxed on the 16th!)... It will be delivered on 1 September. I phoned up to find out what was going on and complained it was taking forever. Maybe I should have said thankyou!
On the other hand, I have heard that Apple want to emphasise the difference of the MBP (why buy one unless you're doing 3-D gaming or heavy-duty video editing or just like aluminium...?). So maybe they'll just put the Merom in the MBP...
PS I thought the PB G5 next Tuesday thing was quite funny - precisely because it has been done to death, first dead straight (remember how excited people got for so many years), and now because it's a useful reminder not to take our speculations too seriously...
PPS I have skanky keyboard marks all over my squidgy PBG4 screen, always have had. Grrr.
I ordered a MB on 15 August from my work. Apple registered the order on 23 August (it was faxed on the 16th!)... It will be delivered on 1 September. I phoned up to find out what was going on and complained it was taking forever. Maybe I should have said thankyou!
On the other hand, I have heard that Apple want to emphasise the difference of the MBP (why buy one unless you're doing 3-D gaming or heavy-duty video editing or just like aluminium...?). So maybe they'll just put the Merom in the MBP...
PS I thought the PB G5 next Tuesday thing was quite funny - precisely because it has been done to death, first dead straight (remember how excited people got for so many years), and now because it's a useful reminder not to take our speculations too seriously...
PPS I have skanky keyboard marks all over my squidgy PBG4 screen, always have had. Grrr.
dicklacara
Apr 19, 02:56 PM
One of the three basics that must be proven in order to win a trade dress case, is the likelihood of confusion.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
Yes! Some people will think they are buying a Samsung iPhone.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
Yes! Some people will think they are buying a Samsung iPhone.
cmaier
Apr 19, 10:46 PM
But App Store is like Coke, right? Of course it's ok if Apple does it. They've becoming one of the most hypocritical companies on the planet. Maybe Steve suffers from extreme paranoia?
No. "App Store" wouldn't qualify as a famous mark, I should think.
Here's a website that lists some factors:
http://www.quizlaw.com/trademarks/what_is_a_famous_trademark.php
No. "App Store" wouldn't qualify as a famous mark, I should think.
Here's a website that lists some factors:
http://www.quizlaw.com/trademarks/what_is_a_famous_trademark.php
ssamani
Sep 13, 07:15 PM
DAMN :eek:
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
I'll be mostly surfing the web to simultaneously stream multiple TV channels, download HD movies and video chat with friends with a live video substitution background and maybe editing a 16 Megapixel camera phone photo and the odd HD camcorder movie once in a while.
Hey, as Steve said, 128K is more than anyone will ever need...
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
I'll be mostly surfing the web to simultaneously stream multiple TV channels, download HD movies and video chat with friends with a live video substitution background and maybe editing a 16 Megapixel camera phone photo and the odd HD camcorder movie once in a while.
Hey, as Steve said, 128K is more than anyone will ever need...
7o7munoz7o7
Apr 27, 09:00 AM
It was never a big deal. Either you are holding it wrong or there is a misunderstanding. Apple never makes mistakes, didn't you get the memo? ;)
you own and admit you have a Nexus one, nothing serious could ever be taken from you.
you own and admit you have a Nexus one, nothing serious could ever be taken from you.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 06:49 PM
Confused.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
C.:confused:
The biggest difference would be that in europe we use GSM-system (900 Mhz and 1800Mhz) whereas US use both CDMA and GSM (850MHz and 1900Mhz)
A typical triband GSM phone enables you to call more or less all over the world whereas a CDMA is more or less restricted to use it in US and some countries in Asia. CDMA and GSM are two incompatible system like windows and OSX, i.e they dont "speak" with each other. One difference you notice as a user is that GSM phones has a SIM card which more or less is your identity. That is, if you have an unlocked cellphone you can change operators whenever you feel like it. This is not possible with CDMA cellphones.
Celphones are also much more common in europe and the "typical" cellphone user is not that tied up to an operator as a "typical" US user. Carriers in europe don't cripple the phones like some do in US.
I am sure there are man more differences, but these were the only that came to my mind right now.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
C.:confused:
The biggest difference would be that in europe we use GSM-system (900 Mhz and 1800Mhz) whereas US use both CDMA and GSM (850MHz and 1900Mhz)
A typical triband GSM phone enables you to call more or less all over the world whereas a CDMA is more or less restricted to use it in US and some countries in Asia. CDMA and GSM are two incompatible system like windows and OSX, i.e they dont "speak" with each other. One difference you notice as a user is that GSM phones has a SIM card which more or less is your identity. That is, if you have an unlocked cellphone you can change operators whenever you feel like it. This is not possible with CDMA cellphones.
Celphones are also much more common in europe and the "typical" cellphone user is not that tied up to an operator as a "typical" US user. Carriers in europe don't cripple the phones like some do in US.
I am sure there are man more differences, but these were the only that came to my mind right now.
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:53 AM
No it isn't. They say they are not logging your location. This is correct. If it were incorrect, they would be keeping a database of your phone's exact GPS location. Instead, as they state, they are keeping a cache of the cell towers and wifi hotspots in order to aid the A-GPS system. So, no, they are not logging your (and by your, I mean an identifiable log) exact locations and beaming it home to watch you like big brother.
They are instructing your iPhone to log your approximate location. And I am sure anybody in this thread (ie, those really knowing about the details) knows the difference between 'Apple is logging your location on its servers' and 'Apple is instructing your iPhone to log your location on your iPhone and computer'.
They are instructing your iPhone to log your approximate location. And I am sure anybody in this thread (ie, those really knowing about the details) knows the difference between 'Apple is logging your location on its servers' and 'Apple is instructing your iPhone to log your location on your iPhone and computer'.
DeathChill
Apr 19, 09:18 PM
I agree, Samsung has copied Apple.
In fact I'm truly impressed with Samsung's expertise. Their Galaxy S is every bit as nice as my iPhone 4.
In fact after doing the research, I decided to add a line to my family plan so I could try the Android powered phone.
Now I have two great phones. However I must say I'm shocked that I like the Galaxy better than the more diminutive iPhone.
Really? Based on all your previous posts which I glanced through I'd only be surprised if the opposite was true.
There's a lot to be said for a spacious and gorgeous 4.0" Super AMOLED display. I had no idea of the advantages it offers.
Then there's a huge advantage with SWYPE. Instead of hammering on a hard glass keyboard when messaging, Swype allows you to glide one finger across the keys to form words. It's the single greatest advancement in touchscreen input technology to date.
Swype submitted their app to Apple nearly a year ago, but it was rejected.
One can only guess, its excellent, trouble free and easy operation triggered Steve's jealousy.
Yet it's important that we give credit to Apple for insisting on a old school slow yet familiar keyboard. I must admit it took me ten minutes of watching the tutorial, and fifteen minutes more to adapt.
That said it quickly has become my favorite.
I really wish Apple would overcome their fear of including it on the iPhone. My Galaxy S gives me the choice of two other keyboards on case I didn't like Swype. Apple could do the same.
I really like Apple, I have many of their products.
Just think of how much greater they could be, if not for their closed minded ways towards anything outside of their comfort zone.
Why is the iPhone's implementation slow?
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/24/fastest-texting-in-the-world-actually-on-an-iphone/
EDIT: Not that I think that Apple shouldn't open up more and allow things like Swype; they should.
In fact I'm truly impressed with Samsung's expertise. Their Galaxy S is every bit as nice as my iPhone 4.
In fact after doing the research, I decided to add a line to my family plan so I could try the Android powered phone.
Now I have two great phones. However I must say I'm shocked that I like the Galaxy better than the more diminutive iPhone.
Really? Based on all your previous posts which I glanced through I'd only be surprised if the opposite was true.
There's a lot to be said for a spacious and gorgeous 4.0" Super AMOLED display. I had no idea of the advantages it offers.
Then there's a huge advantage with SWYPE. Instead of hammering on a hard glass keyboard when messaging, Swype allows you to glide one finger across the keys to form words. It's the single greatest advancement in touchscreen input technology to date.
Swype submitted their app to Apple nearly a year ago, but it was rejected.
One can only guess, its excellent, trouble free and easy operation triggered Steve's jealousy.
Yet it's important that we give credit to Apple for insisting on a old school slow yet familiar keyboard. I must admit it took me ten minutes of watching the tutorial, and fifteen minutes more to adapt.
That said it quickly has become my favorite.
I really wish Apple would overcome their fear of including it on the iPhone. My Galaxy S gives me the choice of two other keyboards on case I didn't like Swype. Apple could do the same.
I really like Apple, I have many of their products.
Just think of how much greater they could be, if not for their closed minded ways towards anything outside of their comfort zone.
Why is the iPhone's implementation slow?
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/24/fastest-texting-in-the-world-actually-on-an-iphone/
EDIT: Not that I think that Apple shouldn't open up more and allow things like Swype; they should.
bibbz
Jun 9, 08:48 AM
I like the trade-in part. But must we activate the phone in the store? I would rather take the sealed box home and activate there over the phone with AT&T. Will that be allowed? :confused:
No, we activate all phones in the store. we connect the phone to our cashlanes and open itunes and activate them after we are finished processing the upgrade inside ATT's system. The phone will be on, your numbers transferred and everything when you walk out the door. At least at my store. :)
But honestly this whole trade in thing sounds fishy. Why would they give you 270 for a phone you can buy brand new starting the launch date for half that.
Like i said, once the iPhone 4 launches, i would imagine the prices come down some on the trades, but as of last night, those were the values. We trade in 3G's for roughly $100 off 3G's all day at my store. Its a really good system. A lot of phones you don't get much for, like a original razr will get you about 10 bucks. We just pay out a lot for iphones.
This is a huge story. I don't understand why it wasn't posted on page 1 especially since learning of the Radio Shack Trade-In program. I think the Doctor should reconsider not putting this on Page 1. :confused:
Who do i need to PM this too, i would LOVE for The Shack to get this attention.
How can I check which stores will be carrying the phone on launch day? And also, if I go into a particular store next Tuesday and pre-order, you're saying I will be able to pick that phone up on the 24th?
Stores that carry the iPhone now should have them on launch, give your local store a call in the next few days and we should know.
this post is a LITTLE misleading... i looked on the site and it says UP TO
118$ for 8gb 3G.. which means it could go for less right ? if so you made it seems as not matter what your getting the prices you showed which i believe is wrong.. correct me if im wrong
Up to means we appraise the phone. In store we have a much more detailed system when we process the trade in. It's about 15 questions about the condition of the phone. If your phones in good shape, i promise you will get very close, if not exactly what the site says.
If you click on the phone you have it will ask for its condition and overall functionality. I have a newly-replaced 16gb 2G and it showed me that I can get $100 or something like that for it, for instance.
Thank you!!
Guys, if any of you are in DFW, shoot me a pm i will be more than happy to help you guys and get you your iPhone 4 setup at my store. I'll be getting mine there. :)
No, we activate all phones in the store. we connect the phone to our cashlanes and open itunes and activate them after we are finished processing the upgrade inside ATT's system. The phone will be on, your numbers transferred and everything when you walk out the door. At least at my store. :)
But honestly this whole trade in thing sounds fishy. Why would they give you 270 for a phone you can buy brand new starting the launch date for half that.
Like i said, once the iPhone 4 launches, i would imagine the prices come down some on the trades, but as of last night, those were the values. We trade in 3G's for roughly $100 off 3G's all day at my store. Its a really good system. A lot of phones you don't get much for, like a original razr will get you about 10 bucks. We just pay out a lot for iphones.
This is a huge story. I don't understand why it wasn't posted on page 1 especially since learning of the Radio Shack Trade-In program. I think the Doctor should reconsider not putting this on Page 1. :confused:
Who do i need to PM this too, i would LOVE for The Shack to get this attention.
How can I check which stores will be carrying the phone on launch day? And also, if I go into a particular store next Tuesday and pre-order, you're saying I will be able to pick that phone up on the 24th?
Stores that carry the iPhone now should have them on launch, give your local store a call in the next few days and we should know.
this post is a LITTLE misleading... i looked on the site and it says UP TO
118$ for 8gb 3G.. which means it could go for less right ? if so you made it seems as not matter what your getting the prices you showed which i believe is wrong.. correct me if im wrong
Up to means we appraise the phone. In store we have a much more detailed system when we process the trade in. It's about 15 questions about the condition of the phone. If your phones in good shape, i promise you will get very close, if not exactly what the site says.
If you click on the phone you have it will ask for its condition and overall functionality. I have a newly-replaced 16gb 2G and it showed me that I can get $100 or something like that for it, for instance.
Thank you!!
Guys, if any of you are in DFW, shoot me a pm i will be more than happy to help you guys and get you your iPhone 4 setup at my store. I'll be getting mine there. :)
hob
Apr 6, 04:46 AM
If the new Final Cut is 64-bit it will presumably rely on AV-kit.
folks said the same thing about FCS3 and Snow Leopard and yet as I recall that is exactly what they did.
I always felt the reason FCS3 came out just before SL was precisely because it wasn't 64-bit and was more of a maintenance release, whereas SL was touting Grand Central Dispatch etc etc...
folks said the same thing about FCS3 and Snow Leopard and yet as I recall that is exactly what they did.
I always felt the reason FCS3 came out just before SL was precisely because it wasn't 64-bit and was more of a maintenance release, whereas SL was touting Grand Central Dispatch etc etc...