SwiftLives
Mar 28, 10:01 AM
At face value, it would make more sense for Apple to announce the new iPhone in the fall along with the iPods. The iPod Touch and the iPhone are both iOS devices. And keep in mind there's all sorts of chatter about either a third generation iPad or an additional iPad model. So why not roll them all into one announcement in September?
Of course, by keeping the announcements separate, Apple extends their publicity.
I still expect an iPhone 5 announcement to be made at WWDC. Going longer than a year between updates gives competitors an advantage. And frankly, smartphone competitors are catching up.
Of course, by keeping the announcements separate, Apple extends their publicity.
I still expect an iPhone 5 announcement to be made at WWDC. Going longer than a year between updates gives competitors an advantage. And frankly, smartphone competitors are catching up.
kavika411
Apr 15, 08:18 PM
I didn't miss it, you did. here, I'll bold it, underline it and put it in red so it's easier for you to catch ...
Then I'll refer to the definition so you might know what that word means ...
pri�ma�ri�ly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primarily) �adverb
1. essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally
Then I'll give you an example that demonstrates a different perspective on wealth ...
I am a graphic designer. My primary focus is on creating print and web solutions for my clients. While I do get paid, money is neither the source of my production and creativity, nor the material with which I work. It is a by-product of my labors, not the sole focus of them.
Thus I have a different perspective on money and wealth than itcheroni.
I hope that clarifies that for you.
Your inability and insecurity to come within even the same area code of your own prior rhetorical question - choosing the greener pastures of everything-unrelated-to-something-you-started-but-can't-finish - says everything.
Unlike you, I don't need to have "the last say." On this Friday night, I leave it to you to finish. Feel free to finish with something more relevant than your last posts, such as the syllabic definition of boredom, or a picture of a skateboarding dog.
Then I'll refer to the definition so you might know what that word means ...
pri�ma�ri�ly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primarily) �adverb
1. essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally
Then I'll give you an example that demonstrates a different perspective on wealth ...
I am a graphic designer. My primary focus is on creating print and web solutions for my clients. While I do get paid, money is neither the source of my production and creativity, nor the material with which I work. It is a by-product of my labors, not the sole focus of them.
Thus I have a different perspective on money and wealth than itcheroni.
I hope that clarifies that for you.
Your inability and insecurity to come within even the same area code of your own prior rhetorical question - choosing the greener pastures of everything-unrelated-to-something-you-started-but-can't-finish - says everything.
Unlike you, I don't need to have "the last say." On this Friday night, I leave it to you to finish. Feel free to finish with something more relevant than your last posts, such as the syllabic definition of boredom, or a picture of a skateboarding dog.
SandynJosh
Nov 23, 12:57 PM
In looking over all the ideas generated in this thread and all the trends going on in the world, I'm lead to wonder if a consumer iPhone makes as much sense as it would seem to at first blush. Sure, the numbers can be great, but the profit potential is nearly nil.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
ravenvii
May 3, 07:55 PM
i took the liberty to re-write the rules AS I UNDERSTANND THEM, which incorporate all the Q&A
there are a couple of passages that are still unclear to me, which are higlighted in red:
Don't panic: decent re-write, but there's a few comments:
While there are certain scenarios where some heroes can win while others lose, it's possible for all heroes to win the game. And I sent all heroes PMs with their own secret agency, so they know exactly what they want the endgame to be.
Yes, you have to both kill the Villain and obtain the Artifact to win the game.
You're right that a team split means the other team has to move to a different room. However, if they meet up in the same room, they do not necessarily merge.
You're correct re: the Villain being able to place more than one trap or monster during a turn provided he has enough turns saved up. But it does not have to be a monster and a trap, it can be two monsters or two traps or whatever.
Note that the villain can wait two turns and earn two turns that round. It is not limited to one turn per round.
Traps trigger as soon as a hero attempts to leave the room. It does not matter which turn the heroes are on that round, the only thing needed is that a hero attempts to leave the room in where a trap is present.
Finally, the healing treasure is even better than you thought - it heals ALL party members by 5 HP.
there are a couple of passages that are still unclear to me, which are higlighted in red:
Don't panic: decent re-write, but there's a few comments:
While there are certain scenarios where some heroes can win while others lose, it's possible for all heroes to win the game. And I sent all heroes PMs with their own secret agency, so they know exactly what they want the endgame to be.
Yes, you have to both kill the Villain and obtain the Artifact to win the game.
You're right that a team split means the other team has to move to a different room. However, if they meet up in the same room, they do not necessarily merge.
You're correct re: the Villain being able to place more than one trap or monster during a turn provided he has enough turns saved up. But it does not have to be a monster and a trap, it can be two monsters or two traps or whatever.
Note that the villain can wait two turns and earn two turns that round. It is not limited to one turn per round.
Traps trigger as soon as a hero attempts to leave the room. It does not matter which turn the heroes are on that round, the only thing needed is that a hero attempts to leave the room in where a trap is present.
Finally, the healing treasure is even better than you thought - it heals ALL party members by 5 HP.
Nuvi
Nov 6, 02:23 PM
Bought TomTom car kit and although I still think its too expensive its handy if you travel a lot by air, rent cars and try to keep everything compact. If you don't have a need to switch you GPS from car to car a stand alone unit would be better due to bigger screen and more features.
Regarding the software Navigon works perfectly with the car kit. The features are close to those you could find in high end stand alone unit meaning its light years a ahead of TomTom's iPhone app, which is just as basic as you can get. In some way its funny how TomTom has a "high end" car dock but their iPhone app is more basic then in their entry level stand alone unit.
Regarding the software Navigon works perfectly with the car kit. The features are close to those you could find in high end stand alone unit meaning its light years a ahead of TomTom's iPhone app, which is just as basic as you can get. In some way its funny how TomTom has a "high end" car dock but their iPhone app is more basic then in their entry level stand alone unit.
toddybody
Apr 25, 09:44 AM
Because "they" didn't slip this trojan into the phones...the government did via the phone companies/FCC.
It is not enough to track every internet/email action of the population, they also want to know where we are at all times and our habits so a "repairman" can enter the house of a "dissident" while they are at work and...
Ties between intelligence agencies and consumer products have to be far more defined than any of us realize.
It is not enough to track every internet/email action of the population, they also want to know where we are at all times and our habits so a "repairman" can enter the house of a "dissident" while they are at work and...
Ties between intelligence agencies and consumer products have to be far more defined than any of us realize.
PlipPlop
Apr 6, 01:58 AM
Can you not change the icons with a none jail broken iphone?
PCMacUser
Aug 7, 06:40 PM
Well it's certainly good to see new computers, but they really are aimed at high level tasks. These machines use server technology, rather than technology developed for the retail sector.
Interesting points I see are the use of ECC RAM (this is not at all unusual for servers, but very expensive because it's usually paid for by a company's server budget), and I didn't see any mention of onboard hardware RAID, which is a bit disappointing when you've got all of this other fancy stuff going on.
I'd also be interested to see, from an environmental perspective, how its power consumption levels compare with an equivalent consumer PC.
Interesting points I see are the use of ECC RAM (this is not at all unusual for servers, but very expensive because it's usually paid for by a company's server budget), and I didn't see any mention of onboard hardware RAID, which is a bit disappointing when you've got all of this other fancy stuff going on.
I'd also be interested to see, from an environmental perspective, how its power consumption levels compare with an equivalent consumer PC.
jholzner
Aug 11, 09:08 AM
It sure does. Quite exciting really. I think all consumer products will get Core 2 Duo (merom + conroe) in September. Although, seeing as Merom is socket compatable with the current line up, I dont think we will see a Conroe in the iMac.
I tend to agree that they may use Merom in the iMac but since they put Woodcrest in the Mac Pros it gives me hope that they won't use Merom in the iMac and just use it in the portable line where they really belong.
I tend to agree that they may use Merom in the iMac but since they put Woodcrest in the Mac Pros it gives me hope that they won't use Merom in the iMac and just use it in the portable line where they really belong.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 3, 01:14 PM
They are not setting up for the Paris expo for a long time. There is no chance of this being for Paris, IMO. :)
I don't think so either.
When I first glanced at it I thought it was being "made." Like they were hanging it up to be sure it was corrct. I now see that it is indeed being displayed.
I don't think so either.
When I first glanced at it I thought it was being "made." Like they were hanging it up to be sure it was corrct. I now see that it is indeed being displayed.
ct2k7
May 9, 12:05 PM
There are changes coming to MobileMe, but I can't say anymore due to an NDA.
queen elizabeth ii coronation
queen elizabeth ii coronation
queen elizabeth 11 coronation.
queen elizabeth 11 coronation.
Queen Elizabeth II#39;s
queen elizabeth ii coronation
queen elizabeth ii coronation
Queen Elizabeth II Coronation
aswitcher
Aug 7, 02:28 PM
Hmm... Cinema displays also got a bump.
20" ACD
Brightness: 250 cd/m2 -> 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 400:1 -> 700:1
23" ACD
Brightness: 270 cd/m2 -> 400 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 400:1 -> 700:1
Oww.I saw the rpice drop but not the spec boost. I thought Apple was trying to clear older stock but now I think this is the new monitor and we caren't going to see one with an iSight built in. New iSight maybe...
20" ACD
Brightness: 250 cd/m2 -> 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 400:1 -> 700:1
23" ACD
Brightness: 270 cd/m2 -> 400 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 400:1 -> 700:1
Oww.I saw the rpice drop but not the spec boost. I thought Apple was trying to clear older stock but now I think this is the new monitor and we caren't going to see one with an iSight built in. New iSight maybe...
hexor
Apr 26, 03:14 PM
umm there are a lot of high end Android phones.
Apple sells cheap ass phone as well (iPhone 3GS) so it is in the Kmart shopper market is well.
I would not see that as useful. For a cell phone I would hate iOS but for a portable MP3 player the iPod iOS is great but I would never want it as a phone.
Lets look at smart phone only which means you can not count the iPod. Different market different rules.
And that argument is not worthless as it clear that even with the iPhone on Verizon iOS is losing ground in the smart phone market.
How is that not relevant??? What is the point of showing market share then? No really, what is the point? Doesn't it factor heavily into what market a company wants to develop software for? Since the same apps run on all those Apple devices then why would you not want to include those?
Apple sells cheap ass phone as well (iPhone 3GS) so it is in the Kmart shopper market is well.
I would not see that as useful. For a cell phone I would hate iOS but for a portable MP3 player the iPod iOS is great but I would never want it as a phone.
Lets look at smart phone only which means you can not count the iPod. Different market different rules.
And that argument is not worthless as it clear that even with the iPhone on Verizon iOS is losing ground in the smart phone market.
How is that not relevant??? What is the point of showing market share then? No really, what is the point? Doesn't it factor heavily into what market a company wants to develop software for? Since the same apps run on all those Apple devices then why would you not want to include those?
RubbishBBspeed
Mar 28, 10:35 AM
Thats codswallop, even apple wouldn't be dim enough to allow such an opportunity to go by without at least something to offer to keep market share and tabloid inches filled.
No iPhone 5 = Lost customers.
No iMac refresh = Lost customers.
No iPod Touch refresh = Lost Customers
No ACD new addition = Lost customers.
etc etc. "b"ock and "c"all is what I say.
No iPhone 5 = Lost customers.
No iMac refresh = Lost customers.
No iPod Touch refresh = Lost Customers
No ACD new addition = Lost customers.
etc etc. "b"ock and "c"all is what I say.
zephonic
Apr 23, 03:19 AM
Apple had/has its prime time with the ipod, iphone, ipad but now the innovation chip has changed it seems.
This has been my feeling as well. Unless Apple pulls some new magic out of the hat. I love OSX, but I'm not sure how much longer I can stay on board.
This has been my feeling as well. Unless Apple pulls some new magic out of the hat. I love OSX, but I'm not sure how much longer I can stay on board.
GregA
Jul 30, 07:54 AM
Just thinking about "compelling applications", and pulling a couple of rumors together...
What happened to the rumour that Apple was making a groupware application? What would happen if you implemented a group scheduling and interaction application on a iPad /phone device. Something that allows for shared calendaring & room bookings, as well as a light development environment for a customised family and/or business mobile-intranet?
What happened to the rumour that Apple was making a groupware application? What would happen if you implemented a group scheduling and interaction application on a iPad /phone device. Something that allows for shared calendaring & room bookings, as well as a light development environment for a customised family and/or business mobile-intranet?
crees!
Aug 2, 11:45 AM
As for the two-camera thing... wasn't there a rumor sometime back about how Leopard could handle dual-camera chatting? It would use the monitor/camera that the chat window was on... move the chat window to the other display, and the other camera picks up the chat! Now that sounds wicked... sort of :D
huntercr
May 7, 06:46 PM
I wouldn't mind if they offered a free "basic" email service with some iWork.com and iDisk stuff thrown in to compete with Google and Microsoft. I just hope they beef up the Pro service to make it worth it. Microsoft currently gives like 25GB away with SkyDrive for free and has like 10GB email storage (at least for students, I don't know if that's standard for Live).
Having to split 20GB between iDisk and email when I'm paying $70/year just sucks, to be honest.
So yeah, they can open a free version (with limited syncing capabilities and storage) that's ad-supported... I'd be fine with that. As long as they make the Pro version ad-free with more features than the free.
Why don't you use gmail for your email and allocate all your storage space to idisk? That's what I do.
Having to split 20GB between iDisk and email when I'm paying $70/year just sucks, to be honest.
So yeah, they can open a free version (with limited syncing capabilities and storage) that's ad-supported... I'd be fine with that. As long as they make the Pro version ad-free with more features than the free.
Why don't you use gmail for your email and allocate all your storage space to idisk? That's what I do.
baryon
May 4, 06:23 PM
This is great, with Snow Leopard I couldn't buy it for weeks as they were constantly "out of stock" in the shops.
But how do you boot from a disk image without a disk???
But how do you boot from a disk image without a disk???
marksman
Apr 18, 04:18 PM
I think they are all adults, and they keep these things very separate. If someone said to their colleagues in another department "don't buy screens from Samsung, we are involved in a lawsuit" or "don't sell screens to Apple, we are involved in a lawsuit", the answer would be "are you mad? They are our best supplier, I don't care about any lawsuit" or "are you mad? They are our best customer, I don't care about any lawsuit".
I guarantee you that the division that sells screens to apple is pissed about this, and that Apple tried to work on this internally with Samsung before filing suit.
I know how different divisions of large corporations interact, and I guarantee you the divison making smartphones and tablets are at odds with the screen supplying over this and whatever else.
People that run large divisions often don't care about the other divisions and are only worried about themselves, even if it screws other parts of the company over.
The customer has the leverage in this situation and pissing them off is just a really bad idea.
Believing that Apple wouldn't change suppliers is just ignorant. This is the kind of thing that gives them motivation to start pushing harder with other companies to create screens for them, because Samsung has become an unreliable partner. Instead of just being happy with their relationship, Samsung has jeopardized it and given Apple motivation to look for other partners.
It has put the long term business of selling that many screens to Apple in jeopardy.
I guarantee you that the division that sells screens to apple is pissed about this, and that Apple tried to work on this internally with Samsung before filing suit.
I know how different divisions of large corporations interact, and I guarantee you the divison making smartphones and tablets are at odds with the screen supplying over this and whatever else.
People that run large divisions often don't care about the other divisions and are only worried about themselves, even if it screws other parts of the company over.
The customer has the leverage in this situation and pissing them off is just a really bad idea.
Believing that Apple wouldn't change suppliers is just ignorant. This is the kind of thing that gives them motivation to start pushing harder with other companies to create screens for them, because Samsung has become an unreliable partner. Instead of just being happy with their relationship, Samsung has jeopardized it and given Apple motivation to look for other partners.
It has put the long term business of selling that many screens to Apple in jeopardy.
justinLONG
Mar 29, 11:17 PM
and yes I would buy Quality american made products if a union was not involved, been in one. nothing but shysters. may be a reason why companies go overseas
kainjow
Nov 2, 12:27 PM
It will be interesting to see if this makes it to the OS X App Store.
It installs various components into your system, so no, not until Apple modifies their guidelines.
Seeing how many things it does install and the size of the download, I wouldn't install this on any computer. Looks like FUDware to me.
It installs various components into your system, so no, not until Apple modifies their guidelines.
Seeing how many things it does install and the size of the download, I wouldn't install this on any computer. Looks like FUDware to me.
peharri
Nov 25, 09:06 PM
Consider this. Let's say Apple does something along the lines we're predicting, and sells their phones. Before we plunk down our money, we go around to the various cell carriers and inquire if they'll let us bring our phone to their network. They say either "NO!" or "Not at this time."
The only mobile carriers in a position to do this are the cdmaOne/CDMA2000 ones (Verizon, Sprint PCS, etc.) If Apple makes a GSM or UMTS phone, the carrier has little or no say in whether you use it. T-Mobile and Cingular will, by next year, be running both types of network in the US, and both already run GSM.
The real influence the cellphone companies (at least, the ones not stuck in the 1980s as far as their network infrastructure goes) have on phone purchasing is the ability to subsidize phones that fit their model. This, in practice, usually means rebranding. Cingular is pretty good on that score and rarely insists on more than some ugly logos printed on the phone (unfortunately their network is not the greatest GSM implementation in the world.) T-Mobile, in my experience, is somewhat worse, though not always for bad reasons. For example, they'd probably insist on "My Faves", a proprietary five person phonebook, being grafted on to whatever UI an "iPhone" has, in return for any substantial subsidy.
The fact Apple can't expect carriers to subsidize their phones is one issue they have to deal with. I'm more concerned though with Apple becoming a minority player, with its phone tied to a music store whose success was, in major part, to do with the giant marketshare it had, and thus Jobs's ability to force the labels to compromise on prices.
What would make absolutely more sense is for Apple to simply start up their own network. They've already acquired some assets in this area, haven't they? So why not bide their time until they can really roll the thing out? And since it is relatively common practice for cell towers to have more than one (sometimes several) carriers' equipment mounted on them, Apple could buy into who's-ever network they needed to get one of the "lesser third party" broadcast equipment sets that's already out there among the masses.
Apple would need not merely infrastructure but spectrum to actually start a carrier. They have neither.
Purchasing a carrier is an interesting pipe dream and would terrify the crap out of most shareholders. Mobile telephony is a long term thing, with very little return on investment yet for most people who've invested in it. It's not even a good time to get involved, most companies are rolling out 3G networks and 4G, in the shape of WiMAX, is already being released in some areas.
Were they to do the carrier thing, the best they could hope for would be to be an MVNO. This would be a major change of business model. It has so many ramifications I don't know where to begin.
The only mobile carriers in a position to do this are the cdmaOne/CDMA2000 ones (Verizon, Sprint PCS, etc.) If Apple makes a GSM or UMTS phone, the carrier has little or no say in whether you use it. T-Mobile and Cingular will, by next year, be running both types of network in the US, and both already run GSM.
The real influence the cellphone companies (at least, the ones not stuck in the 1980s as far as their network infrastructure goes) have on phone purchasing is the ability to subsidize phones that fit their model. This, in practice, usually means rebranding. Cingular is pretty good on that score and rarely insists on more than some ugly logos printed on the phone (unfortunately their network is not the greatest GSM implementation in the world.) T-Mobile, in my experience, is somewhat worse, though not always for bad reasons. For example, they'd probably insist on "My Faves", a proprietary five person phonebook, being grafted on to whatever UI an "iPhone" has, in return for any substantial subsidy.
The fact Apple can't expect carriers to subsidize their phones is one issue they have to deal with. I'm more concerned though with Apple becoming a minority player, with its phone tied to a music store whose success was, in major part, to do with the giant marketshare it had, and thus Jobs's ability to force the labels to compromise on prices.
What would make absolutely more sense is for Apple to simply start up their own network. They've already acquired some assets in this area, haven't they? So why not bide their time until they can really roll the thing out? And since it is relatively common practice for cell towers to have more than one (sometimes several) carriers' equipment mounted on them, Apple could buy into who's-ever network they needed to get one of the "lesser third party" broadcast equipment sets that's already out there among the masses.
Apple would need not merely infrastructure but spectrum to actually start a carrier. They have neither.
Purchasing a carrier is an interesting pipe dream and would terrify the crap out of most shareholders. Mobile telephony is a long term thing, with very little return on investment yet for most people who've invested in it. It's not even a good time to get involved, most companies are rolling out 3G networks and 4G, in the shape of WiMAX, is already being released in some areas.
Were they to do the carrier thing, the best they could hope for would be to be an MVNO. This would be a major change of business model. It has so many ramifications I don't know where to begin.
JesterJJZ
Apr 21, 07:33 PM
I need:
8 Internal Bays.
More PCIe Slots.
Thunderbolt.
Keep Dual Optical Bays.
More Ram Slots.
Built in Fibre Channel (This is a stretch)
That should be a MacPro. What you guys want is that magic headless iMac. I want more, not less.
Working in Video I need the most horsepower possible. 32 Cores would be nice.
At home I can live with my iMac, but editing on it is a pain. A MiniMacPro might work there, but it will still cost 2k and people will bitch.
For work I can justify spending $8,000 on a high powered PRO machine.
What he said...
8 Internal Bays.
More PCIe Slots.
Thunderbolt.
Keep Dual Optical Bays.
More Ram Slots.
Built in Fibre Channel (This is a stretch)
That should be a MacPro. What you guys want is that magic headless iMac. I want more, not less.
Working in Video I need the most horsepower possible. 32 Cores would be nice.
At home I can live with my iMac, but editing on it is a pain. A MiniMacPro might work there, but it will still cost 2k and people will bitch.
For work I can justify spending $8,000 on a high powered PRO machine.
What he said...