john7jr
Jul 30, 09:38 PM
Well, in the supposed leaked 10.5 screenshots a month or two ago, people noticed that iCal and Address Book appeared to be merged into a single application.
Those were admittedly fake by the artist. They were never meant to be mistaken as real to begin with. People took it too far. (go figure)
umm....that magazine add looks rather real to me. WTF?:eek:
Except it uses the font that Apple stopped using like 4 years ago.
Anyway...It will be GSM... No Verizon or Sprint at all... the rest of the world uses GSM, and eventually Sprint and Verizon will give in... as the phone market (mostly made overseas where the networks are GSM) eventually stop bothering with those stupid CDMA companies that are disabling their sync capability anyway. I tried to buy a Sony Ericsson from Sprint a few years ago when all the GSM networks had them... Sprint didn't have a single bluetooth phone then. I dropped them for Cingular and the Sony Ericsson T637 so I don't know if Sprint does now or not.
I got on the ship less likely to eventually sink.
Those were admittedly fake by the artist. They were never meant to be mistaken as real to begin with. People took it too far. (go figure)
umm....that magazine add looks rather real to me. WTF?:eek:
Except it uses the font that Apple stopped using like 4 years ago.
Anyway...It will be GSM... No Verizon or Sprint at all... the rest of the world uses GSM, and eventually Sprint and Verizon will give in... as the phone market (mostly made overseas where the networks are GSM) eventually stop bothering with those stupid CDMA companies that are disabling their sync capability anyway. I tried to buy a Sony Ericsson from Sprint a few years ago when all the GSM networks had them... Sprint didn't have a single bluetooth phone then. I dropped them for Cingular and the Sony Ericsson T637 so I don't know if Sprint does now or not.
I got on the ship less likely to eventually sink.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 08:28 AM
I think the iphone 5 will be a minor upgrade. If you are fine with the processor in iphone 4 and in the middle of a contact, then its probably better to wait for iphone 6.
blow45
Mar 29, 02:58 PM
It is unclear why only Apple's iPod line is cited in the report, as virtually identical lithium-polymer batteries are used in the iPhone and iPad. Similar technology is also used in Apple's notebook batteries, although those units may not utilize the pliable polymer manufactured by Kureha in their construction.
Well pick up the phone and ask them, or investigate this somehow. It's unclear in as much as you haven't done your job of researching this...
Well pick up the phone and ask them, or investigate this somehow. It's unclear in as much as you haven't done your job of researching this...
Cavepainter
Mar 30, 02:36 PM
I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.
Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?
They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.
Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-
If you want premium content, you pay for it.
That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)
People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.
True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.
I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.
80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.
Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.
Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?
They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.
Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-
If you want premium content, you pay for it.
That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)
People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.
True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.
I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.
80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.
Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.
anonalidall
May 7, 12:11 PM
Eric Schmidt's comments about privacy are disconcerting to me
This is after the whole Google Buzz fiasco. There's money in trying to convince people to be open. Facebook and Google data mine consumer behavior to make money and consumers need to act like they got a good education and understand where they are being used.
The assumption that those that want privacy are doing something illegal is asinine.
Zuckerberg (Facebook) on privacy (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php)
Privacy is a lot like Laws. You give it up it's hard to get back.
Hey it's not a choice for everyone. I'm just at a point in my life where $6 and some change is going to put me out especially when my online data is not being mined for profit. I've been happier than I though I would with my MobileMe account. I'm on the west coast so i'm assuming my data center is in Cali and performance has been fine.
In the interest of winding this down (and allowing this thread to get back on track :-) I'll concede that Google has made more concerning statements about privacy than Apple (and as you note, information is much more directly related to their bottom line than it is to Apple's). However, I think these are only our perceptions about the situation. I think the reality is that regardless of whether you go with Google's for-pay or Apple's for-pay cloud services you're putting yourself in another companies hands. And I think the differences between how these large companies treat their users vs. how that relates to their income is extremely small. I think it's splitting hairs to differentiate between the privacy of their Cloud offerings (Facebook being an exception).
If you want real privacy there are better ways to obtain it. I use GnuPG when I want more privacy and less convenience, otherwise anything that's unencrypted that I send out or store on the Internet I treat (somewhat) as out of my hands. Obviously I have different expectations for Gmail vs my Tweets, but I still understand the hazards of storing any unencrypted information with any company, Google or Apple.
http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/70000/4000/100/74150/74150.strip.gif
This is after the whole Google Buzz fiasco. There's money in trying to convince people to be open. Facebook and Google data mine consumer behavior to make money and consumers need to act like they got a good education and understand where they are being used.
The assumption that those that want privacy are doing something illegal is asinine.
Zuckerberg (Facebook) on privacy (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php)
Privacy is a lot like Laws. You give it up it's hard to get back.
Hey it's not a choice for everyone. I'm just at a point in my life where $6 and some change is going to put me out especially when my online data is not being mined for profit. I've been happier than I though I would with my MobileMe account. I'm on the west coast so i'm assuming my data center is in Cali and performance has been fine.
In the interest of winding this down (and allowing this thread to get back on track :-) I'll concede that Google has made more concerning statements about privacy than Apple (and as you note, information is much more directly related to their bottom line than it is to Apple's). However, I think these are only our perceptions about the situation. I think the reality is that regardless of whether you go with Google's for-pay or Apple's for-pay cloud services you're putting yourself in another companies hands. And I think the differences between how these large companies treat their users vs. how that relates to their income is extremely small. I think it's splitting hairs to differentiate between the privacy of their Cloud offerings (Facebook being an exception).
If you want real privacy there are better ways to obtain it. I use GnuPG when I want more privacy and less convenience, otherwise anything that's unencrypted that I send out or store on the Internet I treat (somewhat) as out of my hands. Obviously I have different expectations for Gmail vs my Tweets, but I still understand the hazards of storing any unencrypted information with any company, Google or Apple.
http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/70000/4000/100/74150/74150.strip.gif
iliketyla
Apr 18, 04:54 PM
First off the Prada was officially announced by LG on January 18, 2007. The iPhone was announced by Apple on january 9, 2007. The last time that I checked, January 9th came before January 18th. THAT makes the iPhone first, sorry.
Secondly the All of the other copy cats look a ton more like the iPhone than the iPhone looks like the Prada or anything else for that matter.
As far as whether the iPhone and iPad are innovative, I respectfully disagree with you.
The LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada,[1] is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006. -
Wikipedia
Secondly the All of the other copy cats look a ton more like the iPhone than the iPhone looks like the Prada or anything else for that matter.
As far as whether the iPhone and iPad are innovative, I respectfully disagree with you.
The LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada,[1] is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006. -
Wikipedia
i hate phones
Mar 29, 01:20 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that the fact that you can't use this service on iOS has more to do with Apple than it does with Amazon? (Remember lala.com?)
no you're not the only one. for android you need an app right? maybe it just doesn't work well on mobile browsers? i can actually play the music i purchased on amazon on my iphone through safari using the cloud player, but the download/upload music links don't work and you do get a message that says browser not supported but it still kinda works, but you can't really download music on to an iphone anyway unless through itunes right? so in that case amazon would HAVE to make an iphone app to have it work.. that would require apple approving one and amazon giving them 30%. don't see how amazon's the bad guy here.
no you're not the only one. for android you need an app right? maybe it just doesn't work well on mobile browsers? i can actually play the music i purchased on amazon on my iphone through safari using the cloud player, but the download/upload music links don't work and you do get a message that says browser not supported but it still kinda works, but you can't really download music on to an iphone anyway unless through itunes right? so in that case amazon would HAVE to make an iphone app to have it work.. that would require apple approving one and amazon giving them 30%. don't see how amazon's the bad guy here.
munkery
Nov 2, 03:07 PM
ClamXAV is free and it's pretty good if you think you need it. Plus it's open source (I think).
ClamXav also is much lighter on system resources because it does not have real-time scanning.
It real-time scans emails (optional) and the specific folders you tell the sentry to watch; both via resource friendly daemons that launch ClamXav in the background when they detect changes in those areas. It does not real-time scan exhaustively (running processes & entire filesystem) but, at this point in time, this level of real-time scanning is not required on Macs.
The benefit of the lack of true real-time scanning is much less resource consumption.
EDIT: To clarify, email scanning needs to be set up with the Sentry. The option to scan email in the preferences is an option to scan the contents of mbox folders as individual items; not an option to real-time scan email. Add ~/Library/Mail and ~/Library/ Mail Downloads to real-time scan email for Mail.app.
ClamXav also is much lighter on system resources because it does not have real-time scanning.
It real-time scans emails (optional) and the specific folders you tell the sentry to watch; both via resource friendly daemons that launch ClamXav in the background when they detect changes in those areas. It does not real-time scan exhaustively (running processes & entire filesystem) but, at this point in time, this level of real-time scanning is not required on Macs.
The benefit of the lack of true real-time scanning is much less resource consumption.
EDIT: To clarify, email scanning needs to be set up with the Sentry. The option to scan email in the preferences is an option to scan the contents of mbox folders as individual items; not an option to real-time scan email. Add ~/Library/Mail and ~/Library/ Mail Downloads to real-time scan email for Mail.app.
cdinca
Mar 29, 09:08 AM
The more things that are in the cloud, the closer I get to hitting AT&T's 150GB home DSL (non-uverse) data limit.
iJohnHenry
Apr 9, 07:33 PM
It's cut and dry simple math that you are over thinking. Why would you assume (9+3) is a power? 9+3=12 simple as that.
Because there is no operand between the 2 and the (9+3).
And I agree, this is the most nonsensical thread in some time.
God bless diversions. :D
Because there is no operand between the 2 and the (9+3).
And I agree, this is the most nonsensical thread in some time.
God bless diversions. :D
0815
Apr 25, 10:33 AM
Since only I can access the info, who cares?
This is not a real issue. Ridiculous.
Guess the Apple Haters care ... since they can't attack the iOS on any other grounds they have to either make up funny arguments or overblow every tiny none-issue (and leave out the facts how it looks on their favorite platform).
And of course the press cares since there is a new thing where they can attach their favorite 'gate' to.
This is not a real issue. Ridiculous.
Guess the Apple Haters care ... since they can't attack the iOS on any other grounds they have to either make up funny arguments or overblow every tiny none-issue (and leave out the facts how it looks on their favorite platform).
And of course the press cares since there is a new thing where they can attach their favorite 'gate' to.
gerrycurl
Aug 7, 05:01 PM
And still..... nobody knows if you can just buy a random off the shelf nvidia 7800 and plop it into this sucker.
my powermac g4 died, but can SOMEONE, just ANYONE go into their 'system profiler' and see if they have a list of all the compatible video cards? i seem to remember you could get some information like that in the profiler or some other such app. or if you're an elite hacker, open up terminal and go to /usr/x.org or wahtever it is and see if the nvidia drivers are there.
overall excited. definitely buying a 2ghz mac pro as soon as it's in the stores.
my powermac g4 died, but can SOMEONE, just ANYONE go into their 'system profiler' and see if they have a list of all the compatible video cards? i seem to remember you could get some information like that in the profiler or some other such app. or if you're an elite hacker, open up terminal and go to /usr/x.org or wahtever it is and see if the nvidia drivers are there.
overall excited. definitely buying a 2ghz mac pro as soon as it's in the stores.
strider42
Apr 18, 03:51 PM
They have patents but they HAVE to pursue infringers or they can lose the rights to the patents. That's why you see so many patent lawsuits. Unfortunately, that's just how the system works (in very basic terms).
You're thinking of trademark law. Patents are awarded for a specific period of time. You can't lose them just because you don't defend them. You can sue at any time.
Its only trademarks that you have to protect in order to keep them.
You see so many patent lawsuits because there's money in it and to stifle competition. There is no other reason.
You're thinking of trademark law. Patents are awarded for a specific period of time. You can't lose them just because you don't defend them. You can sue at any time.
Its only trademarks that you have to protect in order to keep them.
You see so many patent lawsuits because there's money in it and to stifle competition. There is no other reason.
elppa
May 7, 05:41 PM
I think Apple is doing this not because of the Mac but because of Android. They want to give iPhone customers the services Google gives them for free when they get an Android phone � push email, contacts, calendars and photos. Apple can't afford to leave any stone unturned in the market share race with Google.
I guess I am the only one that remembers that it started out as a free service. Before it was .Mac it was called iTools and it was free. It was a benefit of being a part of the Mac community.
No, you're not alone.
I've had an account since iTools.
I'd argue it was more sophisticated (relative to the competition) back then. In 2000 WebDav online disk and IMAP mail were something to crow about. Now everyone offers IMAP at least.
Yes, but a la Google works. MobileMe is crap. So if they make it free then you'd either get free crap without ads, or free stuff that works with ads. Seems fair.
I willing to bet good money MobileMe Email has higher uptime than Google Mail in the last year.
I guess I am the only one that remembers that it started out as a free service. Before it was .Mac it was called iTools and it was free. It was a benefit of being a part of the Mac community.
No, you're not alone.
I've had an account since iTools.
I'd argue it was more sophisticated (relative to the competition) back then. In 2000 WebDav online disk and IMAP mail were something to crow about. Now everyone offers IMAP at least.
Yes, but a la Google works. MobileMe is crap. So if they make it free then you'd either get free crap without ads, or free stuff that works with ads. Seems fair.
I willing to bet good money MobileMe Email has higher uptime than Google Mail in the last year.
Full of Win
Apr 23, 07:03 PM
Resolution is a function of both pixel count and screen size. While there were less pixels on the iPhone screen, it had "higher resolution" in the form of higher DPI ;)
Depends on who you talk too. OS X presents resolution as just the vertical and horizontal pixel counts, without mention of the PPI. For example, looking at System Preferences > Displays will show resolutions in this format, w/o mention of display size and PPI. The iPhone 4 tech specs seems to do the same thing, where resolution is linked to the pixel count and the PPI is mentioned afterwords.
960-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi
However, other times, I've seen it resolution (in a computer context) linked to PPI as well. Its just depends on who your are talking to.
Depends on who you talk too. OS X presents resolution as just the vertical and horizontal pixel counts, without mention of the PPI. For example, looking at System Preferences > Displays will show resolutions in this format, w/o mention of display size and PPI. The iPhone 4 tech specs seems to do the same thing, where resolution is linked to the pixel count and the PPI is mentioned afterwords.
960-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi
However, other times, I've seen it resolution (in a computer context) linked to PPI as well. Its just depends on who your are talking to.
JAT
Apr 25, 11:24 AM
Well, I think it's great - I have just been able to track business mileage accurately, even when I have lost the exact date and route - I also can retrace my steps from that holiday 8 months ago where I went to a really nice place and forgot the name of it.
Neither of those uses is supported by the information in question.
Neither of those uses is supported by the information in question.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 10, 08:53 AM
I inputed it exactly like this in my calculator and I got 2. So...
Edit: I voted 2 because I thought of it as 48 over (/) 2(9+3)
But written as 48�2(9+3) I would say 288...
Strange.
You didn't enter it properly then...
Here
280594
The thing about this question is, whats the point of the parentheses..
Try using a calculator that uses the "/" instead of the divided by sign. You'll get 288. I tried it the way you did it on an old calculator and I got 2. But that's not the way it is in the OP. It's 48/2(9+3)
LOL um... ok? It's a calculator...
For the last time, a simple google search will show you guys that unless the calculator is in scientific mode, it will give you the wrong answer. Hard to believe, I guess, that a machine could be wrong, but it's true.
Edit: I voted 2 because I thought of it as 48 over (/) 2(9+3)
But written as 48�2(9+3) I would say 288...
Strange.
You didn't enter it properly then...
Here
280594
The thing about this question is, whats the point of the parentheses..
Try using a calculator that uses the "/" instead of the divided by sign. You'll get 288. I tried it the way you did it on an old calculator and I got 2. But that's not the way it is in the OP. It's 48/2(9+3)
LOL um... ok? It's a calculator...
For the last time, a simple google search will show you guys that unless the calculator is in scientific mode, it will give you the wrong answer. Hard to believe, I guess, that a machine could be wrong, but it's true.
Vulpinemac
Apr 25, 09:43 AM
It exists. There's no reason for it to exist. You can't disable it. And there are HUGE privacy implications should the file be accessed without your permission - by thieves, stalkers (or worse), advertisers, police, etc. - none of whom can access your cell company's location records, except authorities, and even then only by subpoena. Which means a judge has to agree that there's a good reason for them to need it.
Why is the file even there in the first place?
Ok, granted, it exists; what makes you think there's no reason for it to exist? Are you an Apple engineer? Obviously not. Should you disable it? I don't think so. Yes, there are privacy implications, but if the data is not collected by Apple and is inaccessible to anyone without physical access to the phone, then the majority of those implications are pure conjecture without any evidence to support it.
On the other hand, by the phone having a database of cell towers and wifi hotspots, transfer of signal can be made much more efficiently by on-board software and automatic connection to known Wi-Fi locations is automatic, not forcing you to manually locate and connect every time. Among other things, this saves on battery power by eliminating the searching a phone has to do each time it loses signal as you move around. If you've done any long-distance travelling, I'm sure you can remember how your cell phone drank its battery in hours while you drove down the highway, yet after the first one or two trips along a given route, the iPhone seems to increase battery life when repeating that route. Logically speaking, the file really does improve the user experience.
Why is the file even there in the first place?
Ok, granted, it exists; what makes you think there's no reason for it to exist? Are you an Apple engineer? Obviously not. Should you disable it? I don't think so. Yes, there are privacy implications, but if the data is not collected by Apple and is inaccessible to anyone without physical access to the phone, then the majority of those implications are pure conjecture without any evidence to support it.
On the other hand, by the phone having a database of cell towers and wifi hotspots, transfer of signal can be made much more efficiently by on-board software and automatic connection to known Wi-Fi locations is automatic, not forcing you to manually locate and connect every time. Among other things, this saves on battery power by eliminating the searching a phone has to do each time it loses signal as you move around. If you've done any long-distance travelling, I'm sure you can remember how your cell phone drank its battery in hours while you drove down the highway, yet after the first one or two trips along a given route, the iPhone seems to increase battery life when repeating that route. Logically speaking, the file really does improve the user experience.
MistaBungle
Mar 30, 05:48 PM
Excellent. Downloading and cannot wait to load.
swingerofbirch
Jul 30, 02:24 AM
Maybe Apple can bring to the US the model where you pay to call not to receive!
HOORAY.
HOORAY.
alec
Aug 2, 11:17 AM
I know what also to expect from WWDC -- a nice stock rise! Pretty nice if you bought Apple stock recently, considering it was at $50 a month ago and now is over $67 a share....
illbeback
Apr 5, 04:31 PM
Jobs should just make an iCar and show Toyota how to do it!
marksman
Apr 7, 03:25 PM
Yes, the war just started and things are heating up. I would think the next few years will result in a tablet OS distribution that looks like this:
iOS - 35%
Android - 40%
WebOS - 20%
RIM - 5%
Apple - 35%
HP - 20%
RIM - 5%
Samsung - 15%
Moto - 10%
LG - 10%
HTC - 5%
Maybe Microsoft will wedge their way in, maybe the percentages will be shifted around a little. But the growth of the tablet market will stabilize or at least stop growing at the rapid pace that it currently enjoys.
The point I'm making is that the hot market only seems to be lasting 4 to 5 years. 10 years ago, MP3 players was the hot market. 5 years ago, smartphones was the hot market. This year, it's tablets. 5 years from now ... who knows, but it won't be tablets.
Don't apply the phone dynamic to Tablets. Android is not likely to take a lead in tablet market share for a long time if forever.
Every single time a customer goes to buy a tablet they will have the choice to buy an iPad. The only way that changes is if the wireless companies are able to give away cheap android tablets with data plan contracts. Otherwise, it is going to be very difficult for the commodity android market to overtake Apple.
Every store they go to, an iPad will be there next to it, and since Apple took such an aggressive price stance from the beginning, it is going to be hard for anyone to take that position away from them, especially a mish mash of opposing companies relying on a free OS by another party.
iOS - 35%
Android - 40%
WebOS - 20%
RIM - 5%
Apple - 35%
HP - 20%
RIM - 5%
Samsung - 15%
Moto - 10%
LG - 10%
HTC - 5%
Maybe Microsoft will wedge their way in, maybe the percentages will be shifted around a little. But the growth of the tablet market will stabilize or at least stop growing at the rapid pace that it currently enjoys.
The point I'm making is that the hot market only seems to be lasting 4 to 5 years. 10 years ago, MP3 players was the hot market. 5 years ago, smartphones was the hot market. This year, it's tablets. 5 years from now ... who knows, but it won't be tablets.
Don't apply the phone dynamic to Tablets. Android is not likely to take a lead in tablet market share for a long time if forever.
Every single time a customer goes to buy a tablet they will have the choice to buy an iPad. The only way that changes is if the wireless companies are able to give away cheap android tablets with data plan contracts. Otherwise, it is going to be very difficult for the commodity android market to overtake Apple.
Every store they go to, an iPad will be there next to it, and since Apple took such an aggressive price stance from the beginning, it is going to be hard for anyone to take that position away from them, especially a mish mash of opposing companies relying on a free OS by another party.
brent0saurus
May 7, 11:45 AM
I could see this happening. Online storage is getting so cheap. DropBox starts you out with 2GB but you get a max of 10 GB just from inviting people. I understand MobileMe gives you some added benefits but I'd say storage is the most expensive of the benefits.
I would LOVE for this to happen. I just want a XXX@me.com address :)
Oh, and the ability to have Logic Pro switch my hot keys automatically just by signing into my account. That rules.
I would LOVE for this to happen. I just want a XXX@me.com address :)
Oh, and the ability to have Logic Pro switch my hot keys automatically just by signing into my account. That rules.
