drzeus
Sep 6, 06:38 PM
So this is interesting.
Everything is core duo, incuding the minis.
There is a movie announcement next week.
I still can't help but think that the mini has been silently hardware upgraded and will be the video iPod of the coming months. Download to the mini, keep your movies on it, it gets directly connected to your TV and you potentially have an HD movie solution to compete with netflix.
Very interesting. . .
Everything is core duo, incuding the minis.
There is a movie announcement next week.
I still can't help but think that the mini has been silently hardware upgraded and will be the video iPod of the coming months. Download to the mini, keep your movies on it, it gets directly connected to your TV and you potentially have an HD movie solution to compete with netflix.
Very interesting. . .
Earendil
Nov 27, 06:02 PM
Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.
They are figures of speech that are quite common where I live. My apologies if they were taken the wrong way by you.
And since when did I say I was a Pro?
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
Go Apple if they want to make a consumer monitor to compete with Dell. I'm all for it, as consumer monitors are all I have ever bought. I've already said that though, and I am not at all against Apple doing so, if you think I was, please go re-read my posts, as you might have missed my real point.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can..
See, that is what my counter point was to. Yes, the thread is about Apple's possible entry into Consumer level LCDs. However by claiming that only "egotists" with a hankering for "supposed" statistics are the ones that buy Apple displays is just insulting. And when your comparison is with a Dell monitor, it just shows ignorance of what the Apple monitors provide.
You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor :cool:
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in backlighting and change incolor based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benafits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level montior for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
I think your conclusion is correct, but I think it is for different reasons. Those that buy Apple monitors either have the money to burn, or actually do want what the monitor provides over Dell. I think the reason they may not is the same reason they don't make cheap computers. Apple afaik has had quality certified monitors for a long time running. It might be confusing if they offer both, as anyone that knows that Apple only sells quality monitors may buy the new less expensive monitor and find out it doesn't do what they think it should.
However I think that it would be worth it in sales. And worth it for me :D
wolf night howl Wallpaper,
Wolf wallpaper 3 Image
Ely, Minnesota, Reclining Wolf
Wolf Minnesota 1600*1200
Wolf#39;s Rain Anime Wallpaper #8
free wolf dog wallpaper,
Autumn Wolf Wallpaper 800 x
Brown Wolf Wallpaper. Normal:
Wolves Wallpaper.
Song Wolf Wallpapers and Song
Free Wolf Wallpapers - Enjoy
Sheppard Wolf Wallpaper
Wolf Wallpaper SCREENSHOTS
SnarlingWolf wallpaper
Wolf wallpapers, coyote
10 Scott Wolf wallpaper.
White Wolf Wallpaper
They are figures of speech that are quite common where I live. My apologies if they were taken the wrong way by you.
And since when did I say I was a Pro?
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
Go Apple if they want to make a consumer monitor to compete with Dell. I'm all for it, as consumer monitors are all I have ever bought. I've already said that though, and I am not at all against Apple doing so, if you think I was, please go re-read my posts, as you might have missed my real point.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can..
See, that is what my counter point was to. Yes, the thread is about Apple's possible entry into Consumer level LCDs. However by claiming that only "egotists" with a hankering for "supposed" statistics are the ones that buy Apple displays is just insulting. And when your comparison is with a Dell monitor, it just shows ignorance of what the Apple monitors provide.
You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor :cool:
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in backlighting and change incolor based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benafits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level montior for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
I think your conclusion is correct, but I think it is for different reasons. Those that buy Apple monitors either have the money to burn, or actually do want what the monitor provides over Dell. I think the reason they may not is the same reason they don't make cheap computers. Apple afaik has had quality certified monitors for a long time running. It might be confusing if they offer both, as anyone that knows that Apple only sells quality monitors may buy the new less expensive monitor and find out it doesn't do what they think it should.
However I think that it would be worth it in sales. And worth it for me :D
Ravich
May 4, 03:37 AM
This is going to seriously hinder my productivity with application deletion. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and change my productivity schedules for next year to include an hour of application deletion per day instead of 30 minutes.
Oh, wait a second, this only applies to mac app store applications? Thanks god! I'll just need to increase it to 45 minutes per day in that case. What a relief.
Oh, wait a second, this only applies to mac app store applications? Thanks god! I'll just need to increase it to 45 minutes per day in that case. What a relief.
Chris Bangle
Aug 25, 06:54 AM
Why does intel have to be soooo confusing, A year ago you could either have a G4 or a G5, Nowadays dyo want core solo, core duo, merom, the other one, or that other one, or the other one.( I can ony remeber conroe and merom)... Ok there more powerful but there are too many to decide from.
MM2270
Sep 7, 12:14 PM
I agree with everyone here that if Apple only intros a movie purchase model, it will suck. Most people don't want to own movies. After all, you don't see many music rental services out there in the brick and mortar world, but there are millions of movie rental places. It's a tried and true model that they should emulate to an extent and bring to the online world. Of course, they should innovate on the basic model as Apple is known to do.
But, I keep thinking, why stop at one model? I know Apple likes to keep things simple, but it seems to me you could have both.
Here is how I would envision a great movie distro system.
Users have the option to either rent or buy a movie, with two buttons "rent this movie", "buy this movie" next to it's description.
The rental model would work like this:
• Quality would be slightly lower than DVD quality. Maybe same resolution, but compressed a little bit more to reduce file size (after all, if you aren't keeping it, it should download quickly)
• You can play the movie up to 5 times or within a 14 day period, whichever comes first. After that, it expires, so you can no longer play it. This would be linked to the DRM model within iTunes.
• No DVD burning with rentals. They would never allow you to make a copy of it since you don't own it. (I mean of course, burning to DVD playable in a standard DVD player. If you wanted to somehow back up the data file itself, you could, but it would be pointless.)
The purchase model would be like this:
• DVD quality playback. So, somewhat larger downloads, but they will be worth it, because it would be the same as renting from your local video store.
• You can play it unlimited number of times. You own it, so why not?
• DVD burning capability for backup purposes, but would be limited to 3 burns, then it's done. They would have to encode something within the file itself that would know it's been burned to DVD 3 times, not within iTunes, or that could possibly be circumvented.
Oh, and as for price of each? I think $2.99 - $4.99 for rentals and $9.99 - $14.99 for purchase would be ideal.
And one other thing. The iTMS would keep track of what you've rented, and if you decide you'd like to own that movie later, you can purchase it by paying the difference in price between the rental and purchase. So, for a movie that was $4.99 rental and $14.99 puchase, you'd pay $10. Now THAT would be sweet!
In the end, I doubt we'll see something like this, but that's what I would want and use. For those great movies that I would like to own, I would pay the purchase price for the convenience of not having to go out to a store or buy it at Amazon and wait for it to arrive.
For everything else that I don't want to keep, the rental model would be what I'd use.
But, I keep thinking, why stop at one model? I know Apple likes to keep things simple, but it seems to me you could have both.
Here is how I would envision a great movie distro system.
Users have the option to either rent or buy a movie, with two buttons "rent this movie", "buy this movie" next to it's description.
The rental model would work like this:
• Quality would be slightly lower than DVD quality. Maybe same resolution, but compressed a little bit more to reduce file size (after all, if you aren't keeping it, it should download quickly)
• You can play the movie up to 5 times or within a 14 day period, whichever comes first. After that, it expires, so you can no longer play it. This would be linked to the DRM model within iTunes.
• No DVD burning with rentals. They would never allow you to make a copy of it since you don't own it. (I mean of course, burning to DVD playable in a standard DVD player. If you wanted to somehow back up the data file itself, you could, but it would be pointless.)
The purchase model would be like this:
• DVD quality playback. So, somewhat larger downloads, but they will be worth it, because it would be the same as renting from your local video store.
• You can play it unlimited number of times. You own it, so why not?
• DVD burning capability for backup purposes, but would be limited to 3 burns, then it's done. They would have to encode something within the file itself that would know it's been burned to DVD 3 times, not within iTunes, or that could possibly be circumvented.
Oh, and as for price of each? I think $2.99 - $4.99 for rentals and $9.99 - $14.99 for purchase would be ideal.
And one other thing. The iTMS would keep track of what you've rented, and if you decide you'd like to own that movie later, you can purchase it by paying the difference in price between the rental and purchase. So, for a movie that was $4.99 rental and $14.99 puchase, you'd pay $10. Now THAT would be sweet!
In the end, I doubt we'll see something like this, but that's what I would want and use. For those great movies that I would like to own, I would pay the purchase price for the convenience of not having to go out to a store or buy it at Amazon and wait for it to arrive.
For everything else that I don't want to keep, the rental model would be what I'd use.
iBorg20181
Oct 24, 01:15 AM
if you are gonna wait - macworld 07 will be the big update.
Nope - Santa Rosa won't arrive until March or April, and that's when the next major upgrade will be made.
;)
iBorg
Nope - Santa Rosa won't arrive until March or April, and that's when the next major upgrade will be made.
;)
iBorg
DamnItsHot
Apr 21, 05:06 PM
I think it is interesting that he says the data is easily accessible by "criminals and bad actors". As a politician he has a high probability of fitting in the criminal category and so far as his so called acting goes he definitely fits that category. Could he have been looking in the mirror when he spewed this garbage?
Couldn't make it as an actor so he went into a lower tier - politics. ;)
Couldn't make it as an actor so he went into a lower tier - politics. ;)
emaja
Apr 2, 08:49 PM
Nice ad, but I am getting sick of Apple using "magical" to describe the iPad. It just sounds silly.
AidenShaw
Nov 15, 11:59 AM
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
On pyMol, yes.
If you look at the full article, XP bested OSX on several other programs.
Pretty much even, overall.
They don't report software versions or other useful details (like how many FB-DIMMs in the systems), so any of the "wins" and "losses" could easily be differences in software versions (is pyMol OSX exactly the same version, compiled with the same optimizations on the same compiler?) or other details.
For example, what if pyMol on OSx86 is optimized for Core and later chips, and the XP version is optimized for Pentium III systems (and doesn't take advantage of Pentium 4 and Core 2 improvements)? If that's that case, is not fair to say OSX is faster than XP - although it's clearly reasonable to state that OSX is a faster choice for pyMol.
On pyMol, yes.
If you look at the full article, XP bested OSX on several other programs.
Pretty much even, overall.
They don't report software versions or other useful details (like how many FB-DIMMs in the systems), so any of the "wins" and "losses" could easily be differences in software versions (is pyMol OSX exactly the same version, compiled with the same optimizations on the same compiler?) or other details.
For example, what if pyMol on OSx86 is optimized for Core and later chips, and the XP version is optimized for Pentium III systems (and doesn't take advantage of Pentium 4 and Core 2 improvements)? If that's that case, is not fair to say OSX is faster than XP - although it's clearly reasonable to state that OSX is a faster choice for pyMol.
iGav
Mar 4, 12:21 PM
Keeping weight down is all-important. Which is why I remain in love with the Lotus Elise. It proves that less weight fixes everything - better handling, acceleration, braking, fuel economy...of course in a hybrid, the battery pack is always the vexed question. Even the best batteries are still expensive and relatively heavy.
But even the Elise isn't immune, it's all relative of course, but it's gained roughly 170kg since the Series 1. :eek:
But along with aerodynamics... it's perhaps the most important factor in, as you say... handling, acceleration, braking, fuel economy... pretty much everything.
When you think how innovative a car like the Audi A2 was, I do find the lack of real progress over the last 12 years particularly sad. 10 years ago, the A2 was a sub 1000kg (sub 900kg in certain trim) proper 4 seater, its 3 cylinder TDI engine could easily achieve 70+mpg imp without even trying (according to Wiki 107.8 mpg & 140 mpg imp were also achieved).
The 1.2 TDI version emitted 81g/km CO2, featured Stop/Start, an Eco mode that disengaged the clutch when the accelerator was released to maximise free wheeling and was rated at 94mpg.
And this was 10 years ago...
In many ways, it's shameful today that we think that 60 or even 70mpg is somehow remarkable for a family car. :(
the Cruze diesel, which may be able to equal or exceed the new Jetta TDI's level of equipment, refinement and pricepoint.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
Personally... I don't think GM have a clue, and that's one of the reasons why they got themselves into one almighty hell of a mess, and only time will tell if they can get themselves out of it. I'm still of the opinion that GM's decision to attempt to introduce Chevrolet into the European market will ultimately prove futile.
Here in the US, the sedan (saloon) is king, even on smaller cars like the Focus and Corolla. That is slowly beginning to change, but Americans still like three-box cars over hatchbacks. Personally I prefer hatchbacks and wagons, though larger cars still look good as sedans.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
But even the Elise isn't immune, it's all relative of course, but it's gained roughly 170kg since the Series 1. :eek:
But along with aerodynamics... it's perhaps the most important factor in, as you say... handling, acceleration, braking, fuel economy... pretty much everything.
When you think how innovative a car like the Audi A2 was, I do find the lack of real progress over the last 12 years particularly sad. 10 years ago, the A2 was a sub 1000kg (sub 900kg in certain trim) proper 4 seater, its 3 cylinder TDI engine could easily achieve 70+mpg imp without even trying (according to Wiki 107.8 mpg & 140 mpg imp were also achieved).
The 1.2 TDI version emitted 81g/km CO2, featured Stop/Start, an Eco mode that disengaged the clutch when the accelerator was released to maximise free wheeling and was rated at 94mpg.
And this was 10 years ago...
In many ways, it's shameful today that we think that 60 or even 70mpg is somehow remarkable for a family car. :(
the Cruze diesel, which may be able to equal or exceed the new Jetta TDI's level of equipment, refinement and pricepoint.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
Personally... I don't think GM have a clue, and that's one of the reasons why they got themselves into one almighty hell of a mess, and only time will tell if they can get themselves out of it. I'm still of the opinion that GM's decision to attempt to introduce Chevrolet into the European market will ultimately prove futile.
Here in the US, the sedan (saloon) is king, even on smaller cars like the Focus and Corolla. That is slowly beginning to change, but Americans still like three-box cars over hatchbacks. Personally I prefer hatchbacks and wagons, though larger cars still look good as sedans.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
macbookairman
Apr 12, 09:22 PM
I found this audio stream of the keynote. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/foxtrotyankee
It hiccups now and then but not awful.
It hiccups now and then but not awful.
bassfingers
Apr 26, 12:52 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Here we go again
"what about windows being generic?!"
-well Microsoft isn't actually selling window panes
"app store is generic"
-if it were 'mobile software store' or 'application store', it would definitely be generic, but 'app store' is arguable
"this is stupid, apple being such a girl"
-they've built a name with 'app store', and it would be to the competitions advantage to use it. Otherwise, they would just use something else.
"apple didn't invent the word app"
-well they made it popular
"nuh-uh, I've been using app, since blah blah..."
-congratulations (but we're talking about millions, not 1 and a few friends)
Here we go again
"what about windows being generic?!"
-well Microsoft isn't actually selling window panes
"app store is generic"
-if it were 'mobile software store' or 'application store', it would definitely be generic, but 'app store' is arguable
"this is stupid, apple being such a girl"
-they've built a name with 'app store', and it would be to the competitions advantage to use it. Otherwise, they would just use something else.
"apple didn't invent the word app"
-well they made it popular
"nuh-uh, I've been using app, since blah blah..."
-congratulations (but we're talking about millions, not 1 and a few friends)
direzz
Aug 16, 08:06 PM
i dont really think the ipod needs to be updated.
its great the way it is, and it hasnt even been a year since it was released!
why are you all on this idea of an ipod update?
the ipod isnt a computer that needs a new processor and faster components.
mp3 files just play.
its great the way it is, and it hasnt even been a year since it was released!
why are you all on this idea of an ipod update?
the ipod isnt a computer that needs a new processor and faster components.
mp3 files just play.
cleanup
Nov 26, 12:47 AM
Doesn't look very safe to me.. First time you go under a bridge will probably be your last.
If it's good enough for the Pope, it's good enough for me. :)
If it's good enough for the Pope, it's good enough for me. :)
Consultant
Mar 25, 03:59 PM
Great news. And so thin!
iPad 1 does not support HDMI out, so I'm assuming no, it doesn't work.
Exactly.
iPad 1 does not support HDMI out, so I'm assuming no, it doesn't work.
Exactly.
Object-X
Nov 29, 02:14 PM
I think what Jobs is hinting at is integration with all these devices.
Imagine your at work having a video chat conversation with someone and Calendar reminds you of a meeting you have somewhere. You get up, flip open your phone and your video iChat session automagically transfers over to the phone. You walk down to your car and get in, close your phone and you're still talking over the car's built in phone/iChat system. Your GPS screen rotates like a cube and shows the location of your meeting in your calendar, rotating back to your conversation. You end your call and tell your onboard system to send an email to your party indicating your on your way, ect..
You could come up with all kinds of scenarios. Your Mac, your iPhone, iTV, email, calendar, GPS, iPod, all synced to each other and integrated without any interaction by the user. Only a company like Apple could pull it off seemlessly.
Now imagine trying that with Microsoft's software, some other companies phone, another companies TV interface, a differnt companies camera, ect...
You know exactly how well that will work.
Imagine your at work having a video chat conversation with someone and Calendar reminds you of a meeting you have somewhere. You get up, flip open your phone and your video iChat session automagically transfers over to the phone. You walk down to your car and get in, close your phone and you're still talking over the car's built in phone/iChat system. Your GPS screen rotates like a cube and shows the location of your meeting in your calendar, rotating back to your conversation. You end your call and tell your onboard system to send an email to your party indicating your on your way, ect..
You could come up with all kinds of scenarios. Your Mac, your iPhone, iTV, email, calendar, GPS, iPod, all synced to each other and integrated without any interaction by the user. Only a company like Apple could pull it off seemlessly.
Now imagine trying that with Microsoft's software, some other companies phone, another companies TV interface, a differnt companies camera, ect...
You know exactly how well that will work.
twoodcc
Feb 17, 03:22 PM
No remote login?
Well the Internet is terrible here. I do have MobileMe, but can't get it to work here. I don't have remote login on the windows boxes. But I know the Internet works there b/c my server is up
Well the Internet is terrible here. I do have MobileMe, but can't get it to work here. I don't have remote login on the windows boxes. But I know the Internet works there b/c my server is up
maclaptop
Apr 21, 10:30 PM
These old Senators still believe in privacy.
The poor suckers have no clue. The word privacy should be removed from the dictionary.
The poor suckers have no clue. The word privacy should be removed from the dictionary.
lilcosco08
Mar 25, 09:58 PM
Welp, that GPU will be able to power the rumored better display of the iPad 3 :D
mattcube64
Nov 24, 02:08 AM
Picked up a red Wii today at Walmart. I sold my launch system a long time ago, and have been noticing a lot of good deals on some great titles I've missed over the years. I'm all caught up on purchasing most the PC & 360 games I want, so this would give me a lot of choices for Christmas gifts. Kinda backwards... but whatever. :p
It was the last one at Walmart, so I went ahead and bought it. But I'm keeping it sealed until Friday, to see if I can snag one with a $50 gift card online. If I can, this one will be going back to the store.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/5203821726_514fa55e52_b.jpg
It was the last one at Walmart, so I went ahead and bought it. But I'm keeping it sealed until Friday, to see if I can snag one with a $50 gift card online. If I can, this one will be going back to the store.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/5203821726_514fa55e52_b.jpg
Al Coholic
Apr 21, 11:56 AM
As soon as I saw the name Al Franken I stopped reading. What a dufus.
LOL!
LOL!
Eduardo1971
Mar 24, 01:26 PM
"iMac! iMac! iMac!"
Yup-I want to buy my first iMac! Can't wait for the upcoming refresh.
Yup-I want to buy my first iMac! Can't wait for the upcoming refresh.
BC2009
Oct 24, 12:59 AM
What a crock of nonsense. :rolleyes:
Apparently, your idea of "corrupt" is to tell the truth about products instead of letting unsafe, Chinese garbage get pushed on the world with millions in advertising, but not a useful word in the bunch. Do you think Apple is going to advertise their antenna problem or Suzuki is going to brag that their vehicle is more likely to roll over than most other vehicles on the road? Heck no. Most magazines take money directly from the manufacturers that advertise in their magazines and thus have a total conflict of interests. Here's a magazine that doesn't take a dime from advertisers and thus has no reason to pick on anyone or lie about anything. But YOU call that "corruption." That's like Republicans saying they will create jobs (and leave out the "in China" part).
First off, Consumer Reports makes money by selling subscriptions which means free press is good for them. Sensational popular bad reviews gets them publicity - good reviews get them nothing. In fact their video review was so obviously biased and unprofessional it was a joke. The guy should have been wearing an "Down with Apple" T-shirt with the Android robot peeing on the Apple logo.
Second, the Suzuki Samarai is not a Chinese vehicle - Suzuki is a Japanese company.
Third, save your political slant for some other forum - we talk tech here - not politics.
Fourth, hate China much?
Fifth, I personally tried to verify Consumer Reports claims in multiple iPhone-4 units to no avail. I'm still holding off for iPhone-5 to save my budget, but all I can say about iPhone-4 is that it's the best phone I've ever seen.
Apparently, your idea of "corrupt" is to tell the truth about products instead of letting unsafe, Chinese garbage get pushed on the world with millions in advertising, but not a useful word in the bunch. Do you think Apple is going to advertise their antenna problem or Suzuki is going to brag that their vehicle is more likely to roll over than most other vehicles on the road? Heck no. Most magazines take money directly from the manufacturers that advertise in their magazines and thus have a total conflict of interests. Here's a magazine that doesn't take a dime from advertisers and thus has no reason to pick on anyone or lie about anything. But YOU call that "corruption." That's like Republicans saying they will create jobs (and leave out the "in China" part).
First off, Consumer Reports makes money by selling subscriptions which means free press is good for them. Sensational popular bad reviews gets them publicity - good reviews get them nothing. In fact their video review was so obviously biased and unprofessional it was a joke. The guy should have been wearing an "Down with Apple" T-shirt with the Android robot peeing on the Apple logo.
Second, the Suzuki Samarai is not a Chinese vehicle - Suzuki is a Japanese company.
Third, save your political slant for some other forum - we talk tech here - not politics.
Fourth, hate China much?
Fifth, I personally tried to verify Consumer Reports claims in multiple iPhone-4 units to no avail. I'm still holding off for iPhone-5 to save my budget, but all I can say about iPhone-4 is that it's the best phone I've ever seen.
milo
Sep 6, 05:50 PM
Really confused as to why they just didn't skip to Core2.
Supply constraints, and intel is probably selling apple the yonahs cheaper than meroms.
Supply constraints, and intel is probably selling apple the yonahs cheaper than meroms.