xMBPx
Apr 3, 10:38 PM
Why doesn't Apple bring a TV to the market? I could go for a 72 inch flat screen with the aluminum, thinness,and 1/16th inch thick bezel of the iPad2.
So why hasn't apple brought a TV to the front that dominates the market? We all know they can..
So why hasn't apple brought a TV to the front that dominates the market? We all know they can..
tjcampbell
Oct 10, 06:37 AM
Bit of a scam that this isn't an upgrade from the Tweetie app.
walkingcity
Oct 25, 09:06 PM
yup i plan to, still not sure what time im showing up, maybe 4-5ish, what about you? were you at the iphone launch?(i was)
mikemodena
Apr 16, 06:32 PM
Sorry if this has already been covered but I did search and didn't come up with anything..
I just bought a 360 and I'd like to set it up to stream my movies/media/etc. but on the xbox it says I need a media center PC.. is there a way to do it with my PowerMac?
I just bought a 360 and I'd like to set it up to stream my movies/media/etc. but on the xbox it says I need a media center PC.. is there a way to do it with my PowerMac?
more...
KingYaba
Jul 26, 10:15 PM
Burn High Def movies to Blu-Ray disk. Stick in PS3, watch on DLP tv :cool: life will be sweet.
FreeState
Apr 15, 03:32 AM
I always find it fascinating when people who are not gay tell gay people that words that have been used to demean and dehumanize them for generations are not offensive or have evolved to mean something else.
Fascinating and discsusting actually.
Fascinating and discsusting actually.
more...
wdlove
Feb 18, 09:37 PM
For reference, the MacRumors moderators are:AmbitiousLemon
bousozoku
Doctor Q
edesignuk
eyelikeart
Mr. Anderson
Mudbug
Nermal
Rower_CPU
WinterMuteYou can contact any of them using buttons at the bottom of the Show Groups (http://forums.macrumors.com/showgroups.php?) page.
However, for reporting threads or posts that violate forum rules, please continue to use the Report Bad Post ( http://forums.macrumors.com/images/buttons/report.gif ) button next to the post, since this notifies whichever moderators are on duty.
Thank you.
Thank you to all the above listed moderators. Your hard work to make this site a good place to visit, a second home, a better place; is greatly appreciated. ;)
Welcome to our 3 new moderators and mini moderator, also Doctor Q on his promotion, congratulations.
bousozoku
Doctor Q
edesignuk
eyelikeart
Mr. Anderson
Mudbug
Nermal
Rower_CPU
WinterMuteYou can contact any of them using buttons at the bottom of the Show Groups (http://forums.macrumors.com/showgroups.php?) page.
However, for reporting threads or posts that violate forum rules, please continue to use the Report Bad Post ( http://forums.macrumors.com/images/buttons/report.gif ) button next to the post, since this notifies whichever moderators are on duty.
Thank you.
Thank you to all the above listed moderators. Your hard work to make this site a good place to visit, a second home, a better place; is greatly appreciated. ;)
Welcome to our 3 new moderators and mini moderator, also Doctor Q on his promotion, congratulations.
sockeatingdryer
Oct 18, 08:32 PM
Awesome! Looks like a stable version this time around!
more...
iMikeT
Nov 30, 01:45 AM
I don't like the idea. The moment they start chipping away at devices, it'll set a bad precedent for future negotiations. It'll be hard to get back those rights. Apple, hold strong!! :)
As much as I don't like the idea of limiting the amount of devices that can play content purchased from the iTunes Store, I think that Apple might eventually have to come to a middleground with the other movie studios. Apple did have to come into some sort of agreement when the made the deal with Disney, so I think that they will do the same with the other studios.
Personally, I would not have too much of a problem if content were limited to 5 computers and 5 iPods.
I can understand what the studios are doing. Hell, I know it well because of the fact that I work in the movie industry. I can say first-hand that everything is about business and money first, artistic expression second.
As much as I don't like the idea of limiting the amount of devices that can play content purchased from the iTunes Store, I think that Apple might eventually have to come to a middleground with the other movie studios. Apple did have to come into some sort of agreement when the made the deal with Disney, so I think that they will do the same with the other studios.
Personally, I would not have too much of a problem if content were limited to 5 computers and 5 iPods.
I can understand what the studios are doing. Hell, I know it well because of the fact that I work in the movie industry. I can say first-hand that everything is about business and money first, artistic expression second.
Night Spring
Mar 3, 12:29 PM
You don't need to unlock iPad. They aren't locked in the first place, unless you bought one in Japan.
more...
Mochi Hana
Oct 11, 11:01 AM
http://i53.tinypic.com/33duixg.jpg
i need to buy candy bar :(
Where did you find that cool wallpaper?
i need to buy candy bar :(
Where did you find that cool wallpaper?
edesignuk
Feb 14, 01:46 PM
I wonder which new moderator is going to clean up the mess mymemmory just made in here...
A post likely to turn this into another mymemmory bashing thread -- and it's not even a thread about women or body parts. :(
That's probably true, but I can hardly delete it, then he'd report me for silencing my own critics :eek: :p
A post likely to turn this into another mymemmory bashing thread -- and it's not even a thread about women or body parts. :(
That's probably true, but I can hardly delete it, then he'd report me for silencing my own critics :eek: :p
more...
torchwood84
Aug 13, 02:35 AM
My current wallpaper
Vegasman
Apr 4, 02:14 PM
Email address is required to send me shipping notifications, and iTunes receipts. A Physical address and phone number is required to ship me their hardware I buy and verify which country's App Store I can shop in.
FT needs my address for what, now? I'm not subscribing to the print edition.
With that line of thinking...
Apple needs my information for what, now? I bought my Apple hardware at Best Buy. I only use free apps.
FT needs my address for what, now? I'm not subscribing to the print edition.
With that line of thinking...
Apple needs my information for what, now? I bought my Apple hardware at Best Buy. I only use free apps.
more...
ChromeZero
Apr 28, 05:59 PM
Not so great at GREPs for Adobe Indesign. Would anyone care to help me figure out a GREP statement for the following scenarios:
1) Find letter x which occurs before letter a, ie 'xa'. Apply character style 1 to x.
2) Find letter combo xx. Apply character style 2 to the first x of this combo.
Any help would be much appreciated. I have an account on adobe.com, but i can't create threads there for some reason. This seemed like the next best place?
1) Find letter x which occurs before letter a, ie 'xa'. Apply character style 1 to x.
2) Find letter combo xx. Apply character style 2 to the first x of this combo.
Any help would be much appreciated. I have an account on adobe.com, but i can't create threads there for some reason. This seemed like the next best place?
mpossoff
Feb 10, 08:27 AM
Great, thanks for the help. i will switch over today!
I also need to keep A-list for the same reason. i might also make the switch from 1400 to 700 if i can get unlimited M2M and A-list.
How are you keeping your a list from the 1400 to 700?
I also need to keep A-list for the same reason. i might also make the switch from 1400 to 700 if i can get unlimited M2M and A-list.
How are you keeping your a list from the 1400 to 700?
more...
.jpg "londe hair with red")
drinu89
Apr 7, 09:35 AM
I have a factory unlocked iphone 4 and whilst on iOS 4.1, I became aware that when I installed gyroscope apps, they don't work. When 4.2.1 came out instead of solving the problem, my compass also failed. Both my gyro and compass don't work anymore... 4.3 came out still the same problem..
Now that 4.3.1 came out the accelerometer also failed!
Thank god I save my SHSH blobs since I restored back to 4.2.1
Shame on you Apple!!
Now that 4.3.1 came out the accelerometer also failed!
Thank god I save my SHSH blobs since I restored back to 4.2.1
Shame on you Apple!!
Popeye206
Apr 7, 09:01 AM
Are you calling jailbreaking a "kid" activity?
No... not at all. But I think it's a choice and it's silly to complain about it when you know updates may or will break the JB. Patches and updates are needed and common. So why complain every time a patch comes out and make silly acquisitions that Apple is just messing with the JB community.
No... not at all. But I think it's a choice and it's silly to complain about it when you know updates may or will break the JB. Patches and updates are needed and common. So why complain every time a patch comes out and make silly acquisitions that Apple is just messing with the JB community.
Chrismcfall
Jun 29, 05:19 PM
Want to get an idea of how much these would cost nowadays!
Any GB would do.
Any GB would do.
Jape
Mar 30, 08:10 PM
Hey everyone, check this out!!! free Ipad2 giveaway
[links removed]
[links removed]
Elan0204
Aug 30, 09:05 PM
I think what he is referring to is this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=86602). That's my best guess at least.
Dalton63841
Apr 16, 10:01 PM
Just got the update in iTunes today
Yea its been out going on 2 days now I think...already threads on it.
Yea its been out going on 2 days now I think...already threads on it.
DiamondMac
Apr 7, 08:44 AM
Of course since I don't work there i don't know what all their expenses are. But you can't say just cause the iphone stayed the same price doesn't mean their expenses have gone up. You really don't understand running a business if you think cost of an item is only affected by how much that item cost the business (and that was the proof you gave to me, that the iphone hasn't gone up in price, that AT&T is solely doing this cause they can and not cause they are reflecting their own price increases).
They have to reflect all of their costs in that price to make a profit. And no, they aren't there to be nice to you. Their prices go up, unless they have some reason to believe they'll lose more business than they will make up by price increase, your prices are going to go up. At some point, regardless of if they think they will lose business they will have to increase the price solely cause they'll lose money otherwise. IT seems you think they should only raise prices at this point. Sorry, they are there to make a profit. They will weight what giesv them the most profit. When they give you a price cut, it's not cause they are being nice. It is cause they think that price cut will drum up enough business to eventually make more profit than they would if they didn't do that price cut.
And my point culminates in that while no, I don't have proof this isn't just cause they can (and you definitely don't have proof cause what you said totally doesn't stand up to reason at all and shows no understanding of running a business), I could easily buy that their prices have increased given that there is a lot of inflation going on (I work retail and i see it in our own prices going up at my store as well as when I buy stuff). If nothing else, they need to make more profit to make the same amount of money as a year ago (as I said, when it comes to inflation, having your wages stay the same = a decrease in pay as your wage doesn't go as far).
Nobody is arguing that GENERALLY SPEAKING prices increase over time...or that most value in business increases over time. This line that I am arguing either is ridiculous
I am speaking about THIS $50 increase. There is absolutely no reason for AT&T to do this other than to simply get $50 per consumer KNOWING many will break it for the next iPhone. Is it their right? Sure. Can people be miffed about it knowing that AT&T simply did it to get extra $$$? Absolutely
This idea that AT&T is doing it because of costs....again, based on what? The general idea of costs increasing? Do you understand how absurdly general and wide that is?
Revenue for AT&T in the 4th Q of last year was $30+ billion. Excuse me if I have trouble believing that AT&T is looking to help their costs with a $50 increase.
They have to reflect all of their costs in that price to make a profit. And no, they aren't there to be nice to you. Their prices go up, unless they have some reason to believe they'll lose more business than they will make up by price increase, your prices are going to go up. At some point, regardless of if they think they will lose business they will have to increase the price solely cause they'll lose money otherwise. IT seems you think they should only raise prices at this point. Sorry, they are there to make a profit. They will weight what giesv them the most profit. When they give you a price cut, it's not cause they are being nice. It is cause they think that price cut will drum up enough business to eventually make more profit than they would if they didn't do that price cut.
And my point culminates in that while no, I don't have proof this isn't just cause they can (and you definitely don't have proof cause what you said totally doesn't stand up to reason at all and shows no understanding of running a business), I could easily buy that their prices have increased given that there is a lot of inflation going on (I work retail and i see it in our own prices going up at my store as well as when I buy stuff). If nothing else, they need to make more profit to make the same amount of money as a year ago (as I said, when it comes to inflation, having your wages stay the same = a decrease in pay as your wage doesn't go as far).
Nobody is arguing that GENERALLY SPEAKING prices increase over time...or that most value in business increases over time. This line that I am arguing either is ridiculous
I am speaking about THIS $50 increase. There is absolutely no reason for AT&T to do this other than to simply get $50 per consumer KNOWING many will break it for the next iPhone. Is it their right? Sure. Can people be miffed about it knowing that AT&T simply did it to get extra $$$? Absolutely
This idea that AT&T is doing it because of costs....again, based on what? The general idea of costs increasing? Do you understand how absurdly general and wide that is?
Revenue for AT&T in the 4th Q of last year was $30+ billion. Excuse me if I have trouble believing that AT&T is looking to help their costs with a $50 increase.
FX4568
Apr 4, 10:24 PM
Phew. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Until you explained it so well I was really worried.
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
