floam
Aug 28, 07:51 PM
.
Crawn2003
Apr 25, 02:04 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)
And then there's a thing called the speed limit. Doesn't matter if she did 45, 55, or 65. She's still in the right.
You're getting your 16 year old, testosterone panties in a twist yet you admit that you went over the speed limit that you cherish so much by at least 20mph. You admit you (but not in so many words because you have that 16yo complex of I gotta be right) drove recklessly all to teach a lesson that is really not yours to teach. That is for the highway patrol and driving school.
Regardless of what your inexperienced mind may believe, she was in the right and actually doing nothing wrong. She was traveling the speed limit. She was minding her own business until a little 16yo know-it-all comes along driving with minimum experience and equally inexperienced driver next to him.
Unfortunate for you this seems to be a running trait in your family. Inexperience. Just because your uncle is a sitting judge doesn't make him a god. On the contrary, he's as idiotic and inexperienced as you.
Now kid, no matter how much you slap those jaws of yours together you are wrong. We don't care that your mommy was sitting next you or that your uncle is the judge. Go ahead a drive however you want. Frankly I see your kind every day on the road.
I'm that guy over in the left lane driving 70. I'm that guy you have to race up to and ride my bumper and zoom past me flipping me off.
But I'm the guy that's laughing at you because honestly at the end of the day, you are just a little 16yo with a giant ego stuck up your rear.
You're also the guy that will wreck his car because I force you to, and you're also the guy that I will then sue to pay for my deductible and any applicable medical costs. And I'm the guy that will laugh in your face and say "gonna move for me next time?" as I walk out of court and you cut me a check.
I'm sorry, but if you're the guy that goes 70mph in the fast lane and refuses to move, you are at fault for what ever I chose to dish out to you, for not having the common courtesy to move your car.
-Don
I'm the guy I hope you kill so they put you away where you deserve to be.
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)
And then there's a thing called the speed limit. Doesn't matter if she did 45, 55, or 65. She's still in the right.
You're getting your 16 year old, testosterone panties in a twist yet you admit that you went over the speed limit that you cherish so much by at least 20mph. You admit you (but not in so many words because you have that 16yo complex of I gotta be right) drove recklessly all to teach a lesson that is really not yours to teach. That is for the highway patrol and driving school.
Regardless of what your inexperienced mind may believe, she was in the right and actually doing nothing wrong. She was traveling the speed limit. She was minding her own business until a little 16yo know-it-all comes along driving with minimum experience and equally inexperienced driver next to him.
Unfortunate for you this seems to be a running trait in your family. Inexperience. Just because your uncle is a sitting judge doesn't make him a god. On the contrary, he's as idiotic and inexperienced as you.
Now kid, no matter how much you slap those jaws of yours together you are wrong. We don't care that your mommy was sitting next you or that your uncle is the judge. Go ahead a drive however you want. Frankly I see your kind every day on the road.
I'm that guy over in the left lane driving 70. I'm that guy you have to race up to and ride my bumper and zoom past me flipping me off.
But I'm the guy that's laughing at you because honestly at the end of the day, you are just a little 16yo with a giant ego stuck up your rear.
You're also the guy that will wreck his car because I force you to, and you're also the guy that I will then sue to pay for my deductible and any applicable medical costs. And I'm the guy that will laugh in your face and say "gonna move for me next time?" as I walk out of court and you cut me a check.
I'm sorry, but if you're the guy that goes 70mph in the fast lane and refuses to move, you are at fault for what ever I chose to dish out to you, for not having the common courtesy to move your car.
-Don
I'm the guy I hope you kill so they put you away where you deserve to be.
rychencop
Jan 1, 06:08 PM
i think it's pretty common knowledge that Apple devices will be targeted more by virus making idiots in the future as they become more popular. i also think a company like McAfee has an interests in creating a panic so they can sell more software.
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 11:28 AM
Is this a true statement from the OP: "But with new Sandy Bridge processors from Intel sporting improved graphics performance"
Yes, this generation of Intel IGPs is improved compared to the earlier generation of Intel IGPs.
That doesn't put it on par with the nVidia 320M though. If Intel had only licensed nVidia to make chipsets, we'd have had something much better than even the 320M to put in the newer TB equipped Macbook Pros and these new Airs. Now we're stuck downgrading the graphics to upgrade the processor.
I'm glad I bought my 320M equipped model, I'll keep it around for a while it seems.
Yes, this generation of Intel IGPs is improved compared to the earlier generation of Intel IGPs.
That doesn't put it on par with the nVidia 320M though. If Intel had only licensed nVidia to make chipsets, we'd have had something much better than even the 320M to put in the newer TB equipped Macbook Pros and these new Airs. Now we're stuck downgrading the graphics to upgrade the processor.
I'm glad I bought my 320M equipped model, I'll keep it around for a while it seems.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:08 AM
Whoa..
http://www.macminute.com/2006/08/23/apple-creative/
Guess they realized they couldn't win..
Please read my above posts. :-)
The only things I'd like to add is that $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Apple. Apple has $10 billion in cash. That money isn't stuffed in Steve Jobs' mattress, it's being invested in short-term investment vehicles that is producing a good return. Even if Apple stuck it in a plain ol' savings account, the $10 billion would be generating around $300 million a year in interest alone, never mind the fact that Apple is adding $3 billion a year to their cash horde.
Secondly, Apple has sold billions of dollars of iPods over the years. It will sell untold billions of dollars more into the future.
For Creative to settle for a mere $100 million when the iPod is virtually guaranteed to generate tens of billions of dollars going forward is sheer lunancy if Creative was really confident about winning.
In fact, the fact that they settled for such a small sum shows that Creative was sweating bullets about losing it all. Apple was the one dictating the terms here.
Creative pays Apple back as it collects additional licensing fees? Sounds like a loan to me.
Creative joins the "Made for iPod" program and pays Apple a percentage of the revenue for iPod-only products? Doesn't sound like the kind of terms a confident victor would be making. Sounds more like a company trying to kick up a new revenue source in light of the fact that Zune is about to eat up its music player business.
The most interesting part is when Zune launches, and how long it will take Creative to sue Microsoft. Apple just turned a 90-lb weakling into a hired assassin!
http://www.macminute.com/2006/08/23/apple-creative/
Guess they realized they couldn't win..
Please read my above posts. :-)
The only things I'd like to add is that $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Apple. Apple has $10 billion in cash. That money isn't stuffed in Steve Jobs' mattress, it's being invested in short-term investment vehicles that is producing a good return. Even if Apple stuck it in a plain ol' savings account, the $10 billion would be generating around $300 million a year in interest alone, never mind the fact that Apple is adding $3 billion a year to their cash horde.
Secondly, Apple has sold billions of dollars of iPods over the years. It will sell untold billions of dollars more into the future.
For Creative to settle for a mere $100 million when the iPod is virtually guaranteed to generate tens of billions of dollars going forward is sheer lunancy if Creative was really confident about winning.
In fact, the fact that they settled for such a small sum shows that Creative was sweating bullets about losing it all. Apple was the one dictating the terms here.
Creative pays Apple back as it collects additional licensing fees? Sounds like a loan to me.
Creative joins the "Made for iPod" program and pays Apple a percentage of the revenue for iPod-only products? Doesn't sound like the kind of terms a confident victor would be making. Sounds more like a company trying to kick up a new revenue source in light of the fact that Zune is about to eat up its music player business.
The most interesting part is when Zune launches, and how long it will take Creative to sue Microsoft. Apple just turned a 90-lb weakling into a hired assassin!
AppleMacDudeG4
Apr 19, 07:07 AM
Given the photograph, they do look very similar. I wonder what Samsung would do if Apple won the lawsuit? Would they charge Apple more for the parts that they provide to them or would they realize that it is not a good idea to make one of your largest buyers to leave you for someone else?
Dagless
Apr 11, 05:14 AM
Lucky its not Sony. Those that exposed it would be in a never ending court case, and everyone's IP that visited macrumors would be subpoenaed by a federal judge.
Not the same thing.
Not the same thing.
jessica.
Sep 12, 02:27 PM
I feel vindicated in my 60GB 5G purchase a few months back, particularly since I got it on sale. If I can upgrade the software, I'm all chuckles. Besides, I've almost never found the screen brightness an issue.
I do wish I could ultra-boost the audio on-board. Some of the video digitizations I have are too quiet.
I am with you 100%. I am very happy with the updates and love the green nano! I was going to buy a nano so I can get the nike package, but I was only going to get the 1gb for $149. Now I'd get the 2gb for $149 but they don't offer colors so now I'm going to get the 4gb...completely uncessary for me and what I want it for (jogging and gym) but I want green!
I do wish I could ultra-boost the audio on-board. Some of the video digitizations I have are too quiet.
I am with you 100%. I am very happy with the updates and love the green nano! I was going to buy a nano so I can get the nike package, but I was only going to get the 1gb for $149. Now I'd get the 2gb for $149 but they don't offer colors so now I'm going to get the 4gb...completely uncessary for me and what I want it for (jogging and gym) but I want green!
kavika411
Apr 20, 10:04 AM
I wonder, if in this day and age of "find my iPhone" and all the location-enabled apps on an iPhone, if it's not actually harder-to-the-point-of-impossible to ensure such information is immediately, constantly erased.
Butler Trumpet
Oct 12, 03:30 PM
I just checked my digital cable and the title of the show says "Bono's Red Campaign" So yeah I would say so
kas23
Apr 19, 07:09 AM
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
So what? They're already getting sued by Apple, so what's another lawsuit? Point is, contract breach or not, Samsung could cripple Apple's whole ecosystem within days by halting all processor shipments. Apple makes the vast majority on iDevices and this would kill Apple's whole economic model. And this doesn't even account for Samsungs components that go into their Macs. As a result, Apple would have no hardware to sell. They would dip into their treasure chest. It could be devastating to Apple.
So what? They're already getting sued by Apple, so what's another lawsuit? Point is, contract breach or not, Samsung could cripple Apple's whole ecosystem within days by halting all processor shipments. Apple makes the vast majority on iDevices and this would kill Apple's whole economic model. And this doesn't even account for Samsungs components that go into their Macs. As a result, Apple would have no hardware to sell. They would dip into their treasure chest. It could be devastating to Apple.
tsugaru
Mar 22, 03:36 PM
For a trip down memory lane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwBY2Vft7wY
Skip to 8:24.
I wonder when Apple will do that again re: GPUs. Ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwBY2Vft7wY
Skip to 8:24.
I wonder when Apple will do that again re: GPUs. Ever.
chilipie
Sep 12, 02:47 PM
Dear Apple,
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
Exactly how I felt...
..until I realised that I too could play Pacman! ;)
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
Exactly how I felt...
..until I realised that I too could play Pacman! ;)
Koodauw
Sep 18, 12:43 AM
I'm sure I late getting into the argument, and that fanboyism depending on what network youre own will not change, but I really think GSM does have better voice quality than any other network.
Jcoz
Apr 15, 12:33 PM
Cere, on page one, you DID state that TB would (a) be mac only and (b) die and you've been backtracking terribly ever since.
When you make a statement such as "unfortunately, also bingo" you are giving your full endorsement to that statement and you have accepted that as your own opinion with no ifs, ands or buts. In case you've forgotten, you gave your full endorsement to this quote:
Since then, you've argued that what you really meant was that PC manufacturers wont support it (without proof to back up your claims) and made poor comparisons to Firewire.
Let's compare the two for a second:
FW was pushed by Apple
TB is being pushed by Apple, but more importantly Intel (whose chips power most PCs)
FW had a high per port licensing cost
TB uses a royalty free port and support will be built into future Intel chipsets (making PC implementation virtually inevitable)
FW was slower than USB on paper, but faster in reality
TB blows USB 3.0 out of the water, both on paper and in reality
Why do you keep insisting they are the same and will share the same fate? On top of that, as I mentioned earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12392173&postcount=63) (and no one, including yourself has attempted to refute) TB isn't even a direct competitor with USB, it's more of a complimentary technology. You've done nothing in this thread but blow hot air.
Bingo! :D
When you make a statement such as "unfortunately, also bingo" you are giving your full endorsement to that statement and you have accepted that as your own opinion with no ifs, ands or buts. In case you've forgotten, you gave your full endorsement to this quote:
Since then, you've argued that what you really meant was that PC manufacturers wont support it (without proof to back up your claims) and made poor comparisons to Firewire.
Let's compare the two for a second:
FW was pushed by Apple
TB is being pushed by Apple, but more importantly Intel (whose chips power most PCs)
FW had a high per port licensing cost
TB uses a royalty free port and support will be built into future Intel chipsets (making PC implementation virtually inevitable)
FW was slower than USB on paper, but faster in reality
TB blows USB 3.0 out of the water, both on paper and in reality
Why do you keep insisting they are the same and will share the same fate? On top of that, as I mentioned earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12392173&postcount=63) (and no one, including yourself has attempted to refute) TB isn't even a direct competitor with USB, it's more of a complimentary technology. You've done nothing in this thread but blow hot air.
Bingo! :D
dante@sisna.com
Sep 19, 02:32 PM
couldn't apple develop something into itunes that lets you watch while it is downloading? is this possible?
You can watch while downloading.
I was able to begin about 5 minutes into download -- barely enough time to get the snacks.
You can watch while downloading.
I was able to begin about 5 minutes into download -- barely enough time to get the snacks.
DotComName
Apr 19, 09:22 AM
obviously they will "respond strongly"....that's what people with expensive lawyers do... doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have the stronger case. Most people sue Apple (sometimes rightfully so), but in this case, it is undeniable that Samsung has hijacked Apple's intellectual property, MOST NOTABLY I THINK with the UI skin on their Android phones... Takes a triple take to realize that it's not stock iOS.
ctdonath
Mar 23, 09:08 AM
it's quite gimmicky to only talk about interface transfer rates when the real performance is dependent on the hard drives.
Well, the discussion is about interface - point being that Thunderbolt-enabled devices will be available soon (days vs. years per the snide remark). Indeed, if the drives aren't fast enough to keep up then yes the bottleneck will be the drives - so the bottleneck won't be the interface, and the bottleneck won't be lack of anything to plug into the Mac's Thunderbolt port.
Funny how people will ignore the overarching real win to pick at a minor theoretical fail. There WILL be a bottleneck somewhere in the processor/memory/local-storage/interface/buffer/external-storage data chain short of perfect balance; I'm glad you're satisfied you'll always have something to point at and go "Ha-ha!". Twit.
ETA: Two 500GB 7200RPM RAID 0 drives should be pretty fast. Quick check on a random such drive and kicking around some numbers gives around 2GB/s sustained. Fine, you win, we can transfer that HD movie in 2.5 minutes instead of 30 seconds ... unless, say, we daisy-chain 5 of these LaCie drives together to saturate the pipeline. You have an application where this matters?
Well, the discussion is about interface - point being that Thunderbolt-enabled devices will be available soon (days vs. years per the snide remark). Indeed, if the drives aren't fast enough to keep up then yes the bottleneck will be the drives - so the bottleneck won't be the interface, and the bottleneck won't be lack of anything to plug into the Mac's Thunderbolt port.
Funny how people will ignore the overarching real win to pick at a minor theoretical fail. There WILL be a bottleneck somewhere in the processor/memory/local-storage/interface/buffer/external-storage data chain short of perfect balance; I'm glad you're satisfied you'll always have something to point at and go "Ha-ha!". Twit.
ETA: Two 500GB 7200RPM RAID 0 drives should be pretty fast. Quick check on a random such drive and kicking around some numbers gives around 2GB/s sustained. Fine, you win, we can transfer that HD movie in 2.5 minutes instead of 30 seconds ... unless, say, we daisy-chain 5 of these LaCie drives together to saturate the pipeline. You have an application where this matters?
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about just exactly what the settlement means. But I would like to remind people not to take things at face value - Apple is smarter than that.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
Brandon Sharitt
Sep 14, 09:07 AM
They'll probably update the MacBook Pro with a Core 2 Duo, and finally add FireWire 800, but otherwise little tweaks. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 20" MacBook Pro being shown off as a mobile photo editing studio.
bboucher790
Apr 4, 11:53 AM
The guard didn't use a gun, it was Apple's unreleased iShotYouInTheFace. They're now using it to protect their stores.
hyperpasta
Sep 13, 08:57 PM
Woah. That's pretty interesting.
miazma
May 3, 07:25 PM
what I'm waiting for now:
apple cinema display with thunderbolt port and ability to plug mouse/keyboard and use it as an extension for macbooks with thunderbolt.
that would be something like a great docking station. just plug it in and go for it.
apple cinema display with thunderbolt port and ability to plug mouse/keyboard and use it as an extension for macbooks with thunderbolt.
that would be something like a great docking station. just plug it in and go for it.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:51 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) Mobile/8H7)
It's very, very telling. MS is riding the coattails of their universal licensing racket while Apple keeps changing the face of consumer tech. This day was bound to come.
This is the post-PC era and we'll see MS in decline.
It's very, very telling. MS is riding the coattails of their universal licensing racket while Apple keeps changing the face of consumer tech. This day was bound to come.
This is the post-PC era and we'll see MS in decline.
No comments:
Post a Comment