BlizzardBomb
Aug 7, 02:24 PM
Just checked the Intel July price list: Prices per Woodcrest processor are $851, $690 and $316 for one chip running at 3.0, 2.66 or 2.0 GHz, that is $1702, $1380 and $632 for two processors.
Somehow I suspect that Apple pays different prices, because you save $300 if you go down to 2 GHz and you pay $800 extra for 3.0 GHz. Should be the other way round according to the Intel price list. So the 2.66 GHz is a real bargain compared to the others.
If you subtract the processors from the price, then you pay $1597, $1119 and $1567 for the three models.
It's likely that Apple get a discount off all Intel products. The Dual-dual 2.66 GHz + X1900 XT seems like the sweet spot for me :)
As a sidenote, it appears the PM G5 and XServe G5 are still available on the Apple Store.
Somehow I suspect that Apple pays different prices, because you save $300 if you go down to 2 GHz and you pay $800 extra for 3.0 GHz. Should be the other way round according to the Intel price list. So the 2.66 GHz is a real bargain compared to the others.
If you subtract the processors from the price, then you pay $1597, $1119 and $1567 for the three models.
It's likely that Apple get a discount off all Intel products. The Dual-dual 2.66 GHz + X1900 XT seems like the sweet spot for me :)
As a sidenote, it appears the PM G5 and XServe G5 are still available on the Apple Store.
number9
May 7, 10:36 AM
I would welcome this. I enjoyed the features during the free trial period, but couldn't justify $99 per year for it. Since then they've added Back to My Mac, the Find my iPhone feature, and improved its reliability, so I would love to have access to it again, minus the cost. On top of what I pay for cellular service, another 9 bucks a month just seemed inconvenient.
daneoni
Sep 11, 03:25 PM
Not really sure if any of the rumoured devices interest me tommorow, as living in the UK we probably will be denied any kind of movie download service (still waiting for tv show downloads to start) The media streaming device might be a cool idea but unless it had support for divx/transport stream files wouldn't really interest me either and cant imagine apple allowing support of an outside player like VLC and without any kind of download structure available to view apple sourced files outside the USA cant imagine it taking off. Having moaned a bit though I have still ordered a 24 imac and cant wait for it to arrive ( I love watching hdtv files on my 20' imac now so 24' must be heaven)
I was just gonna say that. As a UK user i'm not really bothered because we wont be getting anything....its all Yankee based. Heck even the battery recall is practically non-existent. I have yet to hear one UK user receive his/her battery whilst US users are getting theres as soon as 48 hrs of sending their requests.
I was just gonna say that. As a UK user i'm not really bothered because we wont be getting anything....its all Yankee based. Heck even the battery recall is practically non-existent. I have yet to hear one UK user receive his/her battery whilst US users are getting theres as soon as 48 hrs of sending their requests.
rhsgolfer33
Apr 14, 04:12 PM
I'll bet he moved on to forums where his ideas were more warmly accepted.
On the issues of taxes ... tax me more!
Sure, tax the rich more too.
But every American should be chipping in to solve the issues that we're facing.
We're in the lifeboat, and the water's rising. Everybody pick up a pail and start bailing.
I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with you. Everyone has to see a tax increase in order to solve the budget problems.
The non-tax accountant part of me (the tax accountant part of me wants the tax code as complicated as humanly possible) would love it if the corporate tax code was simplified and the tax rates reduced so that corporations actually paid taxes in line with other nations - we'd still probably see more revenue even with the decreased rates because the base would be broadened and corporations would actually pay. We should probably broaden the tax base for individuals by eliminating deductions and then eliminate the Bush tax cuts for everyone (which will increase tax rates across the board, more so at the upper two brackets). I'm not opposed to adding a VAT with a low rate either.
I'd like to see plenty of spending cuts too - stop the three wasteful and pointless wars we are fighting would be a great start, then cut defense spending. Like it or not, I think we need to acknowledge that social security needs changes - a decrease in benefits and removing the limit on payroll taxes for social security would be a good start.
But then again, I'm a moderate (though I am generally fiscally libertarian) and I understand the urgency with which we need to eliminate our deficit and decrease our national debt. I don't have much hope for any of this happening, since neither side can seem to acknowledge that we need a combo of what they both propose.
One thing I don't hear in the raising taxes discussion is what we should do with capital gains. That's the reason billionaires pay a paltry 15%. Almost all of their income comes from the selling of assets rather than a salary. Their money works for them, rather than the rest of us who have to work for our money. And for that, we reward them with a super low tax rate. :rolleyes:
It's time to raise the capital gains rate and make it progressively tied to income taxes.
I tend to agree - I have no problem giving someone who actually makes their money via salary or wages a capital gains break (it encourages investing and most of the time those gains will be from investments for retirement), but it is kind of silly that someone who derives most of their income from capital gains gets to pay at the same low rate. Possibly it could be linked to amount of income and percentage of gross income that comes from capital gains - for instance, if you are in the top income bracket and more than 50% of your gross income is from capital gains, you must include all income at the standard ordinary income rates. Of course it would have to be refined (too easy to get around right now), but it would insure that higher income individuals that make most of their money via capital gains pay appropriate taxes, while keeping most retirees and lower/middle/upper middle income people from being hit with ordinary income rates on capital gains when the a lower rate is more appropriate.
1969 Dodge Charger R/T
1969 Dodge Charger - Strong
1969 charger cars
Frey, Ron, 1969 Dodge Charger,
Lee - Dodge Charger 1969
Dodge Charger 1969 For Sale Uk
#39;s Dodge Charger
Dodge Charger B-body (Second
dodge charger 1969 fast and
1969 Dodge Charger R/T
Dodge Charger Daytona 1969 05
1969 Dodge Charger
clean 1969 Dodge Charger
1969 Dodge Charger 500-
Hot Wheels Includes1969 Dodge
On the issues of taxes ... tax me more!
Sure, tax the rich more too.
But every American should be chipping in to solve the issues that we're facing.
We're in the lifeboat, and the water's rising. Everybody pick up a pail and start bailing.
I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with you. Everyone has to see a tax increase in order to solve the budget problems.
The non-tax accountant part of me (the tax accountant part of me wants the tax code as complicated as humanly possible) would love it if the corporate tax code was simplified and the tax rates reduced so that corporations actually paid taxes in line with other nations - we'd still probably see more revenue even with the decreased rates because the base would be broadened and corporations would actually pay. We should probably broaden the tax base for individuals by eliminating deductions and then eliminate the Bush tax cuts for everyone (which will increase tax rates across the board, more so at the upper two brackets). I'm not opposed to adding a VAT with a low rate either.
I'd like to see plenty of spending cuts too - stop the three wasteful and pointless wars we are fighting would be a great start, then cut defense spending. Like it or not, I think we need to acknowledge that social security needs changes - a decrease in benefits and removing the limit on payroll taxes for social security would be a good start.
But then again, I'm a moderate (though I am generally fiscally libertarian) and I understand the urgency with which we need to eliminate our deficit and decrease our national debt. I don't have much hope for any of this happening, since neither side can seem to acknowledge that we need a combo of what they both propose.
One thing I don't hear in the raising taxes discussion is what we should do with capital gains. That's the reason billionaires pay a paltry 15%. Almost all of their income comes from the selling of assets rather than a salary. Their money works for them, rather than the rest of us who have to work for our money. And for that, we reward them with a super low tax rate. :rolleyes:
It's time to raise the capital gains rate and make it progressively tied to income taxes.
I tend to agree - I have no problem giving someone who actually makes their money via salary or wages a capital gains break (it encourages investing and most of the time those gains will be from investments for retirement), but it is kind of silly that someone who derives most of their income from capital gains gets to pay at the same low rate. Possibly it could be linked to amount of income and percentage of gross income that comes from capital gains - for instance, if you are in the top income bracket and more than 50% of your gross income is from capital gains, you must include all income at the standard ordinary income rates. Of course it would have to be refined (too easy to get around right now), but it would insure that higher income individuals that make most of their money via capital gains pay appropriate taxes, while keeping most retirees and lower/middle/upper middle income people from being hit with ordinary income rates on capital gains when the a lower rate is more appropriate.
Don't panic
May 4, 10:28 AM
Splain please.
initially, the way it was written it seemed (to me at least) that an armed trap would be triggered by our presence in the room at the end of a round
in that case you don't want to end a round with a move to a new room because you expose yourself to the trap without being able to check for it. (so move-explore >> explore-move)
Also it implied you could 'run' through a room in turn1 of a round without triggering the trap in that room (move-move).
it was then explained that an armed trap is triggered only by leaving the room, at any turn
this means that we can go into a new room and end our turn, and it is safe as long as someone explores the room before leaving next turn (so move-explore ≅ explore-move)
that's why splitting can be productive:
say me and you are in room A, unexplored, as a group.
we split and in your turn1 you explore the room, in my turn1 i move to room B.
then in your turn2 you move to roomB and in my turn2 i explore roomB.
then we merge again.
in this way we have both moved from room A to room B, and we have explored both rooms, while if we moved as a group we could only explore one of the two rooms.
the downside is that if we find treasure, it only applies to the discoverer's party and not to everyone.
initially, the way it was written it seemed (to me at least) that an armed trap would be triggered by our presence in the room at the end of a round
in that case you don't want to end a round with a move to a new room because you expose yourself to the trap without being able to check for it. (so move-explore >> explore-move)
Also it implied you could 'run' through a room in turn1 of a round without triggering the trap in that room (move-move).
it was then explained that an armed trap is triggered only by leaving the room, at any turn
this means that we can go into a new room and end our turn, and it is safe as long as someone explores the room before leaving next turn (so move-explore ≅ explore-move)
that's why splitting can be productive:
say me and you are in room A, unexplored, as a group.
we split and in your turn1 you explore the room, in my turn1 i move to room B.
then in your turn2 you move to roomB and in my turn2 i explore roomB.
then we merge again.
in this way we have both moved from room A to room B, and we have explored both rooms, while if we moved as a group we could only explore one of the two rooms.
the downside is that if we find treasure, it only applies to the discoverer's party and not to everyone.
Piggie
Apr 18, 02:59 PM
Can only be 1 reason, Apple are worried.
If they felt totally confident in their product then they would not feel any threat from others and need to try something like this on.
If they felt totally confident in their product then they would not feel any threat from others and need to try something like this on.
Mac Fly (film)
Jul 22, 08:03 AM
I can't wait 'till WWCD :D
daneoni
Mar 30, 08:57 PM
Can't say I've been excited by new OSes since Panther/Tiger. Yay it's more iOS-like and we get an app store.
*yawn*
*yawn*
rjohnstone
Apr 18, 03:40 PM
The iPhone 1 was announced before the Prada phone. Patent dates showed iPhone implementation of a capacitive touchscreen phone at least a year before LG showed their Prada phone in 2006. The Prada shipped in small shipments before the iPhone, so that is their only claim that it was technically released before the iPhone even though real shipments occurred months later. Technically, if Apple wanted to, they could have sued LG.
Also, the Prada isn't a smartphone. It can't load apps. It doesn't even have a qwerty keyboard. You input text through the phone dialer like old school SMS.
Irrelevant argument from a "look and feel" standpoint as NOBODY outside of Apple knew what the iPhone looked like.
So either the design was logical or LG was frikkin clairvoyant and could see into the future.
The patent filings are moot.
Loading apps are moot as the original iPhone didn't permit that either.
The virtual qwerty keyboard existed before the iPhone as well.
Seriously do 10 seconds of research before posting.
What Apple did was made a phone that contained a lot of EXISTING technology and wrapped it into a single package.
And did a good job doing it too.
Show me something that works as well BEFORE Apple demoed the iPhone.
Technology =/= usability.
Irrelevant. Most of the tech in the iPhone predates it.
Also, the Prada isn't a smartphone. It can't load apps. It doesn't even have a qwerty keyboard. You input text through the phone dialer like old school SMS.
Irrelevant argument from a "look and feel" standpoint as NOBODY outside of Apple knew what the iPhone looked like.
So either the design was logical or LG was frikkin clairvoyant and could see into the future.
The patent filings are moot.
Loading apps are moot as the original iPhone didn't permit that either.
The virtual qwerty keyboard existed before the iPhone as well.
Seriously do 10 seconds of research before posting.
What Apple did was made a phone that contained a lot of EXISTING technology and wrapped it into a single package.
And did a good job doing it too.
Show me something that works as well BEFORE Apple demoed the iPhone.
Technology =/= usability.
Irrelevant. Most of the tech in the iPhone predates it.
hexor
Apr 26, 03:17 PM
It's not *that" deceptive... they did include "US smartphone usage" in the headline.
I'll bet you money they include Android tablets in the same chart if an Android tablet ever actually sells significant numbers. And it IS deceptive because they did not point out that the chart is completely different if you included all Apple iOS devices, whereas if you included all other Android devices besides phones the chart wouldn't change.
I'll bet you money they include Android tablets in the same chart if an Android tablet ever actually sells significant numbers. And it IS deceptive because they did not point out that the chart is completely different if you included all Apple iOS devices, whereas if you included all other Android devices besides phones the chart wouldn't change.
Micjose
Apr 18, 05:07 PM
might aswell sue everyone else in the tech industry :p
tipdrill407
Aug 7, 10:03 PM
Uh, that's the point: you shouldn't have to 'pay more' - it should be standard, and shouldn't raise the price-point, if other manufacturers can do it.
I don't get the apologists who defend every questionable component from Apple by saying 'well, I don't want to pay extra in the base price' (for a reasonable amount of RAM or for a decent videocard) - demand more from Apple.
Ask why you can't have a $2500 flagship desktop with a graphics card that didn't cost Apple $40, why Apple can't eat the extra $45 to offer their consumer items with a usable amount of RAM standard.
The base model offers more than enough features for a pro to work blazingly fast. The graphics card is adequate for A LOT of things, except maybe hardcore gaming. But again Apple never intended the Mac Pro to be used for shooting ppl.
I don't get the apologists who defend every questionable component from Apple by saying 'well, I don't want to pay extra in the base price' (for a reasonable amount of RAM or for a decent videocard) - demand more from Apple.
Ask why you can't have a $2500 flagship desktop with a graphics card that didn't cost Apple $40, why Apple can't eat the extra $45 to offer their consumer items with a usable amount of RAM standard.
The base model offers more than enough features for a pro to work blazingly fast. The graphics card is adequate for A LOT of things, except maybe hardcore gaming. But again Apple never intended the Mac Pro to be used for shooting ppl.
Nuvi
May 6, 03:40 AM
And let's not forget one thing: Apple moved from 680x0 to PPC and PPC to Intel because each time, the new CPU series offered a major improvement from the previous one. Today, Intel is the biggest innovator across the board in high-end CPUs - for desktop, server and laptops. There is no one on the horizon who can meet or beat Intel.
My thoughts exactly. Even more so, when Apple left PPC they had huge problems getting faster processors from IBM. PowerBook G5 anyone? Windows based Intel systems were crushing Mac's like crazy and Apple couldn't do anything about it. Hence, the switch to Intel. Now we have zero problems so why switch to something that makes no sense.
My thoughts exactly. Even more so, when Apple left PPC they had huge problems getting faster processors from IBM. PowerBook G5 anyone? Windows based Intel systems were crushing Mac's like crazy and Apple couldn't do anything about it. Hence, the switch to Intel. Now we have zero problems so why switch to something that makes no sense.
blow45
Mar 29, 07:51 PM
A better battery is highly improbable. However if you only look at the dark side of an event you pass up any chance of benefitting from it. Certainly it isn't good to have your nukes melt down but this is also a learning opportunity. That is if people can look at what is happening objectively. If all you see is people getting irradiated then you aren't looking at the bigger picture.
yeah we should all be glad we 'll be getting that good japanese radiation soon, and that Tokyo which isn't the closest place to the nuclear disaster is 1.1 times the alarm limit in radiation. Leave it, your comment is very, very callous in view of what the Japanese people and humanity in general are facing. Btw, were you making the same comments for Chernobyl? That, sure it's bad, but we are going to learn from it so that's good? Let me tell you something, cause you seem young, we can't afford to learn by nuclear disasters, we should have learned already what we needed to have learned (back in the cold war era), because you don't get many chances with radiation, and even one disaster, is one disaster too many. I am sure people born with severely damaged internal organs, or with dysmorphias and teratogenesis will appreciate your "argument".
Well, I'm glad to see that Macrumors and Apple are at least able to focus on the big picture: product availability.
lol, very true, and funny, in a very tragic way of course... while this site is steeped in pc, it's obviously very much lacking in common sensibilities and a sense of shared humanity, if I were (god forbid) one of the thousands of homeless or people being irradiated (I shudder to think btw what pregnant women must be feeling like in Japan...the dread is unfathomable) in Japan, and I came here to read about product availability with not an inkling of the suffering and cost in human life, I would really, really want to slap a few people around after that....
yeah we should all be glad we 'll be getting that good japanese radiation soon, and that Tokyo which isn't the closest place to the nuclear disaster is 1.1 times the alarm limit in radiation. Leave it, your comment is very, very callous in view of what the Japanese people and humanity in general are facing. Btw, were you making the same comments for Chernobyl? That, sure it's bad, but we are going to learn from it so that's good? Let me tell you something, cause you seem young, we can't afford to learn by nuclear disasters, we should have learned already what we needed to have learned (back in the cold war era), because you don't get many chances with radiation, and even one disaster, is one disaster too many. I am sure people born with severely damaged internal organs, or with dysmorphias and teratogenesis will appreciate your "argument".
Well, I'm glad to see that Macrumors and Apple are at least able to focus on the big picture: product availability.
lol, very true, and funny, in a very tragic way of course... while this site is steeped in pc, it's obviously very much lacking in common sensibilities and a sense of shared humanity, if I were (god forbid) one of the thousands of homeless or people being irradiated (I shudder to think btw what pregnant women must be feeling like in Japan...the dread is unfathomable) in Japan, and I came here to read about product availability with not an inkling of the suffering and cost in human life, I would really, really want to slap a few people around after that....
maggie-macrumor
Nov 18, 06:33 PM
That looks nice!
Is it possible that we can see more screen caps form the various map screens in this app? The one shown above doesn't give a real feel to the app at all. Maybe post them in the Magellan thread in this forum.
Thanks
Hi SpaceKitty
We are currently working on getting additional screenshots for it. When they are ready, I will post them in the Official Magellan Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=823017) Thank you!
Is it possible that we can see more screen caps form the various map screens in this app? The one shown above doesn't give a real feel to the app at all. Maybe post them in the Magellan thread in this forum.
Thanks
Hi SpaceKitty
We are currently working on getting additional screenshots for it. When they are ready, I will post them in the Official Magellan Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=823017) Thank you!
Achiever
May 7, 10:27 AM
I would be fine continuing to pay for it if they would actually make it work better and improve some of the feature set. If they make it free, my concern is they will strip down some of the services related to it or allow it to become even slower and less reliable. Apple doesn't need another "hobby" (See: TV, Apple).
SandynJosh
Apr 26, 03:21 PM
But if Apple had gotten on board with Verizon a year earlier, those numbers would probably be reversed.
That extra year that Apple sat on their ass with AT&T was the crucial year that allowed android to gain traction and mindshare.
Neither your or I know what contract details with AT&T prevented Apple from opening up Verizon earlier than they did, so claiming Apple "sat on their ass" is just your silly opinion.
Once the 'greatly anticipated' Verizon launch finally did come, it was met with a large chorus of "who cares?" from the crowd - the crowd that had gotten their droid phone 6 months earlier.
Again you make a wild-assed leap of logic. I, like many Verizon users, met the news that the iPhone was available on my favorite carrier with, "Oh dam, I'm locked into a two-year contract with a ****** Android Incredible."
Your basic point that Apple needed to open up the iPhone to more U.S. carriers to avoid market share loss is correct and generally regarded as such by most analysts. However, from the launch of the first iPhone, Apple has struggled to meet the accelerating demand for its products, so adding more U.S. carriers may have not been as smart as us outside the company might second-guess.
That extra year that Apple sat on their ass with AT&T was the crucial year that allowed android to gain traction and mindshare.
Neither your or I know what contract details with AT&T prevented Apple from opening up Verizon earlier than they did, so claiming Apple "sat on their ass" is just your silly opinion.
Once the 'greatly anticipated' Verizon launch finally did come, it was met with a large chorus of "who cares?" from the crowd - the crowd that had gotten their droid phone 6 months earlier.
Again you make a wild-assed leap of logic. I, like many Verizon users, met the news that the iPhone was available on my favorite carrier with, "Oh dam, I'm locked into a two-year contract with a ****** Android Incredible."
Your basic point that Apple needed to open up the iPhone to more U.S. carriers to avoid market share loss is correct and generally regarded as such by most analysts. However, from the launch of the first iPhone, Apple has struggled to meet the accelerating demand for its products, so adding more U.S. carriers may have not been as smart as us outside the company might second-guess.
RalfTheDog
Apr 7, 01:23 PM
It's sad but it's starting to sound like that's exactly what anti-Apple people want. They're making it sound like Apple regularly colludes with suppliers. Maybe it does, but there's no proof, or at least Apple buying up the supply of touch panels certainly doesn't constitute proof.
Apple legitimately amassed a large cash reserve. Apple is using that massive hoard of cash to secure the best possible deals with component suppliers. If that's called anticompetitive, then I don't know what to say.
More importantly, Apple is supply constrained. The limiting factor as to how many units they can sell is how many screens they can get. The competition is consumer constrained. They can make all they need, but they can't find people to buy them.
Apple legitimately amassed a large cash reserve. Apple is using that massive hoard of cash to secure the best possible deals with component suppliers. If that's called anticompetitive, then I don't know what to say.
More importantly, Apple is supply constrained. The limiting factor as to how many units they can sell is how many screens they can get. The competition is consumer constrained. They can make all they need, but they can't find people to buy them.
tokevino
Aug 7, 03:37 PM
A 2.66GHz CPU is about $400 more expensive than a 2.0GHz, BTO only takes $300 off, so the base config is the best choice. There is a gap, no single processor mac pro, not like Apple's sale strategy. Either Cornore mac pro or iMac will be great.
No, it's "TWO 2.66GHz CPUs are about $800 more expensive than TWO 2.0GHz.....".
No, it's "TWO 2.66GHz CPUs are about $800 more expensive than TWO 2.0GHz.....".
Multimedia
Jul 23, 11:24 PM
If the new macbook pros are only different in the chips, will there be a way to upgrade to core 2 duo if you have a previous macbook pros?No. Processors Are Soldered In MacBooks and MacBook Pros So No Upgrades Are Possible.
The way you do the upgrade is by selling your current model and buying the next one. It's called rolling over your Mac for the next one. Some of us here have done it numerous times. It's not hard to get a good price for your used Mac. By doing this at the beginning of every update, it only cost you a few hundred dollars to move up each time.
The way you do the upgrade is by selling your current model and buying the next one. It's called rolling over your Mac for the next one. Some of us here have done it numerous times. It's not hard to get a good price for your used Mac. By doing this at the beginning of every update, it only cost you a few hundred dollars to move up each time.
arkitect
Mar 28, 10:11 AM
Sure you will. :rolleyes:
No need for the rolling eyes there… Some of us already have.
Apple is not the end all be all. Sometimes change is good. ;)
Bad move to keep the iPhone out for 2 years.
I agree.
There is no way Apple can take a break from this cycle.
What is that saying about he who rides the tiger?
No need for the rolling eyes there… Some of us already have.
Apple is not the end all be all. Sometimes change is good. ;)
Bad move to keep the iPhone out for 2 years.
I agree.
There is no way Apple can take a break from this cycle.
What is that saying about he who rides the tiger?
YS2003
Nov 26, 12:01 PM
I think a successful device would need
1.2 GHz processor equivalent
80 GB storage
1 GB RAM
8 hours of battery life (5 playing an iTunes movie)
estimated cost to consumer $699.
I bet that won't happen with that price range. It would be more close to $1500 to $2500 level. I don't think Apple is looking for low end markets with this rumored product.
I prefer Apple Tablet would be the low-volume high price products.
1.2 GHz processor equivalent
80 GB storage
1 GB RAM
8 hours of battery life (5 playing an iTunes movie)
estimated cost to consumer $699.
I bet that won't happen with that price range. It would be more close to $1500 to $2500 level. I don't think Apple is looking for low end markets with this rumored product.
I prefer Apple Tablet would be the low-volume high price products.
toddybody
Apr 5, 03:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
No, apple will stop at nothing to destroy the JB "community".
Ok Darth Vader. PS: What you let happen to Alderaan was jacked up.
No, apple will stop at nothing to destroy the JB "community".
Ok Darth Vader. PS: What you let happen to Alderaan was jacked up.
Consultant
Mar 28, 10:31 AM
No iPhone 5, but there will be iPhone invisio!
The iPhone 4 is already dated relative to other phones on the market. To have a phone on the market for 18 months without an update is insane.
ROTF. Dated. That must be why the recent mobile industry event that Apple didn't sponsor nor attend voted iPhone the best phone on the market.
The iPhone 4 is already dated relative to other phones on the market. To have a phone on the market for 18 months without an update is insane.
ROTF. Dated. That must be why the recent mobile industry event that Apple didn't sponsor nor attend voted iPhone the best phone on the market.
