nizmoz
Dec 28, 08:38 AM
Well said. I was going to start typing a similar post but glad you did. The person that replied to the OP above saying IT people are clueless is 100% wrong as you are the one that is clueless. I run a IT department and there is no way MACs would ever become the Computer of choice over any Windows machine that has way more software for the enterprise than a MAC will ever see. And using Bootcamp is a waste of funds as PCs are cheaper. It always takes someone who has no clue about how IT works to say something like that.
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
aurichie
Apr 20, 06:05 PM
We're winning! We're really winning this time!
Suck on these :apple: :apple: :apple: :apple: fandroids.
Suck on these :apple: :apple: :apple: :apple: fandroids.
HarryPot
May 4, 05:43 PM
The ends don't justify the means torture is wrong period.
Would you support forcible medical testing on people if that forcible testing might save hundreds of thousands of lives in the future?
I tend to disagree with the saying of "ends don't justify the means".
As for your last example, medical testing is a completely different scenario. In the torture case, you are doing it to someone who is part of the terrorist/criminal activity. They are already part of a criminal act, they already broke the law and they are planning in breaking it again to kill/damage more people.
People with medical conditions haven't done anything wrong.
Would you support forcible medical testing on people if that forcible testing might save hundreds of thousands of lives in the future?
I tend to disagree with the saying of "ends don't justify the means".
As for your last example, medical testing is a completely different scenario. In the torture case, you are doing it to someone who is part of the terrorist/criminal activity. They are already part of a criminal act, they already broke the law and they are planning in breaking it again to kill/damage more people.
People with medical conditions haven't done anything wrong.
BornToMac
Dec 1, 11:24 AM
I'll go out on a limb here and say you are a fan of Marvel comic books.;)
Not the biggest fan TBH but I have always been a fan of comic book art...
...indeed, busier than my normal wallpapers but the colors pop on my screen and it looks rad imo. :D
Not the biggest fan TBH but I have always been a fan of comic book art...
...indeed, busier than my normal wallpapers but the colors pop on my screen and it looks rad imo. :D
more...
Muscle Master
Jan 12, 05:31 PM
I wonder how many people cross-shop the 300C and the Passat...two very different cars.
In tha quality department .. VW is Garbage!!! Chrysler has a better rating then they do.. I would have choose the 300C myself and the 2011's are nice
I won't knock the TDI though.. it's impressive but I don't like wrong wheel drive
In tha quality department .. VW is Garbage!!! Chrysler has a better rating then they do.. I would have choose the 300C myself and the 2011's are nice
I won't knock the TDI though.. it's impressive but I don't like wrong wheel drive
Macaroony
May 3, 12:02 PM
Please can you clarify your statement about the lack of potential donors?
You already have a few members in this thread who said they're not eligible.
You already have a few members in this thread who said they're not eligible.
more...
tunerX
Jul 25, 06:27 PM
http://portforward.com/cports.htm
iApples
Mar 28, 06:21 PM
MUAHAAHA. Both of this chucklehead's crap auctions have been nullified and zapped into the ether by eBay. The original link is dead and searching the seller's past auctions yields no iphone auctions...only a fugly handbag he used when he was crossdressing. The toolbag gets NOTHING (as if he ever would have) and the buyer has zero obligation to pay this fool a dime (as if they ever did).
So stratobaterdan, let's hear all about how you're going to sue eBay or take the headquarters hostage with your toy guns, or whatever your next fantasy is. Wait, what's that? I think I hear your momma calling...
PWNED
Not going to lie, that's pretty hilarious.
So stratobaterdan, let's hear all about how you're going to sue eBay or take the headquarters hostage with your toy guns, or whatever your next fantasy is. Wait, what's that? I think I hear your momma calling...
PWNED
Not going to lie, that's pretty hilarious.
more...
Winni
Dec 21, 08:06 AM
Macs would be an excellent choice for any business to use ...
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
Missjenna
May 3, 03:33 AM
So after some more digging around, I managed to find KeepRecipes and it is exactly what I am looking for. It's sort of like the instagram for recipes. So far, I really love it.
more...
pmasters
Nov 11, 12:19 PM
A lot of people seem to be ditching FCP because of the bugs and moving back to Premier. I think the ability to work seamlessly between Adobe products is a big advantage as well.
I agree. Adobe has made some great changes while Apple rested on its laurels and decided to cater to consumer devices. I bought the FCS3 upgrade with hopes there would be some decent changes but quickly realized that it wasn't much different than FCS2. Plus when you consider that Adobe delivered 64 bit editing on Apple's own platform before Apple did showed me and many others just how committed (or lack of) Apple is to their professional apps.
I agree. Adobe has made some great changes while Apple rested on its laurels and decided to cater to consumer devices. I bought the FCS3 upgrade with hopes there would be some decent changes but quickly realized that it wasn't much different than FCS2. Plus when you consider that Adobe delivered 64 bit editing on Apple's own platform before Apple did showed me and many others just how committed (or lack of) Apple is to their professional apps.
Kiwiboi22
Apr 25, 12:07 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I would wait, to see the white phone in person... If it looks good, then I would think about selling my black iphone4 and getting a white one
I would wait, to see the white phone in person... If it looks good, then I would think about selling my black iphone4 and getting a white one
more...
Hilmi Hamidi
Jul 31, 06:34 AM
Er... New Zealand (and Australia, et al) will be in August before Japan.
Still 35mins to go.
O yea, the New Zealand...
How can I forget that.
Anyway here's mine.
http://img268.imagevenue.com/loc206/th_75507_Untitled_122_206lo.jpg (http://img268.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=75507_Untitled_122_206lo.jpg)
Wallpaper (http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/details/1417/c-curve.html)
Still 35mins to go.
O yea, the New Zealand...
How can I forget that.
Anyway here's mine.
http://img268.imagevenue.com/loc206/th_75507_Untitled_122_206lo.jpg (http://img268.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=75507_Untitled_122_206lo.jpg)
Wallpaper (http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/details/1417/c-curve.html)
simple20
May 4, 11:55 PM
Not sure if this is even a jb problem or not, but I'm on 4.3.2 untethered.
Anyway yesterday my phone icon was grayed out, rebooted, was fine. Today its safari. Either way, the respective programs worked to full capability as far as I know... was just curious if anybody knows why they are grayed out/see thru/dim, or if anybody else has been experiencing too?
Anyway yesterday my phone icon was grayed out, rebooted, was fine. Today its safari. Either way, the respective programs worked to full capability as far as I know... was just curious if anybody knows why they are grayed out/see thru/dim, or if anybody else has been experiencing too?
more...
MACLUVERPro
Oct 6, 05:01 PM
Did you hear that Safari will not work with some older macs if it is installed with Leopard ??? OMG I hope they fix that before the release... Will I be mad!!
normwood
Oct 12, 11:55 AM
That's it exactly, I've been trying to think what it is... and you're right the UI is actually overdone!
Having trouble computing what exactly is "overdone" about the UI of this app. It is simple, clean and well organized.
If you so desire, help a brother out and explain what is "overdone" about the UI?
Steve
Having trouble computing what exactly is "overdone" about the UI of this app. It is simple, clean and well organized.
If you so desire, help a brother out and explain what is "overdone" about the UI?
Steve
more...
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 27, 12:56 AM
VersionTracker.com is indispensable for, personally.. With most software phoning for updates though, it's a bit overkill for VTP, so you're right on that one.
The "member" "freebies" on .Mac are the toaster over give away of the intarweb land. Lame x 3
i don't think getting a free versiontracker is enough. I never understood why versiontracker is such a big deal because most of softwares get automatic updates anyway. unless i am missing something, i never use versiontracker.
The "member" "freebies" on .Mac are the toaster over give away of the intarweb land. Lame x 3
i don't think getting a free versiontracker is enough. I never understood why versiontracker is such a big deal because most of softwares get automatic updates anyway. unless i am missing something, i never use versiontracker.
coder12
Apr 25, 12:11 AM
A disgrace on so many levels.
Disgrace has never been so beautiful.:p
Disgrace has never been so beautiful.:p
ECUpirate44
Dec 14, 05:49 PM
Where can I find this background?
Here you go.
Here you go.
FHL78
Jul 10, 10:58 AM
I plan on being there in VB, do you think we need to get there that early? I know this is BIG but will it be here in Vero?
Chundles
Jan 30, 12:09 AM
Fourth gen wasn't. None of them were. HP were very briefly licensed and were co-branding 3rd gens but that ended very quickly.
angelwatt
Feb 7, 06:49 PM
Do you have a live example you can point us at. Can't help based solely on a description.
tigress666
Apr 6, 10:26 PM
Yes, it had a lot to do with them. Many who are leaving have a legitimate gripe with AT&T and if they want to take their business elsewhere b/c a purely financial decision by AT&T, so be it. Even if the finances may not add up at first. Taking your business elsewhere IS what many want to do.
Of course that is their choice but my point is to leave AT&T because they increased a price to go to some one who has an even more expensive price does not make sense to me at all. Now if there were other issues, sure.
Ah ok, so you have nothing. Just the same old line used by AT&T whenever they raise the price
Gotcha
The fact that you wrote the "Everyone wants money" line shows me how far over your head my point went.
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).
Of course that is their choice but my point is to leave AT&T because they increased a price to go to some one who has an even more expensive price does not make sense to me at all. Now if there were other issues, sure.
Ah ok, so you have nothing. Just the same old line used by AT&T whenever they raise the price
Gotcha
The fact that you wrote the "Everyone wants money" line shows me how far over your head my point went.
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).
M2M
Apr 7, 12:25 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)
Apple should quit wasting time trying to block jailbreak and work on adding features that other phones have had for many years and that users have been screaming for since the iPhone 1 was released.
Yep Bluetooth filetransfer for contacts and photos would be great. Well music too but
I see copyright concerns. But for your own
Photos and contacts ?
Apple should quit wasting time trying to block jailbreak and work on adding features that other phones have had for many years and that users have been screaming for since the iPhone 1 was released.
Yep Bluetooth filetransfer for contacts and photos would be great. Well music too but
I see copyright concerns. But for your own
Photos and contacts ?
No comments:
Post a Comment