cvaldes
Apr 24, 02:09 AM
Is this just a European iPhone on T-Mobile there?
Sound more and more like a rumor - AT&T and Verizon are exclusives to the iPhone here...
No, the European iPhone is the same hardware as the AT&T iPhone. It will handle voice and pokey EDGE/GPRS data on the T-Mobile USA network, but not 3G data because they use the AWS band for that.
Whether you believe that there is carrier exclusivity is irrelevant. Apple probably tests on many different carriers around the world.
The fact of the matter is Apple doesn't announce the terms of their contracts with mobile operators, so your so-called "exclusivity" could have ended at midnight yesterday.
Sound more and more like a rumor - AT&T and Verizon are exclusives to the iPhone here...
No, the European iPhone is the same hardware as the AT&T iPhone. It will handle voice and pokey EDGE/GPRS data on the T-Mobile USA network, but not 3G data because they use the AWS band for that.
Whether you believe that there is carrier exclusivity is irrelevant. Apple probably tests on many different carriers around the world.
The fact of the matter is Apple doesn't announce the terms of their contracts with mobile operators, so your so-called "exclusivity" could have ended at midnight yesterday.
MacProCpo
Nov 27, 05:52 PM
Thanks guys! I think I got it working. My WU size went from 4mb to 28mb:)
electroshock
Sep 30, 04:22 PM
Just curious... is that special tool the only way to get the call stats from your iPhone? Sounded like interesting data.
terraphantm
May 4, 03:42 PM
At&t bumped my upgrade eligibility from 11/30/2011 to 6/30/2011. That must mean Apple is giving *me* the iPhone in June, right? :rolleyes:
more...
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
Krafty
Jan 26, 01:13 AM
http://lulzimg.com/i10/93ff50.jpg
more...
nealibob
Apr 23, 07:13 PM
I am sure there are Sprint iPhones ready to go also.
The "Verizon" iPhone is exactly the same hardware as would be used with Sprint. You could actually use one on Sprint's network today if they allowed you to activate non-Sprint devices. AFAIK, they still do not allow that, which really is a shame. With their new GV features and relatively reasonable prices, I would gladly buy a CDMA iPhone and use it on Sprint.
The "Verizon" iPhone is exactly the same hardware as would be used with Sprint. You could actually use one on Sprint's network today if they allowed you to activate non-Sprint devices. AFAIK, they still do not allow that, which really is a shame. With their new GV features and relatively reasonable prices, I would gladly buy a CDMA iPhone and use it on Sprint.
electroshock
Sep 30, 07:06 PM
OT: I used to live in Aliso Viejo (OC) and had Cingular for my carrier. Over a 60 day period, the service got so bad in my house I could no longer make/receive phone calls. When I called CS to complain about the service, I was told that the contract I signed never states Cingular was required to provide cell service. I still don't know if that was true or not, but I dropped them that day and went with VZW.
Errr... wtf??? :eek: Dang. To date, that's the dumbest answer I've ever heard CS give.
Errr... wtf??? :eek: Dang. To date, that's the dumbest answer I've ever heard CS give.
more...
FX4568
Apr 19, 04:27 PM
I had to finally register to comment on the hypocrisy in this and many other threads like it. Because some people want frame rates for gaming on an MBA, then your needs for GPU performance are valid, and others who don't game but could use CPU performance have invalid needs? Rubbish.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
Well, I shall say first of all, welcome to the MacRumors forum :) I believe CPU is important to the computer as the GPU is. As current computers are, CPU have set a milestone where most users are not even able to use 100% of the capabilities hidden in such a powerful processor.
Now, you were complaining I used 100/100 in the CPU analogy? fine, I will change it. CPU will be 90/100 and GPU is 80/100 as the 30% increase in cpu and 30% decrease in gpu, we will see a difference of 117/100 and 56/100. Am I arguing that there will be nothing to be gained from a bump in processor speed? Definitely not! Who doesnt love the little extra power when we need it? Who doesnt want the latest in tech? What im saying is that the downgrading of the GPU outweights the upgrading of the CPU in terms of OVERALL performance.
Futhermore HT and Turbo dont work 100% of the times.
For you and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump will be indeed welcomed. But as of me and the I believe majority of MBA owners and will be owners, the difference of processor speed is negligible to a certain extent, but the performance lack of GPU will be noticed the moment we start using the Macbook Air.
+1, besides, the 13" MBP + 128GB SSD provide far better value-for-money than any present 13" MBA.
The cheaper solution, the 11", tells another story but even then anything past the base model comes so close to the price of a 13" MBP+SSD that it's impractical to get a 11" from a performance point of view, especially when it's equipped with the slow 1.4 C2D. The 1.4 i5 will provide far better performance (certainly far more than 40% of speed boost). We will still be able to watch FullHD movies despite the less capable IGP. Games. Don't tell me you want to play WoW on a 11" monitor.
FX4568 said "We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.". Overkill means the increased processor speed will not be of any use, or, in other words, useless.
You are comparing a cheaper price point by bringing a 128 SSD into the game. You must understand that even though many people have to choose between the 13 MBA and 13 MBP, both of them are made for a different purpose. You can play WoW on a 11" monitor. Why do you chain your MBA to tasks that you only think it will be able to accomplish.
Okay, sorry about my lack of further explanation, but I dont want this to sound personal, but what you are doing is taking my statement to a whole different level. I would like to infer that your intelligence would be above the mark where I dont have to expand on every single statement that I say. When I say that the C2D is enough to accomplish tasks, I am saying that it is good enough for the higher than average person. Handbrakers of course will face a time difference on the processor speed, but as many of us know, not everyone uses Handbrake, and if we do, it is not something we do daily. Processor speed is always welcome, but at the sacrifice of GPU from 320m to the Intel GPU is the difference between the ability to play Crysis on 19.3 FPS at Medium settings and not be able to playing it at all while the performance increase in CPU is the difference between 10-30 minutes in Handbrake.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
Well, I shall say first of all, welcome to the MacRumors forum :) I believe CPU is important to the computer as the GPU is. As current computers are, CPU have set a milestone where most users are not even able to use 100% of the capabilities hidden in such a powerful processor.
Now, you were complaining I used 100/100 in the CPU analogy? fine, I will change it. CPU will be 90/100 and GPU is 80/100 as the 30% increase in cpu and 30% decrease in gpu, we will see a difference of 117/100 and 56/100. Am I arguing that there will be nothing to be gained from a bump in processor speed? Definitely not! Who doesnt love the little extra power when we need it? Who doesnt want the latest in tech? What im saying is that the downgrading of the GPU outweights the upgrading of the CPU in terms of OVERALL performance.
Futhermore HT and Turbo dont work 100% of the times.
For you and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump will be indeed welcomed. But as of me and the I believe majority of MBA owners and will be owners, the difference of processor speed is negligible to a certain extent, but the performance lack of GPU will be noticed the moment we start using the Macbook Air.
+1, besides, the 13" MBP + 128GB SSD provide far better value-for-money than any present 13" MBA.
The cheaper solution, the 11", tells another story but even then anything past the base model comes so close to the price of a 13" MBP+SSD that it's impractical to get a 11" from a performance point of view, especially when it's equipped with the slow 1.4 C2D. The 1.4 i5 will provide far better performance (certainly far more than 40% of speed boost). We will still be able to watch FullHD movies despite the less capable IGP. Games. Don't tell me you want to play WoW on a 11" monitor.
FX4568 said "We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.". Overkill means the increased processor speed will not be of any use, or, in other words, useless.
You are comparing a cheaper price point by bringing a 128 SSD into the game. You must understand that even though many people have to choose between the 13 MBA and 13 MBP, both of them are made for a different purpose. You can play WoW on a 11" monitor. Why do you chain your MBA to tasks that you only think it will be able to accomplish.
Okay, sorry about my lack of further explanation, but I dont want this to sound personal, but what you are doing is taking my statement to a whole different level. I would like to infer that your intelligence would be above the mark where I dont have to expand on every single statement that I say. When I say that the C2D is enough to accomplish tasks, I am saying that it is good enough for the higher than average person. Handbrakers of course will face a time difference on the processor speed, but as many of us know, not everyone uses Handbrake, and if we do, it is not something we do daily. Processor speed is always welcome, but at the sacrifice of GPU from 320m to the Intel GPU is the difference between the ability to play Crysis on 19.3 FPS at Medium settings and not be able to playing it at all while the performance increase in CPU is the difference between 10-30 minutes in Handbrake.
Tones2
Apr 12, 09:09 AM
OK, stop it already! Enough with the iPhone 5 / iPad 3 release date rumors, or put it on page 2.
more...
gadget123
Apr 22, 08:13 PM
Lies Lies Lies
Don't believe it. The reports about it keeping the same design make sense.
The article says it was wrong about Ipad 2 having a memory slot.
3"7 funny..if they were going to make it bigger it would be a 4". I reckon if the other reports are true it should stay 3.5".
Don't believe it. The reports about it keeping the same design make sense.
The article says it was wrong about Ipad 2 having a memory slot.
3"7 funny..if they were going to make it bigger it would be a 4". I reckon if the other reports are true it should stay 3.5".
mattcube64
Jan 29, 11:46 AM
Uh? what is that?
It's an ImacQuarium :-)
I plan to go buy a fish and some decorations this afternoon.
It's an ImacQuarium :-)
I plan to go buy a fish and some decorations this afternoon.
more...
Tones2
Apr 13, 02:11 PM
Yet another ridiculous speculation by unqualified experts who need real jobs.
Tony
Tony
AndroidfoLife
Apr 24, 03:23 AM
Their are many factors why this is true and I will list the them in order of which ones I think are the most important.
1. The people who will jump to any carrier just to have the iPhone will, and have done so in the last four years. Those people have iPhones already. They are not likely to pay 100-300 dollars to break contract go to T-Mo then pay another 200$ for an iphone with contract.
2. Android: Yes I have to say it but it is true. People feel less of a need for an iphone when they can get android Phones cheaper. Also people are being lured in by many of android's commercials that make the phones look so good. When a T-mobile customer sees a commercial for a thunderbolt they want that phone. They end up getting a High end phone on network. It is even getting more popular on the iPhone networks, AT&T for the most part ignored the android because it had the iPhone. Then after millions of customers came into the stores demanding not iPhones but Androids AT&T had to reconsider. Face it android is changing the game. People are seeing the android as less of an alternative to iPhones if you can't afford it or not on your carrier but more as a real iphone beater.
Yeah it will not help if they where to obtain the iPhone. But for the most part it will not make a huge difference to them. Also Verizon did not need apple to put the iPhone on the its network, Apple needed to Put its iPhone on Verizons network. Verizon's droid line was becoming a major threat to iPhones.'
In all it will help T-mobile to get the iPhone as much as me getting into a steady relationship: It will help but it will not change things in the long run.
1. The people who will jump to any carrier just to have the iPhone will, and have done so in the last four years. Those people have iPhones already. They are not likely to pay 100-300 dollars to break contract go to T-Mo then pay another 200$ for an iphone with contract.
2. Android: Yes I have to say it but it is true. People feel less of a need for an iphone when they can get android Phones cheaper. Also people are being lured in by many of android's commercials that make the phones look so good. When a T-mobile customer sees a commercial for a thunderbolt they want that phone. They end up getting a High end phone on network. It is even getting more popular on the iPhone networks, AT&T for the most part ignored the android because it had the iPhone. Then after millions of customers came into the stores demanding not iPhones but Androids AT&T had to reconsider. Face it android is changing the game. People are seeing the android as less of an alternative to iPhones if you can't afford it or not on your carrier but more as a real iphone beater.
Yeah it will not help if they where to obtain the iPhone. But for the most part it will not make a huge difference to them. Also Verizon did not need apple to put the iPhone on the its network, Apple needed to Put its iPhone on Verizons network. Verizon's droid line was becoming a major threat to iPhones.'
In all it will help T-mobile to get the iPhone as much as me getting into a steady relationship: It will help but it will not change things in the long run.
more...
fatboyslick
May 4, 05:21 AM
ugh. i always laugh at anyone who ends their 'predictions' with "you heard it here first", 'cause they nearly always end up being the most inaccurate.
Travis's claim isnt new or "heard it hear first though". It's been gossiped about on this site for weeks.
Travis's claim isnt new or "heard it hear first though". It's been gossiped about on this site for weeks.
thirteen1031
Apr 22, 04:40 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah...but is it gonna come in white? :p
more...
Gregintosh
Apr 23, 06:47 PM
I would buy this immediately. No more crappy Edge service on my iPhone. It's a chore to load anything on it, even google maps and simple web pages.
dXTC
Mar 10, 09:03 PM
I have stayed out of this one for a while, but now he has gone from "sick" to "awesome" with this video on Funny or Die.
http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/5cwg
I don't even know what to say...
Honestly, me neither. I don't know whether to shake my head incredulously or LMAO. Did Charlie get paid for this?
Say nothing.
It's the only way to kill him.
Won't happen. Chuck Norris can't even kill Charlie Sheen; the Adonis DNA-infused tiger blood is like Kryptonite to Norris.
http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/5cwg
I don't even know what to say...
Honestly, me neither. I don't know whether to shake my head incredulously or LMAO. Did Charlie get paid for this?
Say nothing.
It's the only way to kill him.
Won't happen. Chuck Norris can't even kill Charlie Sheen; the Adonis DNA-infused tiger blood is like Kryptonite to Norris.
Apple OC
May 1, 10:09 PM
killed at a Mansion in Islamabad Pakistan
tristangage
Apr 2, 12:19 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5267/5571543499_60a9266433.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5571543499/)
choose your side. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5571543499/) by tristangage (http://www.flickr.com/people/tristangage/), on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS 500D
Exposure 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture f/5.0
Focal Length 24 mm
ISO Speed 100
choose your side. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5571543499/) by tristangage (http://www.flickr.com/people/tristangage/), on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS 500D
Exposure 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture f/5.0
Focal Length 24 mm
ISO Speed 100
lmalave
Oct 19, 08:18 AM
Its clear Apple is missing something in the midrange desk top line. Its time for the Cube or Macintosh or headless iMac or Max Mini or something. iMac isnt for everyone and the world has billions of big beautiful displays just waiting for a midrange Mac but if Apple prices it again the same as the towers it will be another failure. Its way past time for the next Macintosh. Needs a real GPU, at least 1 expansion slot and should be priced right along with ugly iMac:D or a pinch below.
This is not beyond the realm of possibility. I could see Apple modifying the Mac mini at some point to make the graphics card more accessible and upgradeable. But of course it would be a laptop graphics card and not a full desktop graphics card. Do ATI / nVidia sell something like mini-PCI graphics cards to consumers?
But anyway, althought it's a possibility I think it's a slim one, since gamers are just not Apple's focus right now...
This is not beyond the realm of possibility. I could see Apple modifying the Mac mini at some point to make the graphics card more accessible and upgradeable. But of course it would be a laptop graphics card and not a full desktop graphics card. Do ATI / nVidia sell something like mini-PCI graphics cards to consumers?
But anyway, althought it's a possibility I think it's a slim one, since gamers are just not Apple's focus right now...
kiljoy616
Apr 21, 11:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1PBptSDIh8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3n0vBcW5fc&feature=related :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3n0vBcW5fc&feature=related :D
Orng
Apr 26, 01:22 PM
Why do people get so angry about the hypothetical details of a rumoured service? It's all conjecture anyway!
I'm hoping for a service that includes video; so I can store any purchased video as well as any home videos I upload and stream them to iphone and appleTV. Tack that on to MobileMe and cut the price a bit, and I'm in. I'd pay more than 20 for that. I might even buy an AppleTV2 to go with it rather than go to the trouble of hacking my AppleTV1 to work with the service.
But hey, if it doesn't happen, no biggie. I've been meaning to hack my AppleTV1 to work with an external HD anyway. If they provide the service and it's good, I'll pay for it and buy a new AppleTV, if they don't I'll be hack-upgrading the ATV1.
I'm hoping for a service that includes video; so I can store any purchased video as well as any home videos I upload and stream them to iphone and appleTV. Tack that on to MobileMe and cut the price a bit, and I'm in. I'd pay more than 20 for that. I might even buy an AppleTV2 to go with it rather than go to the trouble of hacking my AppleTV1 to work with the service.
But hey, if it doesn't happen, no biggie. I've been meaning to hack my AppleTV1 to work with an external HD anyway. If they provide the service and it's good, I'll pay for it and buy a new AppleTV, if they don't I'll be hack-upgrading the ATV1.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Jul 24, 04:26 PM
Engadget has a pic of it on their website:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/24/apples-mighty-mouse-finally-gets-bluetooth/
Looks exactly the same as the present one - with no wire, of course.
I wonder if anything else has changed (i.e. if they improved the right-click recognition or the scroll ball problems)...:confused:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/24/apples-mighty-mouse-finally-gets-bluetooth/
Looks exactly the same as the present one - with no wire, of course.
I wonder if anything else has changed (i.e. if they improved the right-click recognition or the scroll ball problems)...:confused:
No comments:
Post a Comment