iJohnHenry
Feb 28, 09:12 AM
.... that the US car makers still sells trucks, pickups etc. without diesel options is simply a complete lack of any common sense.
Profit and common sense cannot co-exist, apparently. :rolleyes:
Profit and common sense cannot co-exist, apparently. :rolleyes:
Eduardo1971
Apr 19, 11:12 AM
Finally! An iMac rumor!!!!
**Bump**
One can't never have enough iMac rumours! What a breath of fresh air.
Please, please, please let the refreshed iMac drop the May 3rd (I *highly* doubt any new iMac's will be released next week).
**Bump**
One can't never have enough iMac rumours! What a breath of fresh air.
Please, please, please let the refreshed iMac drop the May 3rd (I *highly* doubt any new iMac's will be released next week).
suneohair
Nov 15, 09:58 AM
For some time, Handbrake didn't use more than two cores - owners of Quad G5s reported CPU usage of exactly 50 percent, then someone changed it and Quad G5s reported 100 percent CPU usage.
What we don't know: Was the code changed to use up to four processors, or as many processors as are available? Developers are usually very unwilling to ship code that they haven't been able to try out, so expect a version using eight cores about two days after the developers have access to an eight core machine.
In the case of Handbrake, encoding to MPEG4 seems already limited by the speed of the DVD drive; you can't encode faster than you can read from the DVD. H.264 is still limited by processor speed. Using eight cores is not too difficult; for example, if you encode 60 minutes of video, just give 7 1/2 minutes to each core.
Applications should be, and most likely are written to take advantage of available resources. A developer should be writing applications to take advantage of 8-cores already, they don't need an 8-core machine to do so.
What we don't know: Was the code changed to use up to four processors, or as many processors as are available? Developers are usually very unwilling to ship code that they haven't been able to try out, so expect a version using eight cores about two days after the developers have access to an eight core machine.
In the case of Handbrake, encoding to MPEG4 seems already limited by the speed of the DVD drive; you can't encode faster than you can read from the DVD. H.264 is still limited by processor speed. Using eight cores is not too difficult; for example, if you encode 60 minutes of video, just give 7 1/2 minutes to each core.
Applications should be, and most likely are written to take advantage of available resources. A developer should be writing applications to take advantage of 8-cores already, they don't need an 8-core machine to do so.
zoran
Nov 23, 04:39 AM
So when will the faster versions of clovertown be available, any rumor on that?
hyperpasta
Sep 1, 03:40 PM
you can always wish but there is no chance in hell we will see this kind of pricing.
Maybe. But this is a lineup I would wish for in January. The pricing is meant to reflect what I would expect them. Also remember that the Mac mini was replaced with the Mac Cube, which would use cheaper, larger components.
EDIT: Oh, and I wouldn't dream of it actually happening. I think it COULD, but it WON'T.
Maybe. But this is a lineup I would wish for in January. The pricing is meant to reflect what I would expect them. Also remember that the Mac mini was replaced with the Mac Cube, which would use cheaper, larger components.
EDIT: Oh, and I wouldn't dream of it actually happening. I think it COULD, but it WON'T.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 02:54 PM
I think that these two quotes from Tim Cook during the last Apple quarterly call, put the nail in the coffin:
"We've got the largest app store ..."
"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSs on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "
Since Apple itself uses the word generically, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's not.
From Apple's perspective, they have largest app store and it is named "App Store".
"We've got the largest app store ..."
"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSs on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "
Since Apple itself uses the word generically, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's not.
From Apple's perspective, they have largest app store and it is named "App Store".
blackcrayon
Mar 25, 03:55 PM
iPad 1 does not support HDMI out, so I'm assuming no, it doesn't work.
iPad 1 does support HDMI out. Use the new Apple Digital AV adapter. Pretty amazing for Apple to "add" a feature to an old device ;)
The iPad 1 can't do *mirroring* over HDMI (at least not without jailbreaking)- but that's not what's going on here anyway. This could be done on an iPad 1, but of course it would be limited to 720p on the external screen, and probably not be able to maintain much of a framerate even then (for this game).
But less cpu/gpu intense games could run on the iPad 1 in a dual screen fashion if a developer really wanted to.
iPad 1 does support HDMI out. Use the new Apple Digital AV adapter. Pretty amazing for Apple to "add" a feature to an old device ;)
The iPad 1 can't do *mirroring* over HDMI (at least not without jailbreaking)- but that's not what's going on here anyway. This could be done on an iPad 1, but of course it would be limited to 720p on the external screen, and probably not be able to maintain much of a framerate even then (for this game).
But less cpu/gpu intense games could run on the iPad 1 in a dual screen fashion if a developer really wanted to.
Billy Boo Bob
Jun 23, 09:38 AM
It's amazing how many people fear that "All you'll be able to do is touch your screen to operate this thing"... "I need a mouse and keyboard"... "My arm will get tired"...
Do any of you whiners understand what a LAYER means? On top of good ol' normal OS X a developer can incorporate parts of an app that can (not necessarily must) be operated by touch. The iOS is NOT going to be the only way to operate it. You can still operate all of your favorite apps with a keyboard and mouse all day long.
"I don't want fingerprints on my screen!".... Well then don't run any apps that are touch enabled. Run any and all of your keyboard/mouse apps you want to all day long.
And... Have you ever been to a bar and seen those coin operated touch screen card game thingies? I worked at a bar for many years and I've seen people play them for hours at a time. It's not as bad as everyone fears.
I would like very much to see a mix of traditional OS X and iOS touch capabilities. I see kids software selling like mad. I've been working on a custom page layout app for a classifieds type of paper. Some touch for Drag-N-Drop operations in parts of it would be a welcome addition.
Do any of you whiners understand what a LAYER means? On top of good ol' normal OS X a developer can incorporate parts of an app that can (not necessarily must) be operated by touch. The iOS is NOT going to be the only way to operate it. You can still operate all of your favorite apps with a keyboard and mouse all day long.
"I don't want fingerprints on my screen!".... Well then don't run any apps that are touch enabled. Run any and all of your keyboard/mouse apps you want to all day long.
And... Have you ever been to a bar and seen those coin operated touch screen card game thingies? I worked at a bar for many years and I've seen people play them for hours at a time. It's not as bad as everyone fears.
I would like very much to see a mix of traditional OS X and iOS touch capabilities. I see kids software selling like mad. I've been working on a custom page layout app for a classifieds type of paper. Some touch for Drag-N-Drop operations in parts of it would be a welcome addition.
mc68k
Dec 18, 04:18 PM
i may add some more over the break
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
lifeinhd
Feb 24, 06:57 PM
how do you drive a monitor like that? I tought that both HDMI and DVI has respectivetly 1920*1080 and 1920*1200 as max res. ! am I wrong?
a) I have an older-school MBP (though not the one in my sig, that never actually existed), the DVI port of which is capable of driving up to 2560x1600.
b) My monitor is 1920x1200. I really wanted 16:10, aaand... this is what was available :p My next monitor, once I get some $$$, will be a used 30" Cinema Display, but that's a couple years out.
a) I have an older-school MBP (though not the one in my sig, that never actually existed), the DVI port of which is capable of driving up to 2560x1600.
b) My monitor is 1920x1200. I really wanted 16:10, aaand... this is what was available :p My next monitor, once I get some $$$, will be a used 30" Cinema Display, but that's a couple years out.
rezenclowd3
Jan 6, 12:13 AM
I also agree with the generally expensive cost of owning a used BMW.
I searched long and hard for my E30, and with over $14k poured into it by the last 3 owners as of last year when the work was done, I picked it up at the right time. However mine was a special case due to the engine+tranny swap.
I wouldn't trust an E36 (91-99) much under $10k. The e30 is cheap to maintain as well as easy to work on, but due to age, if completely stock, be prepared to start pouring money into it to make it a dd again.
Audi, I wouldn't touch used, even though they are damn cool cars, same with Mercs.
Much is luck finding a good DD BMW as well as proper knowledge and inspections.
Good luck finding one that you are happy with. If you get a bad feeling, or feel that the seller is less than 110% honest, just run.
On a side note, the previous owner of my E30 that I posted on page 1 just called and offered to buy it back, and offered to do a trade + cash for his much newer e9033i (if I understood him correctly). I need to take the e30 out AutoXing first to decide...still, will give him first dibs once I decide to depart with this classic car. I think I would have to get rid of it for an E30 M3 though ;-)
I searched long and hard for my E30, and with over $14k poured into it by the last 3 owners as of last year when the work was done, I picked it up at the right time. However mine was a special case due to the engine+tranny swap.
I wouldn't trust an E36 (91-99) much under $10k. The e30 is cheap to maintain as well as easy to work on, but due to age, if completely stock, be prepared to start pouring money into it to make it a dd again.
Audi, I wouldn't touch used, even though they are damn cool cars, same with Mercs.
Much is luck finding a good DD BMW as well as proper knowledge and inspections.
Good luck finding one that you are happy with. If you get a bad feeling, or feel that the seller is less than 110% honest, just run.
On a side note, the previous owner of my E30 that I posted on page 1 just called and offered to buy it back, and offered to do a trade + cash for his much newer e9033i (if I understood him correctly). I need to take the e30 out AutoXing first to decide...still, will give him first dibs once I decide to depart with this classic car. I think I would have to get rid of it for an E30 M3 though ;-)
stcanard
Nov 28, 03:57 PM
Originally Posted by stcanard
Beta
MiniDisc
Memory Stick
ATRAC
PSone & PS2?
HandyCam?
I think you're missing my point, but maybe I didn't explain it well enough.
Yes, the PSone, PS2, and HandyCam are succesful items that probably make money as one of the many entries in the field. As are Sony TV's, speakers, etc.
But they fail at the one thing Sony has been repeatedly trying to do, what Microsoft always tries to do, and what Microsoft is trying to do with the XBox and the Zune -- become the one runaway standard that everybody uses and becomed synonymous with the market.
Think Walkman and iPod. Think IE (until recently, when firefox has finally started to come back) -- Beta, MiniDisk, Memory Sticks, ATRAC were all attempts to repeat this, and have failed miserably. Blu-Ray is an attempt as well, and I'm not holding my breath.
Sony is showing that they are now completely incapable of creating that single iconic product ever again, and have been for some time. The post I was responding to was comparing Microsoft to Sony's marketing, which I don't think is positive, from that point of view.
Beta
MiniDisc
Memory Stick
ATRAC
PSone & PS2?
HandyCam?
I think you're missing my point, but maybe I didn't explain it well enough.
Yes, the PSone, PS2, and HandyCam are succesful items that probably make money as one of the many entries in the field. As are Sony TV's, speakers, etc.
But they fail at the one thing Sony has been repeatedly trying to do, what Microsoft always tries to do, and what Microsoft is trying to do with the XBox and the Zune -- become the one runaway standard that everybody uses and becomed synonymous with the market.
Think Walkman and iPod. Think IE (until recently, when firefox has finally started to come back) -- Beta, MiniDisk, Memory Sticks, ATRAC were all attempts to repeat this, and have failed miserably. Blu-Ray is an attempt as well, and I'm not holding my breath.
Sony is showing that they are now completely incapable of creating that single iconic product ever again, and have been for some time. The post I was responding to was comparing Microsoft to Sony's marketing, which I don't think is positive, from that point of view.
tablo13
Sep 19, 12:28 AM
He got it from Hong Kong.
He's being sarcastic. :rolleyes:
EDIT: nvm, he bought two :p
He's being sarcastic. :rolleyes:
EDIT: nvm, he bought two :p
Tomorrow
Apr 20, 02:20 PM
^^ Ach, Miata. *shudder*
I try, as a rule, not to drive or ride in a car smaller than myself. :D
I try, as a rule, not to drive or ride in a car smaller than myself. :D
Krizoitz
Mar 21, 08:13 AM
and since Apple is missing the market so bad its sales have sunk to the lowest % in its history. there will come a point that it wont matter how much money is in their bank because no one will be buying the stuff. Look at iJon even he uses a PC for gaming. most people dont have a pc and a Mac so what do they buy? a PC.
It doesn't matter if they sell to a market where the won't be able to make money and will likely lose money. Apple isn't a commodity PC dealer like Dell, they dont' sell in quantity, they sellin quality. As for gaming, sorry gamers make up a small percentage of the market, and since most games are PC first/PC only it doesn't make sense for them to buy a Mac anyway. Is it getting better? Yes and maybe that will change someday, but that doesn't mean squat right now. I think Apple is doing a fine job. What frustrates me is no matter how good they do for some people its never enough, they seem to want Apple to sell a 9Ghz Quad proccesor G6 with a terabyte of ram and a 200 petabyte harddrive with dual 30" plasma screens for $299. Give me a break.
It doesn't matter if they sell to a market where the won't be able to make money and will likely lose money. Apple isn't a commodity PC dealer like Dell, they dont' sell in quantity, they sellin quality. As for gaming, sorry gamers make up a small percentage of the market, and since most games are PC first/PC only it doesn't make sense for them to buy a Mac anyway. Is it getting better? Yes and maybe that will change someday, but that doesn't mean squat right now. I think Apple is doing a fine job. What frustrates me is no matter how good they do for some people its never enough, they seem to want Apple to sell a 9Ghz Quad proccesor G6 with a terabyte of ram and a 200 petabyte harddrive with dual 30" plasma screens for $299. Give me a break.
p0intblank
Sep 1, 12:29 PM
A 23-inch iMac seems like it would be too large for me, unless they change the form factor. Like someone posted above, it'd be great if they fit everything into a 23-inch Cinema Display-like form. If Apple did that, I would be very interested in getting one.
kftrainer
Apr 6, 06:50 AM
safari is still being a biatch to me. it freezes and won't load anything if i go to pages like www.redmondpie.com and sometimes i can't type anywhere on safari unless i quit safari and reopen it, anyone have the same issues?
oh and adblocker isn't properly blocking ads anymore, i even get pop ups sometimes ... i thought those were extinct
Yes I have encountered this many times with many websites . Remember it is a beta. Some web masters need to get up to speed and update their websites to accept pages rendered on Safari 5
I might be wrong -correct me if I am wrong
oh and adblocker isn't properly blocking ads anymore, i even get pop ups sometimes ... i thought those were extinct
Yes I have encountered this many times with many websites . Remember it is a beta. Some web masters need to get up to speed and update their websites to accept pages rendered on Safari 5
I might be wrong -correct me if I am wrong
Megakazbek
Apr 3, 10:55 AM
Like when device can be useful with poor specs. Are you talking about those iPad 2 cameras? How useful are those with their embarrassing specs?
Well, they are video cameras and they actually take better quality videos than, for example, Xoom's better-specced cameras. So in reality, where 99% of the time people use cameras on tablet for videos rather than photos, they are actually more useful than cameras with "not embarassing specs", but with internal image processing software not using these specs to their full extent and producing poor quality video.
Well, they are video cameras and they actually take better quality videos than, for example, Xoom's better-specced cameras. So in reality, where 99% of the time people use cameras on tablet for videos rather than photos, they are actually more useful than cameras with "not embarassing specs", but with internal image processing software not using these specs to their full extent and producing poor quality video.
Kingsly
Aug 7, 12:32 AM
Kingsly: I'll keep an eye out for you before the Keynote tomorrow. EDIT: Sorry -- just saw your other thread. Have fun visiting Cupertino!
Dang. I am sooo totally completely insanely disappointed that I wont be there tomorrow...
I even went to the info booth and tried to sweet talk my way into some comp tickets to the keynote... oh well. There's always MWSF 2007.
Dang. I am sooo totally completely insanely disappointed that I wont be there tomorrow...
I even went to the info booth and tried to sweet talk my way into some comp tickets to the keynote... oh well. There's always MWSF 2007.
logicpro7
Oct 24, 06:20 AM
yes i too can confirm that the uk store is down :eek:
nylonsteel
Apr 2, 09:48 PM
nice - short and sweet commericial - wish my corporate company would use ipad2 and iphone4 - their stupid excuse for years is blackberry is more enterprise secure - yeah so so f---in boring - aapl rules over rimm
pjo
Sep 10, 10:26 AM
Except that I want to use my 24" monitor...
well... nothing stops you from connecting it to your iMac and spanning across both monitors ;)
Edit: well.. Multimedia said it first - and better.
well... nothing stops you from connecting it to your iMac and spanning across both monitors ;)
Edit: well.. Multimedia said it first - and better.
dmaxdmax
Nov 28, 01:23 PM
Erm... So you're calling a slightly reheated Toshiba Gigabeat-POS with pseudo-WiFi (sure, it may be fully enabled in the future, but with a screen with that resolution, it'd be preety much useless) a "moterately high ante"?
<snip>
And by the way, there's already a "Gates' sucessor", and I'm talking about the CEO title, not the Chairman... Come to think about it, Ballmer is already a "chair-man" of sorts... :D And we all know how smart that guy is. :rolleyes:
What I meant by moderately high ante was the dollars spent, not the product.
I don't think we'll know what MS executives will do when Gates leaves until he's gone. Even Mr. B.
Don't get me wrong - I think the Zune is crap. However it's always foolish to ignore the 800 pound gorilla, even when it's lazy and clueless. They can wake up and buy clues.
<snip>
And by the way, there's already a "Gates' sucessor", and I'm talking about the CEO title, not the Chairman... Come to think about it, Ballmer is already a "chair-man" of sorts... :D And we all know how smart that guy is. :rolleyes:
What I meant by moderately high ante was the dollars spent, not the product.
I don't think we'll know what MS executives will do when Gates leaves until he's gone. Even Mr. B.
Don't get me wrong - I think the Zune is crap. However it's always foolish to ignore the 800 pound gorilla, even when it's lazy and clueless. They can wake up and buy clues.
