iphones4evry1
Oct 9, 09:45 PM
Competition is a good thing. I'm on my third Twitter App right now, and this looks promising. I'm going to get this one and hopefully it will be better than the App I have right now. And hopefully competition will keep making the Apps better and better. :)
medea
Jul 8, 04:27 PM
for some reason I can't figure out how to have all documents of a certain type use the same icon, like all keynote files generated will use (insert icon.)
can someone help me out, or maybe there isn't a way to do this?
thanks in advance.
medea.
can someone help me out, or maybe there isn't a way to do this?
thanks in advance.
medea.
Garbag3man117
Feb 9, 02:32 PM
Does anyone know where the wifi bars next to "iPod" in the top corner are? I need the PNG files for editing. I've looked in the various places and cant seem to find them. Also, this is in 4.2.1. Thanks!
Bjohnson33
May 16, 04:05 PM
I'm living in Ireland - I might be able to help you out. PM me if you're interested.
Brian
Brian
more...
AMSNYC
Jun 19, 03:44 PM
When?
Walkin?
Reserved?
Walkin?
Reserved?
rdowns
Dec 24, 08:25 AM
Red Ryder BB Gun.
more...
JLS
Sep 6, 06:01 PM
Watched one episode, thought it was rubbish.
CaoCao
Apr 27, 02:06 AM
The lesbians.
And what makes Lesbians likable? In my town they are busy ranting about how men are evil and stupid.
And what makes Lesbians likable? In my town they are busy ranting about how men are evil and stupid.
more...
dosers
Jul 26, 09:21 PM
Actually,
there is a shipping Blu-Ray Drive from Sony right now (in reality, it's in the Vaio, the retail version, while out in SKU, ships the 1st week of August), which has a standard 5.25 form-factor and is below $1000.
Apple COULD make use of that if Sony ships in quantity, and to other manufacturers early on...
Uh, genius, Apple doesn't make Blu-ray. Apple has to wait for Sony & Co to release Blu-ray drives, which we all knew would be in late 2006.
there is a shipping Blu-Ray Drive from Sony right now (in reality, it's in the Vaio, the retail version, while out in SKU, ships the 1st week of August), which has a standard 5.25 form-factor and is below $1000.
Apple COULD make use of that if Sony ships in quantity, and to other manufacturers early on...
Uh, genius, Apple doesn't make Blu-ray. Apple has to wait for Sony & Co to release Blu-ray drives, which we all knew would be in late 2006.
yetanotherdave
Jul 11, 04:36 AM
Well, that was a complete shambles, was anyone else here there? I was the guy 10th in line who left empty handed, they sold out of 16gb's.
more...
Daveway
Feb 13, 12:21 AM
I've seen some other forums, but this forum definatly is the best in terms of mod friendly-ness, etc. And their quite efficient here, too. Plus our mods have cooler sounding usernames...
This is so true. Of all forums I've joined, MacRumors is the best. There is a friendliness to it and a feeling of family and friends. My friends always ask me how on Earth could I love a forum so much.
I just want to thank Arn, Doctor Q, and all the other mods for making MacRumors one of the best forums on the web.
Toast to the Macintosh, good friends, and the future of MacRumors!
This is so true. Of all forums I've joined, MacRumors is the best. There is a friendliness to it and a feeling of family and friends. My friends always ask me how on Earth could I love a forum so much.
I just want to thank Arn, Doctor Q, and all the other mods for making MacRumors one of the best forums on the web.
Toast to the Macintosh, good friends, and the future of MacRumors!
Mac-key
May 4, 11:07 PM
nevermind.
got it figured out:)
got it figured out:)
more...
maflynn
Apr 28, 08:49 AM
The real measurement of how well the CDMA phone will do is when apple releases the iPhone 5. That way people can measure the performance when both carriers are starting off at the same time.
res1233
Apr 4, 10:55 PM
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
I like you.
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
I like you.
more...
pmz
Apr 25, 10:14 AM
Releasing this now is the dumbest thing Apple has ever done.
stevehaslip
Aug 21, 03:20 AM
"Heres another one I made earlier!"
more...
MST
Apr 18, 03:38 PM
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/2316/mrdesktopapril11.png
swinneyn
Oct 17, 08:12 PM
http://att.macrumors.com/contest/AC11B9.png
mrgreen4242
Nov 29, 03:10 PM
Your argument is kind of self-annihilating:
You say competition is tough... implying that there are a multitude of capable actors. i.e. Supply is high. This, in turn, would imply that capable actors are (or should be) a dime a dozen. However, Hollywood acts as though the A-List is all there is... which, if doing so, constricts supply to a significantly smaller population, therefore creating an artificially high demand for which they, subsequently, have to pay through the nose for... which WE now have to pay through the nose for. And for what? For a non-sensical, elitist, Movie Star ecosystem (an industry which alone brings in millions, if not billions).
If there are as many struggling good actors as you say there are (and I hope there are), I for one would LOVE to see them. I'm sick of the same 8 actors... Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Steve Carell, Johnny Depp... At least one of these seem to be in 90% of films these days. Some fresh blood would be nice... and easier on the checkbook.
-Clive
Juat to play devils advocate, nearly all the names on your list are relative newcomers to the "A-List". Excepting Pitt, Roberts, and MAYBE Depp, none of those people were big in the '90's. They did mostly smaller budget, less successful films. Up till the mid-90's Pitt was in only handful of OK movies, and really didn't get HUGE 'till after Fight Club or Interview with a Vampire.
What has Julie Roberts been in lately? Not seen her around in a year or two, in anything big at least. Depp was doing TV through the middle of the last decade, and only got MEGA famous in the late 90's.
Sure, those people are big ATM, but they weren't 10 years ago and they won't be in 10 years either. Yes, Hollywood relies to heavily on a big name to sell a crappy product, but they DO rotate those big names somewhat frequently.
Also, while paying someone, say, $20million for a movie is pretty nuts, there's a few things to consider. One, some movies NEED to give you a reason to go see it; doesn't mean they're BAD movies but more that they are a hard sell. Two, that's a fairly small portion of the budget. Let's say we can make a movie for $100m and we pay Tom Cruise $25m to be in it. We could pay some smaller, but equally talented unkown actor a mere $1m to do the same job.
So $100m cost vs. $81m cost. $81m is still a LOT of money to invest in something (and lets face it, movies are simply an investment). Spending a "little" more on Cruise isn't a bad insurance policy for your investment, especially if you (a studio) are doing 10 major movies this year, representing a billion dollars all together.
So, while I'm not trying to defend the studios business methods or choices, I can certainly see why they make them.
You say competition is tough... implying that there are a multitude of capable actors. i.e. Supply is high. This, in turn, would imply that capable actors are (or should be) a dime a dozen. However, Hollywood acts as though the A-List is all there is... which, if doing so, constricts supply to a significantly smaller population, therefore creating an artificially high demand for which they, subsequently, have to pay through the nose for... which WE now have to pay through the nose for. And for what? For a non-sensical, elitist, Movie Star ecosystem (an industry which alone brings in millions, if not billions).
If there are as many struggling good actors as you say there are (and I hope there are), I for one would LOVE to see them. I'm sick of the same 8 actors... Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Steve Carell, Johnny Depp... At least one of these seem to be in 90% of films these days. Some fresh blood would be nice... and easier on the checkbook.
-Clive
Juat to play devils advocate, nearly all the names on your list are relative newcomers to the "A-List". Excepting Pitt, Roberts, and MAYBE Depp, none of those people were big in the '90's. They did mostly smaller budget, less successful films. Up till the mid-90's Pitt was in only handful of OK movies, and really didn't get HUGE 'till after Fight Club or Interview with a Vampire.
What has Julie Roberts been in lately? Not seen her around in a year or two, in anything big at least. Depp was doing TV through the middle of the last decade, and only got MEGA famous in the late 90's.
Sure, those people are big ATM, but they weren't 10 years ago and they won't be in 10 years either. Yes, Hollywood relies to heavily on a big name to sell a crappy product, but they DO rotate those big names somewhat frequently.
Also, while paying someone, say, $20million for a movie is pretty nuts, there's a few things to consider. One, some movies NEED to give you a reason to go see it; doesn't mean they're BAD movies but more that they are a hard sell. Two, that's a fairly small portion of the budget. Let's say we can make a movie for $100m and we pay Tom Cruise $25m to be in it. We could pay some smaller, but equally talented unkown actor a mere $1m to do the same job.
So $100m cost vs. $81m cost. $81m is still a LOT of money to invest in something (and lets face it, movies are simply an investment). Spending a "little" more on Cruise isn't a bad insurance policy for your investment, especially if you (a studio) are doing 10 major movies this year, representing a billion dollars all together.
So, while I'm not trying to defend the studios business methods or choices, I can certainly see why they make them.
Chip NoVaMac
Feb 13, 04:37 AM
Don't worry, he's promised to be a good boy. And he knows that he has to keep it clean.
D
Actually I have seen a kinder and gentler edesign since the mini-mod topic was brought up.
Congrats and best wishes to all!
D
Actually I have seen a kinder and gentler edesign since the mini-mod topic was brought up.
Congrats and best wishes to all!
superspud
Apr 14, 12:14 PM
My dream car is a 350z in which I would modify, painted all black:
No one ones the amount of d*** I would suck, or people I would kill, to get behind the wheel of an GT-R35....
If only... If only...
Valet happens to be one of the few departments I oversee at the resort I work at... ive driven a few that have come through here and must say, certainly one of the top 3 cars ive ever driven.
the others in the list of top cars, are easily 3-4 times the price of the GTR
No one ones the amount of d*** I would suck, or people I would kill, to get behind the wheel of an GT-R35....
If only... If only...
Valet happens to be one of the few departments I oversee at the resort I work at... ive driven a few that have come through here and must say, certainly one of the top 3 cars ive ever driven.
the others in the list of top cars, are easily 3-4 times the price of the GTR
ghost187
Apr 13, 09:44 AM
Just because someone hasn't left iPhone 5 in a bar this year doesn't mean we are not going to see iPhone 5 in June like we have seen every single iPhone before it (ok iPhone 3G slipped into July, but big deal). Apple is predictable people. I guarantee that we will see an iPhone 5 in June. And ofcourse Apple hasn't given a roadmap out, because they are keeping it hush hush this year.
ghostface147
Apr 13, 09:39 AM
There honestly is no need to update the iPhone line EVERY year at this point. iPhone 4 was the biggest jump and I don't see a reason to jump again so soon, especially after Verizon customers JUST recived access to the phone. I can understand updating the models to include 4G, but at this point 4G IMHO is not needed. It's not a mature enough standard to expect iPhone owners to have smooth service with Verizon and AT&Ts 4G networks. I see them both being great next year, but it'd be a forced move on Apples part.
I disagree in some ways. Physically there may not need to be a strong reason to upgrade, but with competitors moving so quickly, Apple has to release new hardware. Whether it be NFC, LTE or dual-core, something has to be done to refresh and have something new in buyers minds.
Granted at this point I think the i4 is speedy enough as it is and it's mostly software now. Things like notifications and other related annoyances.
I disagree in some ways. Physically there may not need to be a strong reason to upgrade, but with competitors moving so quickly, Apple has to release new hardware. Whether it be NFC, LTE or dual-core, something has to be done to refresh and have something new in buyers minds.
Granted at this point I think the i4 is speedy enough as it is and it's mostly software now. Things like notifications and other related annoyances.
steeler
Jun 18, 02:07 PM
Sold.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق