jdminpdx
Apr 8, 01:31 AM
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)
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
EGT
Nov 29, 06:28 AM
I was waiting for this to happen. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. (Go Steve!)
Bloody Universal. :rolleyes:
Bloody Universal. :rolleyes:
nefan65
Apr 6, 02:29 PM
I'm not joking when I say this - I held off buying a Macbook for years purely because I didn't want to be associated with these hardcore Apple fanboys who live under Steve Job's bed. It's quite sickening.
I love Apple products, but doesn't mean you have to be blind to the alternatives. It's absolutely amazing how easily people can be brainwashed.
It's a two way street, really. I mean, what would one expect to see/read on a Mac rumor board?
I've been on the other boards, like Android and non-Apple computers and they're just as bad. Some people bash Apple because it's the cool/in thing to do. The Android fanatics are worse in some cases. Their biggest argument is "Open" and "Choice". Sounds familiar...kind of like the Linux crowd back in the day. Where are they now?
In the end, buy what you want and need. It's your money, your choice. If you don't like what someone else bought, get over it. Does it affect you? Does it somehow change how you live? I could give a flying f*&k what my neighbor buys. Whether it's a car, golf clubs, PC, phone, whatever...
Spouting off sounds like jealousy...
I love Apple products, but doesn't mean you have to be blind to the alternatives. It's absolutely amazing how easily people can be brainwashed.
It's a two way street, really. I mean, what would one expect to see/read on a Mac rumor board?
I've been on the other boards, like Android and non-Apple computers and they're just as bad. Some people bash Apple because it's the cool/in thing to do. The Android fanatics are worse in some cases. Their biggest argument is "Open" and "Choice". Sounds familiar...kind of like the Linux crowd back in the day. Where are they now?
In the end, buy what you want and need. It's your money, your choice. If you don't like what someone else bought, get over it. Does it affect you? Does it somehow change how you live? I could give a flying f*&k what my neighbor buys. Whether it's a car, golf clubs, PC, phone, whatever...
Spouting off sounds like jealousy...
Super Dave
Aug 7, 04:34 PM
True, it's a cool demo, but hopefully there's a simpler default interface.
Looks like there's a time frame on the side. I imagine you could just click there to find a certain date. What could be simpler than that?
David :cool:
Looks like there's a time frame on the side. I imagine you could just click there to find a certain date. What could be simpler than that?
David :cool:
840quadra
Apr 27, 08:28 AM
This sucks.
I have no regrets as to what I have done, or were I have been in my lifetime. I liked the ability to look back over the time I had my iPhone 4.
But honestly people, the iPhone (and most other smart phones) are;
- Wirelessly network attached
- Have a Microphone (usually mutiple)
- have a camera capable of video / still images (usually multiple)
- are GPS aware
- have motion sensors of some type
- make logs (of various types)
- have gigabytes of storage
- most sync to systems which are connected to the internet in some form
- And all running on software with known (and likely many unknown) vulnerabilities.
With some smart software installed, I am sure your phone could know more about you than your closest friends or loved ones. ;)
Personal and data security takes a bit of work and effort. it can't simply be installed, or patched in an update. If you take security seriously, software "bugs" like this shouldn't be an issue.
I have no regrets as to what I have done, or were I have been in my lifetime. I liked the ability to look back over the time I had my iPhone 4.
But honestly people, the iPhone (and most other smart phones) are;
- Wirelessly network attached
- Have a Microphone (usually mutiple)
- have a camera capable of video / still images (usually multiple)
- are GPS aware
- have motion sensors of some type
- make logs (of various types)
- have gigabytes of storage
- most sync to systems which are connected to the internet in some form
- And all running on software with known (and likely many unknown) vulnerabilities.
With some smart software installed, I am sure your phone could know more about you than your closest friends or loved ones. ;)
Personal and data security takes a bit of work and effort. it can't simply be installed, or patched in an update. If you take security seriously, software "bugs" like this shouldn't be an issue.
Xenious
Jul 14, 05:27 PM
Dual drive slots are cool, but the design is boring. Don't get me wrong I love my G5 powermac I was just hoping for a new or different design for the next ones...Maybe the same but square or smaller or something. Oh well it doesn't matter I'm still buying. :)
Feynman
Apr 5, 06:27 PM
I'm willing to bet there will be a price drop and only available on the Mac App Store.
Didn't Aperture go from 499 to 299 to 99 now currently at 79?
I see Final Cut Studio 4 dropping to 499, hoping for 299 but that's getting my hopes up high! lol
I'm also hoping a new iMac is released next week as well, to put Final Cut Studio 4 on of course!
Didn't Aperture go from 499 to 299 to 99 now currently at 79?
I see Final Cut Studio 4 dropping to 499, hoping for 299 but that's getting my hopes up high! lol
I'm also hoping a new iMac is released next week as well, to put Final Cut Studio 4 on of course!
eMagius
Aug 7, 07:36 PM
As others have said, Time Machine is likely either a direct port of Sun's ZFS, or an equivalent implementation in HFS+.
I don't think we can say exactly how things work underneath. Windows 2003 offers differential snapshots without making massive changes to NTFS, for example. It would be neat if Apple did throw its weight behind ZFS, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen with 10.5.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
I don't see how this would work for anything other than other Leopard (maybe Tiger, with a software update) Macs. Spotlight has to have the indexes pre-generated, after all.
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret?
Call me a cynic, but I'd say Apple either hasn't implemented them yet or hasn't thought of them yet.
I don't think we can say exactly how things work underneath. Windows 2003 offers differential snapshots without making massive changes to NTFS, for example. It would be neat if Apple did throw its weight behind ZFS, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen with 10.5.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
I don't see how this would work for anything other than other Leopard (maybe Tiger, with a software update) Macs. Spotlight has to have the indexes pre-generated, after all.
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret?
Call me a cynic, but I'd say Apple either hasn't implemented them yet or hasn't thought of them yet.
JeffDM
Sep 16, 03:56 PM
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I've been using dual processor Windows computers for a few years now and it works fine, I can't imagine dual core being any different. For quad core, I think THG showed that a Kentsfield showed significant performance benefits over a Conroe for many Windows programs. The media encoders showed very nearly a 2x performance difference.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I've been using dual processor Windows computers for a few years now and it works fine, I can't imagine dual core being any different. For quad core, I think THG showed that a Kentsfield showed significant performance benefits over a Conroe for many Windows programs. The media encoders showed very nearly a 2x performance difference.
infidel69
Apr 11, 11:33 AM
Big mistake if true.
ugp
Jun 19, 05:58 PM
There is no telling how much Inventory RadioShack is going to actually receive. My buddy told me my pre-order, I mean reserve was the first one to go through in the district. Our district here was able to generate 60 PINs he was told by the DM. Not I don't believe anything RadioShack says and don't expect them to receive all 60 of the phones. I just pray that his store receives at least one iPhone 4 so I can have mine.
Bosunsfate
Aug 8, 12:39 AM
:p
As I had said many times before, we were not going to see just upgraded features. Rather the show stoppers are something no one had thought of before.
You guys and Apple are really doing a sweet job....and yea take the rest of the year off.....but then again, I need Leopard shipped, so get that out first. ;)
As I had said many times before, we were not going to see just upgraded features. Rather the show stoppers are something no one had thought of before.
You guys and Apple are really doing a sweet job....and yea take the rest of the year off.....but then again, I need Leopard shipped, so get that out first. ;)
MacRumors
Apr 6, 01:20 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/motorola-xoom-tablet-sales-approximately-100000-units-so-far/)
Business Insider reports (http://www.businessinsider.com/motorola-xoom-sales-2011-4) on a research note from Deutsche Bank estimating sales of Motorola's Android-based Xoom tablet at only about 100,000 units since its late February launch, based on Android developer statistics (http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html) showing that only 0.2% of Android devices accessing the Android Market during the second half of March had the Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" operating system installed. The Xoom is currently the only device on the market running Honeycomb.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/06/141346-android_platform_breakdown_040111_500.jpg
NBA Chicago Bulls Logo
Chicago Bulls Jordan
Rate this Chicago Bulls Logo
Chicago Bulls NBA Logo Belt
chicago bulls logo.
chicago bulls logo black and
Business Insider reports (http://www.businessinsider.com/motorola-xoom-sales-2011-4) on a research note from Deutsche Bank estimating sales of Motorola's Android-based Xoom tablet at only about 100,000 units since its late February launch, based on Android developer statistics (http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html) showing that only 0.2% of Android devices accessing the Android Market during the second half of March had the Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" operating system installed. The Xoom is currently the only device on the market running Honeycomb.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/06/141346-android_platform_breakdown_040111_500.jpg
twoodcc
Aug 13, 10:36 PM
You originally said...
...which as I've said, a few times now, is incorrect. If you only count 4 games, as you originally said in that quote, that only totals 46M. And besides, if you check that link I originally provided, which is FROM POLYPHONY THEMSELVES, you would see that the total worldwide is only 56M. At least if you're going to quote the number in the wrong context, use the right number.
well i did have demos just before that quote. but yes, what i meant to say, and what i actually typed, was two different things. but i think you can see what i was trying to say, and is clear: NFS has sold more, but has more games out there.
Yay, let's play the "Twist The Numbers To Fit Our Needs" game....
100M / 15 years = 6.66M per year (Need for Speed)
56M / 13 years = 4.31M per year (Gran Turismo)
So yea, Need for Speed sells 50% more per year. YAY, math is fun!!!
math is fun, and yes, per year, NFS has sold more. but they released more games to do it. and on more consoles, to break it down even further
It is. I don't like the direction Polyphony has taken the game. A game that used to be my favorite game. It disappoints me. Thus my frustration. I bought my PS3 with the hopes
did you buy GT5: prologue?
for someone who at one point really liked the games/series, i don't see why you wouldn't give this game a shot, at least after reading reviews first. i find it very frustrating to see people make judgements before the game is even out
Can I buy one and drive it to work? No? Then it isn't real, intentions or not.
no matter what anyone says, it is a fact that they intended to build a car specifically for Gran Turismo. that in itself is very impressive to me.
Then according to you, Wii Play is the "greatest" video game of all time. Just reading that sentence should show you exactly why sales have very little to do with the quality of a game.
i never said that the most sold game is the greatest. but i do think sales is one aspect to consider.
I keep saying this, but it seems people don't really understand it. Sales, which deal with numbers, are an objective measure of something. Greatness, which deals with personal preferences, is a subjective measure. You can think GT, or the iPhone, or Star Wars, or whatever, is great. That is fine, and a personal opinion. But, the sales of those things can't be "great". They can be large, and they are, but they can't be great.
i understand this, but i don't think you understand what i am trying to point out. you are correct in that what makes something great is personal preference, and when many people have that same personal preference, it turns into many sales.
let's try this analogy. take tennis for example. who is a "greater" player - Roger Federer or Andy Roddick? Roddick has played some great games, and has a great serve, but Federer has many more championships. almost everyone would say Federer is greater (if there is such a term).
think of championships as sales in this case. i know it's not the best analogy, but the first thing i could think of.
And really, if someone uses the sales of something to qualify the greatness of it to themselves, that is kind of sad. Quite a few of my favorite things, which I consider great, didn't sell very well. That doesn't make them any less great to me.
you do make a very good point here, but again, i think you are taking my point out of context.
my whole point in all of this, is not that i think GT is the greatest series of all time or whatever, or that they have sold the most, blah blah. all i'm trying to say is that they have a very respectable racing series, one of the best, and i think this next game will continue their success. and i pointed out that past sales show that they have had much success. that's all i'm really saying here
But anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I'm not even going to be buying this game. I'm done with this thread now. I'll just tip my hat, and bid you adieu.
it seems we are arguing just to argue. i hope you at least read some reviews once the game is out before making a choice like that. and i also hope that this thread hasn't led you to that decision
It's refreshing that I don't have to go to gamespot forums to see a pointless immature fanboy pissing match :rolleyes:
sorry for the inconvenience. you don't have to read this you know.
...which as I've said, a few times now, is incorrect. If you only count 4 games, as you originally said in that quote, that only totals 46M. And besides, if you check that link I originally provided, which is FROM POLYPHONY THEMSELVES, you would see that the total worldwide is only 56M. At least if you're going to quote the number in the wrong context, use the right number.
well i did have demos just before that quote. but yes, what i meant to say, and what i actually typed, was two different things. but i think you can see what i was trying to say, and is clear: NFS has sold more, but has more games out there.
Yay, let's play the "Twist The Numbers To Fit Our Needs" game....
100M / 15 years = 6.66M per year (Need for Speed)
56M / 13 years = 4.31M per year (Gran Turismo)
So yea, Need for Speed sells 50% more per year. YAY, math is fun!!!
math is fun, and yes, per year, NFS has sold more. but they released more games to do it. and on more consoles, to break it down even further
It is. I don't like the direction Polyphony has taken the game. A game that used to be my favorite game. It disappoints me. Thus my frustration. I bought my PS3 with the hopes
did you buy GT5: prologue?
for someone who at one point really liked the games/series, i don't see why you wouldn't give this game a shot, at least after reading reviews first. i find it very frustrating to see people make judgements before the game is even out
Can I buy one and drive it to work? No? Then it isn't real, intentions or not.
no matter what anyone says, it is a fact that they intended to build a car specifically for Gran Turismo. that in itself is very impressive to me.
Then according to you, Wii Play is the "greatest" video game of all time. Just reading that sentence should show you exactly why sales have very little to do with the quality of a game.
i never said that the most sold game is the greatest. but i do think sales is one aspect to consider.
I keep saying this, but it seems people don't really understand it. Sales, which deal with numbers, are an objective measure of something. Greatness, which deals with personal preferences, is a subjective measure. You can think GT, or the iPhone, or Star Wars, or whatever, is great. That is fine, and a personal opinion. But, the sales of those things can't be "great". They can be large, and they are, but they can't be great.
i understand this, but i don't think you understand what i am trying to point out. you are correct in that what makes something great is personal preference, and when many people have that same personal preference, it turns into many sales.
let's try this analogy. take tennis for example. who is a "greater" player - Roger Federer or Andy Roddick? Roddick has played some great games, and has a great serve, but Federer has many more championships. almost everyone would say Federer is greater (if there is such a term).
think of championships as sales in this case. i know it's not the best analogy, but the first thing i could think of.
And really, if someone uses the sales of something to qualify the greatness of it to themselves, that is kind of sad. Quite a few of my favorite things, which I consider great, didn't sell very well. That doesn't make them any less great to me.
you do make a very good point here, but again, i think you are taking my point out of context.
my whole point in all of this, is not that i think GT is the greatest series of all time or whatever, or that they have sold the most, blah blah. all i'm trying to say is that they have a very respectable racing series, one of the best, and i think this next game will continue their success. and i pointed out that past sales show that they have had much success. that's all i'm really saying here
But anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I'm not even going to be buying this game. I'm done with this thread now. I'll just tip my hat, and bid you adieu.
it seems we are arguing just to argue. i hope you at least read some reviews once the game is out before making a choice like that. and i also hope that this thread hasn't led you to that decision
It's refreshing that I don't have to go to gamespot forums to see a pointless immature fanboy pissing match :rolleyes:
sorry for the inconvenience. you don't have to read this you know.
shawnce
Nov 28, 07:05 PM
I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth? Huh?
Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).
Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.
As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.
Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).
Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.
As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.
phairphan
Aug 26, 04:19 PM
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.
padr�
Sep 19, 12:39 PM
thx for your reply,
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
gregarious119
Jul 14, 02:34 PM
To charge $1800 for a system that only has 512MB is a real disappoitment. 1GB RAM oughta be standard, especially with Leopard being on the horizon.
Unless the Xeon is that expensive (which I can't see how it would be), I don't see that as anything except creating some seperation between the configurations.
Unless the Xeon is that expensive (which I can't see how it would be), I don't see that as anything except creating some seperation between the configurations.
icloud
Aug 7, 09:34 PM
This preview of Leopard seemed really like a glaze over of some "fun" little advancements, it did not look polished at all...to all those dissapointed in what leopard has to offer, not to be punny, but steve has barely let the cat out of the bag
tonne more to come
tonne more to come
rufwork
Apr 8, 12:05 AM
Screwing around is how they lost Macs in the first place. They wanted to only sell certain iMac Colors and Apple said you can sell what we send or not at all, that's why Apple left them in the first place years ago. Then they cam back with the "store in a store" concept.
I think the deal was that they had to sell the same number of each color, so if they got a shipment of 10 of each and had 5 limeys left over, they couldn't order 10 more of, say, blue until limey was gone.
Right? (And I owned a lime iMac, so quit your whinin'! :D)
I think the deal was that they had to sell the same number of each color, so if they got a shipment of 10 of each and had 5 limeys left over, they couldn't order 10 more of, say, blue until limey was gone.
Right? (And I owned a lime iMac, so quit your whinin'! :D)
twoodcc
Aug 11, 10:10 AM
bring it on!! my razr isn't that impressive. in fact, not any phone i've ever had was. maybe apple can change this
edenwaith
Jul 14, 04:34 PM
ONLY DDR2-667?!? :confused:
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
No, they better equip every new Mac with 10 Terabytes of DDR9-5000 RAM! And they will also include a Raid 5 configuration at 20 Exabytes! And the entire machine will be smaller than your fingernail.
But it will then come equipped with a 16Mhz Motorola 680x0 chip.
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
No, they better equip every new Mac with 10 Terabytes of DDR9-5000 RAM! And they will also include a Raid 5 configuration at 20 Exabytes! And the entire machine will be smaller than your fingernail.
But it will then come equipped with a 16Mhz Motorola 680x0 chip.
ChrisA
Sep 13, 10:14 AM
Very cool. Now to find apps (os10.5 direct blind support?) that can make use of all those cores. :cool:
One app would be iTunes. I noticed iTunes was running 14 threads last night. Any time you have a multithreaded application or are running multiple single thread aplications more cores can help.
Some server applications (the Apache web server and many DBMS systems) use a "process per client" model where a new process (another instance) of the server is created for each client connection. A bussy web server might have 100 copies of apache all running at once. 8 cores would help there.
One app would be iTunes. I noticed iTunes was running 14 threads last night. Any time you have a multithreaded application or are running multiple single thread aplications more cores can help.
Some server applications (the Apache web server and many DBMS systems) use a "process per client" model where a new process (another instance) of the server is created for each client connection. A bussy web server might have 100 copies of apache all running at once. 8 cores would help there.
samh004
Nov 28, 07:14 PM
I was under the assumption that the money paid to Universal was to allow the streaming of music from one device to another. I assumed that was the real reason behind the payment.
Seeing as Apple does not stream music to random devices, they shouldn't have to pay a royalty.
I don't think I voiced my opinion about this last time it was brought up, but I reckon although the iPod makes enough profit so as not to pass that royalty onto the consumer (in price), I would still feel like I was paying that royalty, were I to buy an iPod.
If I felt like I paid a royalty, and was already downloading songs legally from iTunes anyway, I'd want to download more stuff illegally than I have before, just to make use of that royalty.
That's what I will do if I have to buy an iPod in the future with a pre-paid royalty. You heard me... this tactic will only encourage more piracy. Stupid really !
Seeing as Apple does not stream music to random devices, they shouldn't have to pay a royalty.
I don't think I voiced my opinion about this last time it was brought up, but I reckon although the iPod makes enough profit so as not to pass that royalty onto the consumer (in price), I would still feel like I was paying that royalty, were I to buy an iPod.
If I felt like I paid a royalty, and was already downloading songs legally from iTunes anyway, I'd want to download more stuff illegally than I have before, just to make use of that royalty.
That's what I will do if I have to buy an iPod in the future with a pre-paid royalty. You heard me... this tactic will only encourage more piracy. Stupid really !
No comments:
Post a Comment