Unspeaked
Nov 29, 11:01 AM
To those saying they'll boycott, I'd just like to point out...
...Universal is by far the largest record label in the world, and those of you that say you don't listen to anyone of their artists might need to dig deeper into their subsidiaries, as just a few of the musicians in their stable are:
The Carpenters
Jimi Hendrix
Nikelback
Carole King
Andrea Bocell
Four Tops
Lionel Richie
Cat Stevens
The Jackson 5
The Andrews Sisters
Sexy Adult Princess Leia Slave
PRINCESS LEIA SLAVE COSTUME UK
princess leia slave costume
Princess Leia Slave Costume
slave princess leia costume.
Star Wars Princess Leia Slave
authentic princess leia slave
slave princess leia costume.
Christy Marie Princess Leia
princess leia slave photos.
Star Wars - Princess Leia
It#39;s the Princess Leia Slave
princess leia slave costume uk
Princess Leia slave costume
in her Leia slave costume
SlaveLeiaAgain.jpg
princess leia slave costume.
Princess Leia Costume Slave
...Universal is by far the largest record label in the world, and those of you that say you don't listen to anyone of their artists might need to dig deeper into their subsidiaries, as just a few of the musicians in their stable are:
The Carpenters
Jimi Hendrix
Nikelback
Carole King
Andrea Bocell
Four Tops
Lionel Richie
Cat Stevens
The Jackson 5
The Andrews Sisters
ChickenSwartz
Aug 27, 08:24 AM
Not true.
Recent years, updates came right before the end of the promotion.
There is a strategic reason for this. Since there have been some issues with new Macs, this promotion will motivate some buyers not to wait. In the retail world waiting means there is a bigger chance the buyer will go else where (like to Dell or something). I am sure if you look at the profit on a Nano vs. a Mac you will see that if this promotion sells 1 Mac that wouldn't be sold without the promotion makes up for 5 or so Nanos that went with Macs that would have been sold anyway. This promotion is not cutting into Apple's profits; they are making more money off this.
Recent years, updates came right before the end of the promotion.
There is a strategic reason for this. Since there have been some issues with new Macs, this promotion will motivate some buyers not to wait. In the retail world waiting means there is a bigger chance the buyer will go else where (like to Dell or something). I am sure if you look at the profit on a Nano vs. a Mac you will see that if this promotion sells 1 Mac that wouldn't be sold without the promotion makes up for 5 or so Nanos that went with Macs that would have been sold anyway. This promotion is not cutting into Apple's profits; they are making more money off this.
ergle2
Sep 19, 09:56 PM
This intel crap updates far too frequently...ugh
:mad:
Speaking personally, I don't see a problem with it.
They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.
:mad:
Speaking personally, I don't see a problem with it.
They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 11:47 AM
The US GSM carriers suck. T-Mobile has great customer service, but their coverage stinks. Cingular has great coverage, but they have BY FAR the worst customer service.
Plus EVDO beats the pants off of EDGE. And Verizon + Sprint + Amp'd + US Cellular + a bunch of other, smaller CDMA carriers account for over 60million potential customers in the US. If they only do a GSM version of the phone, it'll be a big mistake.
isn't it about time you guys got in line with the rest of the world? GSM has more than 81% (http://www.gsacom.com/news/gsa_203.php4?PHPSESSID=7aa4036fa6a16fe0066d2e6dc9430727) of the world market. If you get a cdma phone you are more or less restriced to use it in US, whereas a GSM phone can be used more or less all over the planet.
Plus EVDO beats the pants off of EDGE. And Verizon + Sprint + Amp'd + US Cellular + a bunch of other, smaller CDMA carriers account for over 60million potential customers in the US. If they only do a GSM version of the phone, it'll be a big mistake.
isn't it about time you guys got in line with the rest of the world? GSM has more than 81% (http://www.gsacom.com/news/gsa_203.php4?PHPSESSID=7aa4036fa6a16fe0066d2e6dc9430727) of the world market. If you get a cdma phone you are more or less restriced to use it in US, whereas a GSM phone can be used more or less all over the planet.
Popeye206
Apr 25, 02:10 PM
I think this IS a privacy issue. That data could end up in the wrong hands. Does anyone store a text document on their iPhone with a list of their bank details and passwords? No, because it could end up in the wrong hands. So could this data that's being collected.
This data shouldn't be recorded without permission, no matter what's being done with it.
Dude... what the heck are the "wrong hands" going to do with it? Visit the same 7-11 you go to and buy a Slurpie?
This data shouldn't be recorded without permission, no matter what's being done with it.
Dude... what the heck are the "wrong hands" going to do with it? Visit the same 7-11 you go to and buy a Slurpie?
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:52 AM
I'm old-fashined I guess because I have no interest in having a smartphone in the first place. I just have a standard flip-phone. By owning a smartphone, you are always going to be faced with privacy issues because if you are using facebook/twitter and whatever else you are using to broadcasting your information. If you don't want advertisers to use your information, stop using social networking sites and search engines and stop being connected.
I also use a flip phone. It's cheaper, less likely to be stolen, better for calling, and inspired by Star Trek's tricorder :)
But I have an iPod Touch which I nearly lost...
I also use a flip phone. It's cheaper, less likely to be stolen, better for calling, and inspired by Star Trek's tricorder :)
But I have an iPod Touch which I nearly lost...
kdarling
Apr 19, 07:05 PM
That is not the case. The user can know they are buying a product that is a rip off of another and it is still wrong.
A primary test is if a casual buyer would mistakenly believe both products came from the same source. If they know it's a copy, no problem.
After reading some of the lawsuit, I had to post this...
Showing a bookshelf picture is nothing new. Heck, there was a bookshelf homescreen theme for old Windows Mobile phones.
For that matter, people say that Apple ripped off their bookshelf from Delicious Library. Which itself took it from who knows where.
A primary test is if a casual buyer would mistakenly believe both products came from the same source. If they know it's a copy, no problem.
After reading some of the lawsuit, I had to post this...
Showing a bookshelf picture is nothing new. Heck, there was a bookshelf homescreen theme for old Windows Mobile phones.
For that matter, people say that Apple ripped off their bookshelf from Delicious Library. Which itself took it from who knows where.
Evangelion
Aug 17, 03:58 AM
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
jaxstate
Jul 15, 07:59 AM
A real mess? That's one fine looking machine. IMO
well, that looks a real mess.. but I suppose it's a good idea since heated air tends to rise.. :-)
well, that looks a real mess.. but I suppose it's a good idea since heated air tends to rise.. :-)
DocNo
Apr 11, 09:55 AM
FCUG could have said no to Apple, but why would they? It's not a Canon Group, it's a FCU Group...
Thank you!
Thank you!
Consultant
Apr 11, 11:36 AM
We'll see in a few months.
Apple has never been one to react to competition in the recent years. They seem to do what they think is best and let others follow them.
I think they know that if they bring out the best one when it is released, they will sell as many as they can make for a long time.
Agree.
Apple has never been one to react to competition in the recent years. They seem to do what they think is best and let others follow them.
I think they know that if they bring out the best one when it is released, they will sell as many as they can make for a long time.
Agree.
Doctor Q
Jul 14, 03:07 PM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.Why? What are the advantages/disadvantages to having it higher or lower in the case? Does the weight distribution matter?
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 08:38 AM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
The riduculous speculation is certainly getting out of control! A quad core iMac... I don't think so! Not for a long while. 8 Cores (ie dual-quads) will only become available in the top-end of the MacPro (assuming the MacPro does indeed go with the Xeon CPU), and the top-end XServes.
If you want wild speculation, here goes....
Apple might use the Conroe and ConroeXE in the first Mac Pros and then add in support for Kentsfield (quad) when it becomes available. This could well be the reason why Intel has brought forward the release of Kentsfield.
Back to reality: Apple wil use Xeon 51xx (5150 and 5160) in the MacPro, and Core 2 Duo (Merom) in the iMac and MBP to be announced at the WWDC. The top iMac config will get a boost to 2.33GHz. In addition, Apple will use the price-drops for the Yonah to upgrade the Core Solo mini to Core Duo.
Any further speculation is just farcical! :eek:
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
The riduculous speculation is certainly getting out of control! A quad core iMac... I don't think so! Not for a long while. 8 Cores (ie dual-quads) will only become available in the top-end of the MacPro (assuming the MacPro does indeed go with the Xeon CPU), and the top-end XServes.
If you want wild speculation, here goes....
Apple might use the Conroe and ConroeXE in the first Mac Pros and then add in support for Kentsfield (quad) when it becomes available. This could well be the reason why Intel has brought forward the release of Kentsfield.
Back to reality: Apple wil use Xeon 51xx (5150 and 5160) in the MacPro, and Core 2 Duo (Merom) in the iMac and MBP to be announced at the WWDC. The top iMac config will get a boost to 2.33GHz. In addition, Apple will use the price-drops for the Yonah to upgrade the Core Solo mini to Core Duo.
Any further speculation is just farcical! :eek:
gugy
Aug 11, 02:22 PM
All carriers suck in one way or another. If you are unhappy with one you just switch to another. There is a constant migration from carrier to carrier because of this...
The carriers dont give a crap if you leave them because there is always a group of unhappy consumers who hate the competitor and are ready to move to their service.
This is why it takes forever to cancell a cellular account, they will try as hard as possible to not let you or talk you out of it. Its their only ammunition. My wife and I spent 2 hours on the phone with Sprint last week trying to cancel our extra phone we usually give our nanny. They were giving the most rediculous excuses as to why we shoud keep it when we no longer had any use for it. They wouldnt take no for an answer. It wasnt until we threatend to cancel all three of our accounts that they "graciously" cancelled the account.
This is also why there are such high cancelation fees. apparently people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to get away from any of the providers...
Bottom line; it doesnt matter what provider it would be, youll be screwed anyway.
It's true. I had Cingular and I hated it. Now I have Verizon, it's sucks but better than Cingular for my circumstances.
Hopefully, Apple will have a solution that will help us say goodbye to all those lame carriers.
The carriers dont give a crap if you leave them because there is always a group of unhappy consumers who hate the competitor and are ready to move to their service.
This is why it takes forever to cancell a cellular account, they will try as hard as possible to not let you or talk you out of it. Its their only ammunition. My wife and I spent 2 hours on the phone with Sprint last week trying to cancel our extra phone we usually give our nanny. They were giving the most rediculous excuses as to why we shoud keep it when we no longer had any use for it. They wouldnt take no for an answer. It wasnt until we threatend to cancel all three of our accounts that they "graciously" cancelled the account.
This is also why there are such high cancelation fees. apparently people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to get away from any of the providers...
Bottom line; it doesnt matter what provider it would be, youll be screwed anyway.
It's true. I had Cingular and I hated it. Now I have Verizon, it's sucks but better than Cingular for my circumstances.
Hopefully, Apple will have a solution that will help us say goodbye to all those lame carriers.
ChazUK
Apr 20, 11:18 AM
The Galaxy S phone with the closest and most striking resemblance to the iPhone is easily the international i9000 version.
Warbrain
Apr 11, 11:53 AM
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition...
And you'll be complaining about battery life and the Android experience in a few days.
And you'll be complaining about battery life and the Android experience in a few days.
BC2009
Apr 7, 11:50 PM
As an example; lets say the local BB store got a 100 iPad 2 64GB 3G's in this morning. That is about $830K in sales. And lets say they average sales without the iPad 2 for the same day LY was $500K. Next year that manager would be looking at needing a $1.3M+ to make his goal.
Good example, bad math. 100 iPad 2 64GB 3G = $830 x 100 = $83,000, not $830K. If Best Buy stores were pulling in $1M+ per day or even $500k+ per day then their stock would go through the roof.
I concur with you on the whole bean counter thing. I work for a large company and its amazing to me how much money bean counters waste in their attempts to save a few pennies. We once spent over $10,000 in time (when computing hourly wage by salary) to purchase a $100 piece of software because the bean counters tried to make us jump through hoops to prove we really really could not do without it. It was sad.
Good example, bad math. 100 iPad 2 64GB 3G = $830 x 100 = $83,000, not $830K. If Best Buy stores were pulling in $1M+ per day or even $500k+ per day then their stock would go through the roof.
I concur with you on the whole bean counter thing. I work for a large company and its amazing to me how much money bean counters waste in their attempts to save a few pennies. We once spent over $10,000 in time (when computing hourly wage by salary) to purchase a $100 piece of software because the bean counters tried to make us jump through hoops to prove we really really could not do without it. It was sad.
Brandon4692
Jun 22, 12:43 AM
I would sell the 3GS privately. You're almost guaranteed to get more for it. Post it somewhere tonight and I'll bet you that you get more for it than what Radio Shack will offer you.
Radio Shack's trade-in program is a decent option, but one could do much better with a little leg work.
Yeah I thought about that... But I'd rather not go through the hassle of craigs list and eBay... Just to many unknown factors. Who they are shipping meeting up with strangers scams I just feel safer trading it into the store but hey if you can get more for you phone all the power to you! I'm just a wimp about it lol
Radio Shack's trade-in program is a decent option, but one could do much better with a little leg work.
Yeah I thought about that... But I'd rather not go through the hassle of craigs list and eBay... Just to many unknown factors. Who they are shipping meeting up with strangers scams I just feel safer trading it into the store but hey if you can get more for you phone all the power to you! I'm just a wimp about it lol
Dalton63841
Apr 8, 04:18 AM
As best as I can figure, it works like this. Managers get good grades if they sell certain amounts of products.
I'll use low numbers here. Let's say BB corporate wants you to sell at least 5 iPads a day to make your "Quota". One day, 10 iPads come in. You sell all ten, yay, you made quota for the day.
But the next day, none get shipped to the store. So, boo, you didn't make quota, since you didn't have any to sell.
So, if you get 10 the day after that, & not knowing if more are coming tomorrow, you sell 5, make quota, and hold the other 5 for the next day when, low and behold, none get shipped to the store. You still have 5 left over to sell, which you do, and again you make quota for the day.
Basically the more days you make quota, the happier BB corporate is, and the better chance Mr. Manager gets a bonus down the road.
Mr. Manager (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4DMPmoJkJQ)
This guy has a firm understanding of how retail chains work. This is EXACTLY the case and how MOST major chains operate.
I'll use low numbers here. Let's say BB corporate wants you to sell at least 5 iPads a day to make your "Quota". One day, 10 iPads come in. You sell all ten, yay, you made quota for the day.
But the next day, none get shipped to the store. So, boo, you didn't make quota, since you didn't have any to sell.
So, if you get 10 the day after that, & not knowing if more are coming tomorrow, you sell 5, make quota, and hold the other 5 for the next day when, low and behold, none get shipped to the store. You still have 5 left over to sell, which you do, and again you make quota for the day.
Basically the more days you make quota, the happier BB corporate is, and the better chance Mr. Manager gets a bonus down the road.
Mr. Manager (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4DMPmoJkJQ)
This guy has a firm understanding of how retail chains work. This is EXACTLY the case and how MOST major chains operate.
SeaFox
Aug 26, 09:18 PM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
Yes, and as someone has already pointed out, if the Core2 can do 20% better with the same power, can't you just throttle your new Core2 MBP down 20% and get a laptop with the same performance of your old one with 20% better battery life?
Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees. :rolleyes:
Yes, and as someone has already pointed out, if the Core2 can do 20% better with the same power, can't you just throttle your new Core2 MBP down 20% and get a laptop with the same performance of your old one with 20% better battery life?
Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees. :rolleyes:
epitaphic
Aug 18, 11:46 PM
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:47 PM
Yes. EVERYONE. If you dont believe me, maybe you believe the economist:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=4351974
Please note that the graph is about three years old. Nowadays a lot more of the countries are over 100%.
No, not EVERYONE. I own 4 cell phones. By your logic, I would be counted as 4 people.
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=4351974
Please note that the graph is about three years old. Nowadays a lot more of the countries are over 100%.
No, not EVERYONE. I own 4 cell phones. By your logic, I would be counted as 4 people.
valkraider
Apr 25, 03:48 PM
Apple has just brought us the closest we have EVER been to 1984.
Complete fail.
Mainly - you have the option to not buy or use an iPhone. Or any phone for that matter.
You have no idea how technology works, do you?
First of all, ever since the very first cell phones - anyone carrying ANY cell phone is being tracked.
Second, you are tracked HUNDREDS of ways! Credit cards, Bank accounts, store loyalty programs, car black boxes, GPS units, traffic cameras, security cameras, internet use, video game networks, etc etc...
Third: Apple is not the government. The government has to follow specific rules about tracking people (like warrants, etc). Apple is a private corporation that you WILLINGLY entered into a contractual agreement with. Every iPhone user has accepted a terms of service which says that location information will be stored. Period. There is no invasion of anything - if you activated an iPhone YOU AGREED TO IT WILLINGLY.
Fourth: NO ONE CARES WHERE YOU HAVE BEEN. So many people act like all we want in the world is to find out that you went to 7/11 last thursday and got a bag of doritos. No one but 7/11 and Doritos cares, and they already know...
Fifth: All of the people crying foul have not even looked at the real data. The real data is wildly inaccurate from a location tracking standpoint. So you are all bitching about someone knowing where you have been within a mile or two. Unless you are in rural Nevada or Wyoming, there are several other people and lots of possible "locations" in that square few miles. If you are in rural Nevada or Wyoming there are no AT&T towers there to register your location against so you are safe too.
Sixth: If you really really care, jailbreak your phone and delete the file.
Complete fail.
Mainly - you have the option to not buy or use an iPhone. Or any phone for that matter.
You have no idea how technology works, do you?
First of all, ever since the very first cell phones - anyone carrying ANY cell phone is being tracked.
Second, you are tracked HUNDREDS of ways! Credit cards, Bank accounts, store loyalty programs, car black boxes, GPS units, traffic cameras, security cameras, internet use, video game networks, etc etc...
Third: Apple is not the government. The government has to follow specific rules about tracking people (like warrants, etc). Apple is a private corporation that you WILLINGLY entered into a contractual agreement with. Every iPhone user has accepted a terms of service which says that location information will be stored. Period. There is no invasion of anything - if you activated an iPhone YOU AGREED TO IT WILLINGLY.
Fourth: NO ONE CARES WHERE YOU HAVE BEEN. So many people act like all we want in the world is to find out that you went to 7/11 last thursday and got a bag of doritos. No one but 7/11 and Doritos cares, and they already know...
Fifth: All of the people crying foul have not even looked at the real data. The real data is wildly inaccurate from a location tracking standpoint. So you are all bitching about someone knowing where you have been within a mile or two. Unless you are in rural Nevada or Wyoming, there are several other people and lots of possible "locations" in that square few miles. If you are in rural Nevada or Wyoming there are no AT&T towers there to register your location against so you are safe too.
Sixth: If you really really care, jailbreak your phone and delete the file.
Iconoclysm
Apr 19, 08:31 PM
honestly i don't understand Company Obsession.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
Right, just love those gadgets and ignore that the manufacturer that's making your favorite ones...and changing the entire direciton of multiple industries...happens to be Apple. Honestly, you're doing the flipside of the coin here - you're purposefully fooling yourself into being a "fan" of everything. Which is actually, a lot worse.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
Right, just love those gadgets and ignore that the manufacturer that's making your favorite ones...and changing the entire direciton of multiple industries...happens to be Apple. Honestly, you're doing the flipside of the coin here - you're purposefully fooling yourself into being a "fan" of everything. Which is actually, a lot worse.
