dmelgar
Sep 12, 07:31 PM
Sounded like a downer to me. I haven't seen the presentation, so maybe its better than the story sounds.
- Whatever happened to a Tivo killer? No TV? No DVR?
- Sounds like this doesn't have a hard drive, supposed to display on a TV a video bitstream received via network connection. There are already many devices out there that do this, starting at $99. What makes this any better? Big problem with those so far is that you need an excellent 802.11g connection or you get dropouts when playing a DVD. Ethernet is the only thing that makes it reliable.
- 1Q2007? Since when does Apple pre-announce. They've been working on this for over a year and 1Q2007 is the best they can do? I wonder what the holdup is. Missing the Christmas shopping season? Horrors!
- Movies on iTunes. What DRM is associated with the movies? Can you burn the movie to a DVD to play in a DVD player? How do the prices compare to buying a DVD. If its similar price, I get much more on a DVD, ie special features, can play anywhere.
- No rental? Why not. I'm much more likely to rent a movie than buy one. I'm more likely to value the convenience of renting quickly online vs. driving to a store. But to buy and keep forever, I'd rather get a DVD.
- What movies? Only from Disney? Doesn't sound very impressive. What would make other studios jump on the bandwagon? I thought Apple would come up with something revolutionary that would drag the studios in. But I don't see it yet.
- Whatever happened to a Tivo killer? No TV? No DVR?
- Sounds like this doesn't have a hard drive, supposed to display on a TV a video bitstream received via network connection. There are already many devices out there that do this, starting at $99. What makes this any better? Big problem with those so far is that you need an excellent 802.11g connection or you get dropouts when playing a DVD. Ethernet is the only thing that makes it reliable.
- 1Q2007? Since when does Apple pre-announce. They've been working on this for over a year and 1Q2007 is the best they can do? I wonder what the holdup is. Missing the Christmas shopping season? Horrors!
- Movies on iTunes. What DRM is associated with the movies? Can you burn the movie to a DVD to play in a DVD player? How do the prices compare to buying a DVD. If its similar price, I get much more on a DVD, ie special features, can play anywhere.
- No rental? Why not. I'm much more likely to rent a movie than buy one. I'm more likely to value the convenience of renting quickly online vs. driving to a store. But to buy and keep forever, I'd rather get a DVD.
- What movies? Only from Disney? Doesn't sound very impressive. What would make other studios jump on the bandwagon? I thought Apple would come up with something revolutionary that would drag the studios in. But I don't see it yet.
rkriheli
Sep 25, 11:39 PM
yeah, this will be great if we want to run a small country with.
skellener
Sep 12, 07:24 PM
At $2 a pop I'd be out maybe $6 per month.
Most shows air once a week so that's 3-5 times a month. So even 1 show will cost you $6-$10. So sure, if you watch one televison show (say LOST) at 3-5 episodes a month your doing fine. I would imagine most people take in 5 shows (3-5 episodes a month) or more per month. That's $30-$50 already for only 5 televison shows a month. $50 gets me all the standard and HD channels on DirecTV. iTunes is still not at that quality/price point yet.
Most shows air once a week so that's 3-5 times a month. So even 1 show will cost you $6-$10. So sure, if you watch one televison show (say LOST) at 3-5 episodes a month your doing fine. I would imagine most people take in 5 shows (3-5 episodes a month) or more per month. That's $30-$50 already for only 5 televison shows a month. $50 gets me all the standard and HD channels on DirecTV. iTunes is still not at that quality/price point yet.
jbgh
Mar 18, 09:07 AM
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
yeah that'll get them...
yeah that'll get them...
bombjack
Apr 27, 06:19 AM
I switched to Mac 3 years ago and I have never looked back. most of the annoyences has been covered already, but none of them are a real showstopper.
The biggest annoyence with OS X is the lack of a good music handler. I just hate iTunes. It's the biggest bloatware on the market if you ask me. Please, don't start a flame war about this, it's my opinion, and based on how I handle/listen to music. It might work for you.
Regarding the (in)famous "x" to quit programs: This might be the biggest conceptual difference between Windows and Mac. Windows is, well, windows based. Program, user interface etc are all contained in one window. Mac on the other hand is based on programs, interacting with the user using windows. It takes some time to get used to. The best way I believe, is to avoid the buttons and use command-h to hide and command-q to quit programs. This way, alt-tab works as in Windows. Using the "minimize" button is confusing when you want the window back. you can alt-tab to the program but the window will still be minimized
The biggest annoyence with OS X is the lack of a good music handler. I just hate iTunes. It's the biggest bloatware on the market if you ask me. Please, don't start a flame war about this, it's my opinion, and based on how I handle/listen to music. It might work for you.
Regarding the (in)famous "x" to quit programs: This might be the biggest conceptual difference between Windows and Mac. Windows is, well, windows based. Program, user interface etc are all contained in one window. Mac on the other hand is based on programs, interacting with the user using windows. It takes some time to get used to. The best way I believe, is to avoid the buttons and use command-h to hide and command-q to quit programs. This way, alt-tab works as in Windows. Using the "minimize" button is confusing when you want the window back. you can alt-tab to the program but the window will still be minimized
sblasl
Nov 2, 08:25 PM
Sorry, still trying to get up to speed on all of this intel stuff...:o
dethmaShine
May 2, 10:36 AM
Sure it is Malware, but that doesn't mean it's not a threat to Mac users, a decent amount of Mac users are not very knowledgable when it comes to computers, I can see a lot of people going ahead with this install, why? well it says MacDefender, people could confuse it for an anti-virus software, so yeah I mean its entirely possible that someone could install this..
Anyway, it's to be expected, infact when Mac OS does become more popular I think we will clearly find viruses, malware and spyware, that day OSX will become a lot like Windows.. Even anti-viruses today for Windows are not able to get rid of every virus, you have to constantly do updates, even then theres always new viruses, and your not always going to be protected..
But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon..
Malwares should be treated as strangers. Simple.
Anyway, it's to be expected, infact when Mac OS does become more popular I think we will clearly find viruses, malware and spyware, that day OSX will become a lot like Windows.. Even anti-viruses today for Windows are not able to get rid of every virus, you have to constantly do updates, even then theres always new viruses, and your not always going to be protected..
But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon..
Malwares should be treated as strangers. Simple.
idea_hamster
May 2, 08:56 AM
So what does this do? What's the effect of the payload?
awmazz
Mar 14, 11:34 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
McGiord
Apr 23, 11:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYekoBuBYSY
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:49 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
You sure about this? I hope your right.
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
You sure about this? I hope your right.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:29 PM
So much for taking the higher road and preaching everyone is equal etc etc etc. What a bunch of hipacrits.
Equal in what respect(s)? No one is absolutely equal to anyone else, is he?
Equal in what respect(s)? No one is absolutely equal to anyone else, is he?
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:41 PM
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road.
Absolutely 100% false.
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
Absolutely 100% false.
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
CalBoy
Apr 22, 10:41 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
MrWinters
Apr 28, 03:38 PM
But the internet brought p0rn mainstream. :D
I ran a dialup BBS from 1983-1992 and we had p0rn, FidoNet Email, discussion forums, software downloads, etc....
The Internet made stuff faster, more graphical, and brought stuff to a wider audience - but for us early birds, everything has always kinda been there.
I ran a dialup BBS from 1983-1992 and we had p0rn, FidoNet Email, discussion forums, software downloads, etc....
The Internet made stuff faster, more graphical, and brought stuff to a wider audience - but for us early birds, everything has always kinda been there.
Alaerian
Apr 5, 06:00 PM
Don't read so much into it. Macs are perfectly capable of both copy/paste and Alt-Tab. However, Mac simply uses Command-Tab - Command is in the same place as the Alt key.
Under the Apple menu on the top toolbar, you can access both recently used programs and recently used files, just the same as in the Windows Start menu. It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Under the Apple menu on the top toolbar, you can access both recently used programs and recently used files, just the same as in the Windows Start menu. It's essentially the same thing, but better.
AJsAWiz
Aug 25, 06:23 PM
Ridiculous number of dropped calls. What a terrible excuse for customer service this was. Whenever I have called them about any other issues, they have been really helpful. When this guy found out I had Iphone4, he acted like he couldn't get me off the phone fast enough. Told me "the phone has problems, get the bumper, have I resolved your issues?"
My device is quirky. The proximity sensor has a mind of its own, it gets hung up on tasks daily, the reception is terrible. For ME, Iphone4 SUCKS and when people ask me if I recommend it, I'm with CR. Miss my 3gs which my husband is enjoying. Crap.
I can relate to your frustrations, I've been going through the wringer with AT&T for about a year now . . . Mass dropped calls, poor reception in most areas or no service at all. I made multiple calls to AT&T and a few to Apple. I've been through all of the trouble shooting steps many times, including 2 sim card replacements and 3 iPhone replacements. All this on an iPhone 3 GS! As a last resort I've filed a complaint with the BBB. When my contract runs out in a few months I'll have to jump ship and ditch AT&T, and regretfully abandon the iPhone. If :apple: opens iPhone to other carriers by then I might reconsider. Guess I'll give the Android a look :(
:d
LOL
Why do you stay with ATT?
Probably, because like me and many others they are locked into a two year contract. Mine can't end fast enough :(
My device is quirky. The proximity sensor has a mind of its own, it gets hung up on tasks daily, the reception is terrible. For ME, Iphone4 SUCKS and when people ask me if I recommend it, I'm with CR. Miss my 3gs which my husband is enjoying. Crap.
I can relate to your frustrations, I've been going through the wringer with AT&T for about a year now . . . Mass dropped calls, poor reception in most areas or no service at all. I made multiple calls to AT&T and a few to Apple. I've been through all of the trouble shooting steps many times, including 2 sim card replacements and 3 iPhone replacements. All this on an iPhone 3 GS! As a last resort I've filed a complaint with the BBB. When my contract runs out in a few months I'll have to jump ship and ditch AT&T, and regretfully abandon the iPhone. If :apple: opens iPhone to other carriers by then I might reconsider. Guess I'll give the Android a look :(
:d
LOL
Why do you stay with ATT?
Probably, because like me and many others they are locked into a two year contract. Mine can't end fast enough :(
bnerd
Mar 18, 08:35 AM
Hopefully this will lighten the strain on the network.
cmaier
Apr 21, 04:58 PM
"Blame the user." It's the Microsoft way.
You're holding it wrong.
Come on, you were just asking for that :)
You're holding it wrong.
Come on, you were just asking for that :)
springscansing
Oct 13, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Yes I have actually. iTunes IS slow, but it's the best. There was an article in MacAddict a few years ago comparing the speeds and quality of different mp3 encoders at the same bitrates.
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Yes I have actually. iTunes IS slow, but it's the best. There was an article in MacAddict a few years ago comparing the speeds and quality of different mp3 encoders at the same bitrates.
benixau
Oct 12, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
Too right. I had an LC630 up until about 2 months ago. First problem occured on week into use, apple monitor stoped working. 10 yrs later, power supply went. Only problem after the monitor problem and before the power supply porblem was the family needed to use it. That only meant that i couldnt sometimes.
A pc we had was upgraded every 6 months to make sure it would run. 2 months ago, four years into its life, the celeron 333 couldn't handle windows XP (it came with 98) after a serious OS problem. We chucked it, bought an AMD XP 1800+ and got two brand new power macs (MDD model). Cant afford an iBook or Powerbook yet.
Macs last longer, as long as you dont want the latest and greatest app to run, like Office v.X on a performa. If you can live with Office 2001 or 98 then, why get something untested.
A mac cost 2x as mush upfront. They last 4 - 5 times as long. Who saves money???
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
Too right. I had an LC630 up until about 2 months ago. First problem occured on week into use, apple monitor stoped working. 10 yrs later, power supply went. Only problem after the monitor problem and before the power supply porblem was the family needed to use it. That only meant that i couldnt sometimes.
A pc we had was upgraded every 6 months to make sure it would run. 2 months ago, four years into its life, the celeron 333 couldn't handle windows XP (it came with 98) after a serious OS problem. We chucked it, bought an AMD XP 1800+ and got two brand new power macs (MDD model). Cant afford an iBook or Powerbook yet.
Macs last longer, as long as you dont want the latest and greatest app to run, like Office v.X on a performa. If you can live with Office 2001 or 98 then, why get something untested.
A mac cost 2x as mush upfront. They last 4 - 5 times as long. Who saves money???
legacyb4
Sep 12, 06:43 PM
So based on what was shown today, the iTV itself is not presenting itself as a recording solution, only playback.
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
DJO
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
DJO
Uragon
Apr 21, 02:30 AM
Delving into this would drive the conversation in an entirely different direction, and I don't feel like going off topic. Pay for your music, it's your choice. I'll continue to illegally download mine and enjoy it just as much.
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
If you don't mind, what's your stance on Arizona's Immigration Law on illegals?
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
If you don't mind, what's your stance on Arizona's Immigration Law on illegals?
Cerebrus' Maw
Feb 23, 06:40 PM
Android is going to do what Windows did. Those who like that Windows experience (read "cheap") are going to go in that direction. Those that want the elegant, minimalistic, rock solid OS, continue to stay with iPhone.
Cheap? Android is simply software. It could run on hardware that cost a billion dollars or substantially less. And I'm pretty sure that there are Android phones out there that actually cost more then the 3GS. Does that make the Iphone a 'cheap' product.
And even if your argument held, why do we always equate expense with quality. There are plenty of cheap products out there that perform significantly better then their so called premium rivals. Every one applauded Apple for lowering the initial target price of the Ipad. But you wouldn't exactly call it cheap in a derogatory way.
Lastly, I have tried both types of phones. Are you kidding me? 'Drois software is absolutely awful.
I don't know do you mean Droid or Android here (Remember, one does not equal the other. Droid is a name of a phone from Motorola, Android is the open software operating system) Droid runs V2.0 of Android. The current Android army is running on 2.1, which everyone agreed was a massive improvement, and generally put it on Iphone level. There are some areas that need improvement, such as the Media player, but then there are other area's where it simply excels.
Cheap? Android is simply software. It could run on hardware that cost a billion dollars or substantially less. And I'm pretty sure that there are Android phones out there that actually cost more then the 3GS. Does that make the Iphone a 'cheap' product.
And even if your argument held, why do we always equate expense with quality. There are plenty of cheap products out there that perform significantly better then their so called premium rivals. Every one applauded Apple for lowering the initial target price of the Ipad. But you wouldn't exactly call it cheap in a derogatory way.
Lastly, I have tried both types of phones. Are you kidding me? 'Drois software is absolutely awful.
I don't know do you mean Droid or Android here (Remember, one does not equal the other. Droid is a name of a phone from Motorola, Android is the open software operating system) Droid runs V2.0 of Android. The current Android army is running on 2.1, which everyone agreed was a massive improvement, and generally put it on Iphone level. There are some areas that need improvement, such as the Media player, but then there are other area's where it simply excels.