hulugu
Apr 18, 02:50 AM
Hello all, I just wanted to make another point about capital gains. Capital gains are applied to the "profits" from sale of something you bought. As I mentioned earlier about inflation, the government could choose to create money rather than impose an income tax. Everyone would keep the money the government would have taken, but that money simply won't go as far because the difference in purchasing power will appear in inflation. So, what does this have to do with capital gains? Well, if I buy a gold coin for $1000 and then sell it for $1500 a couple years later, I would be subject to a capital gains tax. But I didn't really gain anything. As gold critics often say, gold just sits there and doesn't produce anything. What has changed is the value of the dollar, which has fallen because the government has diluted the money supply. This is the reason the stock market is going up, not because the economy is improving.
If you bought an apple on Monday (your cost basis) and, before you bite into it on Wednesday (the point at which you realize gain), the price of apples go up, should you have to pay a tax on the difference?
This tells us that capital gains might be flawed, but it still a way to account for a kind of income. I do freelance work and thus I get paid sometimes months after the initial work. I don't get to charge more if the dollar has fallen, or less if the dollar has gained. Why should my investments be accounted for differently than my freelance work?
If you bought an apple on Monday (your cost basis) and, before you bite into it on Wednesday (the point at which you realize gain), the price of apples go up, should you have to pay a tax on the difference?
This tells us that capital gains might be flawed, but it still a way to account for a kind of income. I do freelance work and thus I get paid sometimes months after the initial work. I don't get to charge more if the dollar has fallen, or less if the dollar has gained. Why should my investments be accounted for differently than my freelance work?
Popeye206
Apr 5, 03:34 PM
Allowing this, Apple would have set a presidence, so yes, I understand why Apple asked for this to be stopped... Tomorrow company 'x' would be releasing their JB app. Adobe will be releasing Flash on to Cydia LOL.
Since we are talking in the context of smartphones, we should compare smartphone developer licenses, and not others. Apple vs Apple not Apple vs Lemon.
You can nit-pick it all you want. $99 is nothing for a quality program like what Apple offers to developers. Plus, you can still get the SDK for free. You can still develop for free. It's just if you want "in" on the AppStore and other resources, you pay. So... again... what's the beef?
Since we are talking in the context of smartphones, we should compare smartphone developer licenses, and not others. Apple vs Apple not Apple vs Lemon.
You can nit-pick it all you want. $99 is nothing for a quality program like what Apple offers to developers. Plus, you can still get the SDK for free. You can still develop for free. It's just if you want "in" on the AppStore and other resources, you pay. So... again... what's the beef?
GoodWatch
Apr 21, 03:44 PM
I know many professional situations where a Mac Pro would be ideal as a rack mountable unit.
Recording studio, on location video production (DIT), and studio based post-production rigs, basically places where other equipment is racked, may need to be secured, cooled, power conditioned, or in mobile racks. Rack mounting in not only for servers.
And how do you operate it? A server can be accessed from a workstation but a Mac Pro IS a workstation, it's not a server. It's not a logical step. I have a professional photographer in the family, with a Mac Pro. He needs to load his RAWs onto his Mac for post processing. How to do this if that Mac is in another room, in a rack :confused: Very inconvenient if you ask me.
Recording studio, on location video production (DIT), and studio based post-production rigs, basically places where other equipment is racked, may need to be secured, cooled, power conditioned, or in mobile racks. Rack mounting in not only for servers.
And how do you operate it? A server can be accessed from a workstation but a Mac Pro IS a workstation, it's not a server. It's not a logical step. I have a professional photographer in the family, with a Mac Pro. He needs to load his RAWs onto his Mac for post processing. How to do this if that Mac is in another room, in a rack :confused: Very inconvenient if you ask me.
DotComName
Mar 26, 11:05 PM
SUPER PSYCHED for cloud features married with iOS! With this, the iPad can truely become a post-pc mobile computer without the need to sync with clunky old iTunes! DO IT UP BIG APPLE!! :)
Counting down the days till I can completely ditch my laptop for an iPad!
Counting down the days till I can completely ditch my laptop for an iPad!
FelixGV
Nov 26, 03:07 PM
I would definitely buy a Tablet Mac. Well, I mean a laptop with a rotating touch screen.
I would like it even more if it was smaller than the actual 13" MacBooks. I carry my laptop with me a lot, and light-weightness is important for me.
I would like it even more if it was smaller than the actual 13" MacBooks. I carry my laptop with me a lot, and light-weightness is important for me.
Jbrumz85
Apr 20, 12:38 AM
Why do we still call it iPhone 5? Everything points to iPhone 4S.
Probably because it's the 5th iPhone?
Probably because it's the 5th iPhone?
thisisahughes
Apr 25, 11:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
�If you have something that you don�t want anyone to know maybe you shouldn�t be doing it in the first place.� - Eric Schmidt
�If you have something that you don�t want anyone to know maybe you shouldn�t be doing it in the first place.� - Eric Schmidt
Cougarcat
Mar 27, 01:01 AM
So the sources are Gruber who stated it was a guess and TechCrunch who are, well, TechCrunch.
Also, Gruber later clarified that his guess was not the "iPad 3" per se, but an additional iPad model of some kind, such as possibly a retina display.
Also, Gruber later clarified that his guess was not the "iPad 3" per se, but an additional iPad model of some kind, such as possibly a retina display.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
MacFly123
May 6, 01:08 AM
How about the 3D transistors and 22nm chips that Intel has announced on their roadmap? They sound pretty impressive to me!
This has red flags all over!
This has red flags all over!
danpass
May 7, 02:21 PM
Over the air syncing for iWork documents on the iPad?
I just started using it. More like online storage.
I'm not yet certain if it syncs dropbox style but doesn't look that way so far (to me)
I just started using it. More like online storage.
I'm not yet certain if it syncs dropbox style but doesn't look that way so far (to me)
res1233
May 6, 08:12 AM
Windows is making a version of Windows that works on ARM and the regular processors, so ALL the software works for it. They wont be separate versions.
So do you mean microsoft is implementing universal binaries? as in, intel windows apps will run on the ARM version? This would be a very new thing for windows if that's what you mean. If microsoft was any good at copying, they would have learned that lesson from Apple since the 68k/PowerPC transition. It works every time when going from one architecture to another, or from one word size to another.
So do you mean microsoft is implementing universal binaries? as in, intel windows apps will run on the ARM version? This would be a very new thing for windows if that's what you mean. If microsoft was any good at copying, they would have learned that lesson from Apple since the 68k/PowerPC transition. It works every time when going from one architecture to another, or from one word size to another.
dexthageek
Apr 18, 02:48 PM
Here we go again! Stupid Lawyers :(
Achiever
May 7, 10:27 AM
I would be fine continuing to pay for it if they would actually make it work better and improve some of the feature set. If they make it free, my concern is they will strip down some of the services related to it or allow it to become even slower and less reliable. Apple doesn't need another "hobby" (See: TV, Apple).
rmwebs
Apr 20, 03:22 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think Apple needs to concentrate more on improving iOS rather than adding a faster processor. Tbh I'm pretty fed up of my iPhone 4 as the is just looks boringly simple. Not everybody wants the same old os on every device. I think it's the omnia 7 next for me so I can have a change.
Agreed. I moved from my good ol' 3Gs to a ZTE-Blade a few months ago and have to say that despite the general black/grey colors that android apps seem to be forced to use with the UI, the 'desktop' of the phone is much more elegant and usable than the iPhone's. I'd really like to see Apple open up the API's a little more and maybe even allow us to completely swap out their homescreen for custom app based ones. It works well on the droids.
I think Apple needs to concentrate more on improving iOS rather than adding a faster processor. Tbh I'm pretty fed up of my iPhone 4 as the is just looks boringly simple. Not everybody wants the same old os on every device. I think it's the omnia 7 next for me so I can have a change.
Agreed. I moved from my good ol' 3Gs to a ZTE-Blade a few months ago and have to say that despite the general black/grey colors that android apps seem to be forced to use with the UI, the 'desktop' of the phone is much more elegant and usable than the iPhone's. I'd really like to see Apple open up the API's a little more and maybe even allow us to completely swap out their homescreen for custom app based ones. It works well on the droids.
Erendiox
May 7, 10:26 AM
If this comes true, I just hope this doesn't water down the Mobileme service. I use Mobileme to keep my business life in order. I'd rather it remain $99 and stay quick and reliable than it become a free junk service.
adomanico18
Mar 30, 06:24 PM
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)
So I guess that Gold Master rumor was wrong.
Read the update. Tech crunch reports this is the internal gm1 build
So I guess that Gold Master rumor was wrong.
Read the update. Tech crunch reports this is the internal gm1 build
corywoolf
Aug 4, 01:08 AM
I'm gonna go on record and say they will NOT intro new MBP at wwdc. Some sales of the current MBP are better than none and if they they intro a new one they will not sell any and probably just take pre orders. Not gonna happen. They will wait until late August or early September to announce them when they are actually ready.
word
word
Eidorian
Mar 30, 10:56 PM
I don't know why but my MBP 13 i7 2011 is showing "Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB graphics" on the About this mac screen on Display tab.:eek:
BTW I'm using an External Display.
That's the graphic core onboard the Core i7 die. It doesn't change to ATi graphics when you use something graphically intensive?It is the 13" Macbook Pro. It only has Intel HD graphics.
BTW I'm using an External Display.
That's the graphic core onboard the Core i7 die. It doesn't change to ATi graphics when you use something graphically intensive?It is the 13" Macbook Pro. It only has Intel HD graphics.
netdog
Aug 6, 06:57 AM
Whats the normal run of events?
3 split up segments and then one more thing
Here is what i reckon
1) Intel transition
blah blah blah, it has been quick, painless developers, developers developers. Everyone has been receptive except $#%#@@! Adobe
Intel keep giving us the chips
today we update MBP and iMac to core 2 duo
2)Talking about tranistion there are 2 products which haven't yet been transistioned
PowerMac > Mac Pro
Xserve > Xserve? Mac Serve?
Mac Pro has 3 configs
Best - Dual Xeon, 1GB 500GB 256X1800 $3299
Better - Core 2 Duo 2.93ghz 1GB 500gb 256mb X1600 $2499
Good - Core 2 Duo 2.6 1GB 250gb 256mb X1600 $1999
Xserves - All Xeons, dah
3) Leopard talk
4) One more thing
Candidates: iPhone, iPod, New Screens (may be intro'd with Mac Pro's) what ever else there could be
Strong analysis. I agree. I think there will also be a big surprise in the Leopard talk, if not more than one!
3 split up segments and then one more thing
Here is what i reckon
1) Intel transition
blah blah blah, it has been quick, painless developers, developers developers. Everyone has been receptive except $#%#@@! Adobe
Intel keep giving us the chips
today we update MBP and iMac to core 2 duo
2)Talking about tranistion there are 2 products which haven't yet been transistioned
PowerMac > Mac Pro
Xserve > Xserve? Mac Serve?
Mac Pro has 3 configs
Best - Dual Xeon, 1GB 500GB 256X1800 $3299
Better - Core 2 Duo 2.93ghz 1GB 500gb 256mb X1600 $2499
Good - Core 2 Duo 2.6 1GB 250gb 256mb X1600 $1999
Xserves - All Xeons, dah
3) Leopard talk
4) One more thing
Candidates: iPhone, iPod, New Screens (may be intro'd with Mac Pro's) what ever else there could be
Strong analysis. I agree. I think there will also be a big surprise in the Leopard talk, if not more than one!
levitynyc
Apr 7, 10:04 AM
Build a new touch panel factory here in the USA!!!!
(oh wait, then we'd have to pay union employees not to work after 20 years with a budget crippling pension fund)
(oh wait, then we'd have to pay union employees not to work after 20 years with a budget crippling pension fund)
lilo777
Apr 5, 02:20 PM
It's: "Do not buy iPhone. Go with Android." That's how I see it. Companies like Toyota will have no choice but to double their efforts in serving Android users.
i hate phones
Mar 29, 11:00 AM
so i just purchased an album through amazon and stored it in the cloud just to see what it was like... I got the this browser is not supported on my iphone when going to the cloud player, i clicked on continue anyway or whatever it was... and i was able to play my album on my iphone. the upload music files link is grayed out but i can still listen to the album. can't confirm playback of files that have been uploaded to the cloud but purchased from amazon and stored in cloud seems to work on iphone :)
Edit: I am using safari... I am also jailbroken so I don't know if there is any hidden difference?
ok so my session expires after every 2 songs. thats kinda annoying. is there an amazon setting i'm missing somewhere?
Edit: I am using safari... I am also jailbroken so I don't know if there is any hidden difference?
ok so my session expires after every 2 songs. thats kinda annoying. is there an amazon setting i'm missing somewhere?
CalBoy
Mar 27, 01:11 AM
Pushing the iPhone 5, along with iOS 5, to the fall really wouldn't surprise me at all. In fact it would seem a little weird if Apple were to finally release a white iPhone 4 and then release an iPhone 5 a month or two later... even if they have constantly kept "last years" model around at a discount previously. Maybe the white iPhone will be and iPhone 5...
The more probable result is that the white iPhone 4 will simply never be.
By this time, Foxconn is most likely shifting production of the iPhone 4 for the $99 price point and gearing up to produce lots of iPhone 5s for the summer.
I'm starting to wonder if a Iphone 5 is even going to come out this year i mean with the Verizon IPhone launched in February "kinda close to June - July IMO" so they might wait tell june of next year where we get AT&T and a Verizon IPhone upgrades.
Most of the iPhone's sales come from outside the United States, where GSM is the standard. Apple can't afford to lag behind other companies in those international markets so they will most likely not slip on shipping the iPhone 5 to much later than the previous models' date.
The more probable result is that the white iPhone 4 will simply never be.
By this time, Foxconn is most likely shifting production of the iPhone 4 for the $99 price point and gearing up to produce lots of iPhone 5s for the summer.
I'm starting to wonder if a Iphone 5 is even going to come out this year i mean with the Verizon IPhone launched in February "kinda close to June - July IMO" so they might wait tell june of next year where we get AT&T and a Verizon IPhone upgrades.
Most of the iPhone's sales come from outside the United States, where GSM is the standard. Apple can't afford to lag behind other companies in those international markets so they will most likely not slip on shipping the iPhone 5 to much later than the previous models' date.
No comments:
Post a Comment