paradox00
May 3, 04:14 PM
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you. You aren't legally obligated to pay twice for that same 2 GB of consideration if you want to use a tethering app.
Any concerns carriers have with bandwidth use can be addressed through their data plans, which they have full control of. They are not within their rights to start dictating what apps can or can't access data on your phone. Even if tethering apps generate a lot of data use, charging specifically for tethering is just a stopgap for a larger problem with their data plan pricing structure. Tethering apps are just one type of many high bandwidth apps. Are they going to start charging for all of them? Do you think that's reasonable?
Today your wireless ISP charges extra for tethering, tomorrow it will charge extra to access Netflix, and perhaps later on, your local ISP will want in on the action and start charge per device connected to your router. This segmented path of internet service is not a path I want to go down. The moment data becomes more than just data, and becomes data by application or use, is the day that consumers lose.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you. You aren't legally obligated to pay twice for that same 2 GB of consideration if you want to use a tethering app.
Any concerns carriers have with bandwidth use can be addressed through their data plans, which they have full control of. They are not within their rights to start dictating what apps can or can't access data on your phone. Even if tethering apps generate a lot of data use, charging specifically for tethering is just a stopgap for a larger problem with their data plan pricing structure. Tethering apps are just one type of many high bandwidth apps. Are they going to start charging for all of them? Do you think that's reasonable?
Today your wireless ISP charges extra for tethering, tomorrow it will charge extra to access Netflix, and perhaps later on, your local ISP will want in on the action and start charge per device connected to your router. This segmented path of internet service is not a path I want to go down. The moment data becomes more than just data, and becomes data by application or use, is the day that consumers lose.
danny_boy
Aug 8, 05:46 AM
the specs for the UK model has NOT been updated UK Specs (http://www.apple.com/uk/displays/specs.html) compared to the US model US Specs (http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html)
Will the UK get the updated Apple Cinema Displays specs? As well as the price drops? I'm looking to get either a 20" or 23" display with educational discount before going back to Uni in Sept.
Danny
Will the UK get the updated Apple Cinema Displays specs? As well as the price drops? I'm looking to get either a 20" or 23" display with educational discount before going back to Uni in Sept.
Danny
MathiasMag
Jul 23, 12:54 AM
So with all the speak of how unacceptable this is. Who has actually decided that the iPhone 4 is so bad that they returned their phone AND bought another advanced phone? It seems to me that there are a lot of people who has never owned one that are critical, but most of those who actually has bought one are really happy with their phone.
iMacThere4Iam
Apr 8, 05:05 PM
Thanks for the perspective, BBEmployee. The truth is always in the details.
dieselpower44
Jul 21, 09:46 AM
I love the way that every time Apple show an image or video of one of their employees "holding" another phone to demonstrate this signal attenuation, they always appear to be literally crushing the phone in their hand. Whereas, with the i4, you just sit it comfortably in the pocket of your palm.
Apple has become the new Microsoft. They have lost that connection they had with their customers where they would strive to please. Now they just sit back like the rest and go "well you bought it, it's your problem."
Apple has become the new Microsoft. They have lost that connection they had with their customers where they would strive to please. Now they just sit back like the rest and go "well you bought it, it's your problem."
dextertangocci
Jan 6, 02:37 AM
Good idea:)
But I'm too impatient, ill stick with MR live:) It will be even better with the photos:cool:
But I'm too impatient, ill stick with MR live:) It will be even better with the photos:cool:
aafuss1
Sep 12, 08:37 AM
Paramount should offer on the iTunes store-the Nickelodeon movies will be family friendly and Nicktoons Nwtwork original series-Kappa Mikey could be added.
iansilv
Oct 6, 12:26 PM
Again, I love competition- thank you Verizon.
J Radical
Jan 9, 06:37 PM
Still won't play for me, but I found the iPhone intro video on cnet
http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6148749.html?tag=ne.video.6148749
Ironically it's sponsored by blackberry :)
http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6148749.html?tag=ne.video.6148749
Ironically it's sponsored by blackberry :)
starflyer
Mar 24, 08:40 PM
Found it.
secondhandloser
Mar 11, 10:01 AM
The click wheel interface was, in fact, a key element in the astounding (and that's putting it mildly) success of the iPod.
I thought everyone knew this already. :confused:
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight. They're now building on that. They've got the competition completely flummoxed. They're pushing the industry forward with their apparent non-innovations.
I thought the iPod succeeded due to integration with an online music source, as well as finally being a useable HD based mp3 player.
I wasn't aware computing had changed. Please detail this.
I thought everyone knew this already. :confused:
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight. They're now building on that. They've got the competition completely flummoxed. They're pushing the industry forward with their apparent non-innovations.
I thought the iPod succeeded due to integration with an online music source, as well as finally being a useable HD based mp3 player.
I wasn't aware computing had changed. Please detail this.
gekko513
Aug 2, 05:41 AM
I'm sorry, I can't contain myself. *laughs*
Lyra ranted something about: Greedy perverted laws... greedy idea of harming international companies and getting some money out of them, in this certain case, it happens to be Apple...
Do you even know what this case is about? None of the complaints are about getting money from Apple or any other company. All the complaints are about protecting the consumers' rights and making sure that companies don't take advantage of consumers by including obscure terms that can come back and render the purchase the consumer made worthless to him/her some time down the road.
Lyra ranted something about: Greedy perverted laws... greedy idea of harming international companies and getting some money out of them, in this certain case, it happens to be Apple...
Do you even know what this case is about? None of the complaints are about getting money from Apple or any other company. All the complaints are about protecting the consumers' rights and making sure that companies don't take advantage of consumers by including obscure terms that can come back and render the purchase the consumer made worthless to him/her some time down the road.
lorductape
Nov 16, 02:33 PM
i think it would be a great idea for apple to merge with AMD
stoid
Aug 7, 06:58 PM
The cinema display's didn't change, all that changed was the price. So there isn't any "previous generation model" from what I understand.
Did you miss the part about brighter and greater contrast ratio? :confused:
Did you miss the part about brighter and greater contrast ratio? :confused:
Mac-Addict
Oct 3, 12:53 PM
I definalty will be angry if the iPhone doesnt come out but at the same time i wouldnt be shocked.. but steve jobs giving it up? pfft no way hes still got a few years left in him :P unlike billy boy..
Chef Medeski
Nov 25, 05:57 PM
$100 off MacBook. I wish I had bought.
sevimli
May 3, 09:33 PM
Well done apple! :apple:
Transporteur
Apr 8, 04:26 AM
@SPEEDwithJJ: Watch the Family Guy episode "New Kidney in Town" and you'll know :D
Crotch burn! :D
Crotch burn! :D
i0Nic
Sep 12, 02:53 AM
Sydney 3am Sept 13.
dime21
May 5, 11:15 AM
Why are you using fear as part of your argument? I shouldn't have to have a gun on me to feel safe in my community. It's not saying I feel immune to crime, but fear of crime shouldn't drive a person.
Not fear of crime, but rather, the desire for self-preservation. Is someone else providing that safety for you? Or are you providing it for yourself? It sounds like you're taking option 3, and not providing it at all. FYI- the supreme court ruled that the police have no legal obligation to provide for your safety. Their job is only to catch the criminals during/after a crime - not to prevent it, and not to "keep you safe". Do you also choose not to wear your seat belt in your car, because that's for people who always fear collisions, and fear of an automotive collision shouldn't drive a person?
Yes, I own a few guns and I carry a hand gun on my person anytime I leave the house. To run errands, to pick the kids up from school, you name it, I'm carrying. I look it at the same way as the fire extinguisher I have sitting in the corner of my kitchen. I really really don't want an occasion to use it. Ever. But should that occasion arise, I absolutely want to have immediate access to it. Without that fire extinguisher, all I could do is stand in the front yard and watch my home burn to the ground waiting for the fire department to arrive. Carrying a hand gun is no different that that fire extinguisher in my kitchen or the airbags in my car. I don't ever want to use them, but having them can mean the difference between life and death. It doesn't mean I'm being driven by fear of kitchen fires or vehicle collisions.
Violent criminals frequently use guns to kill people. That is a fact, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Nothing. All you can do is arm yourself to level the playing field.
Given the choice, I'd much rather have the robber hold me up with a knife, than a gun.
Yes, because violent criminals give you a choice. lol. Next time you're in that situation, be sure to voice your opinion to your assailant. Please sir, if you are determined to rob me, please kindly exchange your hand gun for a knife. lmao. Oh wait, you may not even have the chance to ask, because now you're dead. He shot you because he felt like it, and there was nothing you could do to stop him.
Not fear of crime, but rather, the desire for self-preservation. Is someone else providing that safety for you? Or are you providing it for yourself? It sounds like you're taking option 3, and not providing it at all. FYI- the supreme court ruled that the police have no legal obligation to provide for your safety. Their job is only to catch the criminals during/after a crime - not to prevent it, and not to "keep you safe". Do you also choose not to wear your seat belt in your car, because that's for people who always fear collisions, and fear of an automotive collision shouldn't drive a person?
Yes, I own a few guns and I carry a hand gun on my person anytime I leave the house. To run errands, to pick the kids up from school, you name it, I'm carrying. I look it at the same way as the fire extinguisher I have sitting in the corner of my kitchen. I really really don't want an occasion to use it. Ever. But should that occasion arise, I absolutely want to have immediate access to it. Without that fire extinguisher, all I could do is stand in the front yard and watch my home burn to the ground waiting for the fire department to arrive. Carrying a hand gun is no different that that fire extinguisher in my kitchen or the airbags in my car. I don't ever want to use them, but having them can mean the difference between life and death. It doesn't mean I'm being driven by fear of kitchen fires or vehicle collisions.
Violent criminals frequently use guns to kill people. That is a fact, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Nothing. All you can do is arm yourself to level the playing field.
Given the choice, I'd much rather have the robber hold me up with a knife, than a gun.
Yes, because violent criminals give you a choice. lol. Next time you're in that situation, be sure to voice your opinion to your assailant. Please sir, if you are determined to rob me, please kindly exchange your hand gun for a knife. lmao. Oh wait, you may not even have the chance to ask, because now you're dead. He shot you because he felt like it, and there was nothing you could do to stop him.
Jaymes
Mar 28, 03:16 PM
In other words, it is now more fair to everyone because you just need to be in the App Store rather than having to submit your app specifically to be considered.
In other words, it's less fair to everyone, because you have to fork over $0.30 of every $1.00 you make to Apple in order to be part of the Mac App store just to be in the running for the design award.
It's going to be interesting to see if open-source products win any awards whatsoever this year. In the past, several have brought home awards.
But I digress, as the new Big Brother on the block, I had almost forgot that "Apple knows best".
In other words, it's less fair to everyone, because you have to fork over $0.30 of every $1.00 you make to Apple in order to be part of the Mac App store just to be in the running for the design award.
It's going to be interesting to see if open-source products win any awards whatsoever this year. In the past, several have brought home awards.
But I digress, as the new Big Brother on the block, I had almost forgot that "Apple knows best".
emotion
Nov 16, 07:23 AM
I'd consider it highly unlikley but here's the rumour (it's be wise for Apple to have rumours circulated just to keep Intel sharp):
http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20061115PR207.html
http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20061115PR207.html
scott523
Nov 24, 12:44 AM
Hm maybe they loaded in the prices and everything then they'll 'flick the switch' on the prices once Black Friday officially begins?
iVeBeenDrinkin'
Apr 7, 01:15 AM
About damn time too...
http://i54.tinypic.com/5n30z.jpg
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
Nice kit
http://i54.tinypic.com/5n30z.jpg
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
Nice kit
