Clive At Five
Sep 20, 05:22 PM
I just wanted to point out that "hard drive" is an extremely generic term when it comes to layman's terms regarding computers. [...] I have users that refer to the entire COMPUTER as the "hard drive". There is a very good chance that Iger knows very little about computers and could simply be miscommunicating what he means.
I whole-heartedly agree.
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
There's absolutely no need and would complicate the equation indefinitely, especially concerning digital rights.
Let's assume Iger is right, though, that there IS a HDD in the TelePort (or as you infidels call it, iTV), and that it can act as a stand-alone media access point. The question remains, how would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content, or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.
Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod. Nonetheless, this seems like the most likely option for the use of a HDD.
Option 2, if this is the case, you already have a full-sized (i.e. reliable) HDD in your computer, which is connected to the internet, (i.e. iTS) for content. Why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need!
PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those copies for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.
I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac, although streaming from the net is slower than from within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.
So, that's why I think there will be no HDD in the TelePort.
-Clive
I whole-heartedly agree.
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
There's absolutely no need and would complicate the equation indefinitely, especially concerning digital rights.
Let's assume Iger is right, though, that there IS a HDD in the TelePort (or as you infidels call it, iTV), and that it can act as a stand-alone media access point. The question remains, how would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content, or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.
Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod. Nonetheless, this seems like the most likely option for the use of a HDD.
Option 2, if this is the case, you already have a full-sized (i.e. reliable) HDD in your computer, which is connected to the internet, (i.e. iTS) for content. Why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need!
PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those copies for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.
I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac, although streaming from the net is slower than from within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.
So, that's why I think there will be no HDD in the TelePort.
-Clive
SPUY767
Sep 26, 10:40 AM
Pardon Me But Would You Please Track Down The Link To That Card And IM Me and post it here? I need it NOW! Thanks.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
This is not the one I use but the same in concept. Gigayte i-RAM (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480) This item uses PCI and not PCIe.
The one that I use doesn't work with the Macintosh, but apparently, the PCIe/SATAII version of the one that Eld is talking about will as mine uses no SATA interface for data transfer.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
This is not the one I use but the same in concept. Gigayte i-RAM (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480) This item uses PCI and not PCIe.
The one that I use doesn't work with the Macintosh, but apparently, the PCIe/SATAII version of the one that Eld is talking about will as mine uses no SATA interface for data transfer.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 02:51 PM
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
cluthz
Mar 19, 03:41 AM
In the perfect world, this wouldn't be neccecary.
I would rather buy a song without DRM than with DRM,
because you have very few rights with files with DRM.
If you buy tha same CD and encode it it won't have DRM, so why do the internet music stores need to have DRM?
Since this will create big trouble for apple I find this negative.
When then day comes that most cds are copyprotected I might buy something from iTMS, but i'll never buy a DRM file unless I have no other options!
I would rather buy a song without DRM than with DRM,
because you have very few rights with files with DRM.
If you buy tha same CD and encode it it won't have DRM, so why do the internet music stores need to have DRM?
Since this will create big trouble for apple I find this negative.
When then day comes that most cds are copyprotected I might buy something from iTMS, but i'll never buy a DRM file unless I have no other options!
chaoticbear
Apr 12, 10:39 AM
I don't care for the difficulty involved in sharing files across OS X/Windows/Linux, but that's hardly the fault of the Mac.
Other nags:
-Requiring 3rd-party software to stay awake when closed
-The terrible built-in webcam (at least where Photo Booth is concerned, I've actually been pretty satisfied with iChat)
The hilarious hillarious way that iTunes and iPhones work. It's the same way on Windows, but I think they sacrificed function for increased integration.
Other nags:
-Requiring 3rd-party software to stay awake when closed
-The terrible built-in webcam (at least where Photo Booth is concerned, I've actually been pretty satisfied with iChat)
The hilarious hillarious way that iTunes and iPhones work. It's the same way on Windows, but I think they sacrificed function for increased integration.
Amazing Iceman
May 2, 07:04 PM
Ah, Geek Squad... Do they let you drive the Bug?
Sorry, I don't work for Best Buy... They don't pay enough... and their employees don't really know much about anything, specially about MACs.
You go ahead, drive the bug and be happy.
Sorry, I don't work for Best Buy... They don't pay enough... and their employees don't really know much about anything, specially about MACs.
You go ahead, drive the bug and be happy.
ciTiger
Apr 20, 09:20 PM
Flame wars... :D
I know we can't all get along but what's the point of discussing something again and again and... :rolleyes:
Might as well be happy with what you got :apple:
I know we can't all get along but what's the point of discussing something again and again and... :rolleyes:
Might as well be happy with what you got :apple:
matticus008
Mar 19, 04:59 PM
I'd like to see the RIAA, or in my case BPI, try to revoke the license on the 200 CDs I own simply because I've ripped them to my HDD to load onto my iPod. Removing the DRM to load songs I have purchased onto my phone, media streamer or Panasonic digital music player seems very similar to me, as does buying them without DRM.
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
HecubusPro
Sep 12, 07:16 PM
Here's another pic from the event today, taken by the Gizmodo guys...
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
milo
Sep 12, 05:35 PM
Whoa there! Setting up a media center / 360 extender setup is far from 5x the price of the iTV. As a matter of fact, the 360 is the SAME price as the iTV, 299$.
You of course will need a media center pc to make this work, but you need a pc/mac to make the iTV work as well, so thats an added expense on either side.
Does the PC have to be next to the xbox, or is there a way to transfer (hopefully stream) video wirelessly? And if you're using a PC for this, does it tie up the PC or can you use it for other things?
I have a Sony HD-DVR I use to pause live HDTV as well as record. While having a Elgato tuner hooked up to the mac and recording programs there and then streaming it to the iTV box is doable, you won't be able to pause live TV. That is the kind of integration Apple needs to bring to the table.
What makes you think that wouldn't be possible? Elgato does allow pausing live TV, don't they? I don't see why that couldn't be passed on through the iTV.
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
There's no reason to use uncompressed HD, all consumer HD formats are compressed and quality can still be very good. Broadcast HDTV only uses about 20Mb, easily handled by .n. And I doubt many people will be "dismayed" by iTunes quality. Right now, isn't HDTV usage way ahead of HD dvd usage? So aren't most people already watching "dvd quality" on their HDTV's?
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes.
You're using the .g wireless standard, there's a .n standard on the way which is considerably faster. Looks like the new one is what apple will use.
You of course will need a media center pc to make this work, but you need a pc/mac to make the iTV work as well, so thats an added expense on either side.
Does the PC have to be next to the xbox, or is there a way to transfer (hopefully stream) video wirelessly? And if you're using a PC for this, does it tie up the PC or can you use it for other things?
I have a Sony HD-DVR I use to pause live HDTV as well as record. While having a Elgato tuner hooked up to the mac and recording programs there and then streaming it to the iTV box is doable, you won't be able to pause live TV. That is the kind of integration Apple needs to bring to the table.
What makes you think that wouldn't be possible? Elgato does allow pausing live TV, don't they? I don't see why that couldn't be passed on through the iTV.
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
There's no reason to use uncompressed HD, all consumer HD formats are compressed and quality can still be very good. Broadcast HDTV only uses about 20Mb, easily handled by .n. And I doubt many people will be "dismayed" by iTunes quality. Right now, isn't HDTV usage way ahead of HD dvd usage? So aren't most people already watching "dvd quality" on their HDTV's?
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes.
You're using the .g wireless standard, there's a .n standard on the way which is considerably faster. Looks like the new one is what apple will use.
linknprk
Mar 18, 02:52 AM
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
um... did you guys misread the article?
The article is proposing that they might be able to suspect unsupported tethering for people NOT using 4.3 because hotspot wasn't made available until 4.3
So if you stick with 4.1 or 3.1.3 or anything earlier than 4.3 (while using data in a way that looks like tethering)... you will stand out.
Thats how I interpreted the article.
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
um... did you guys misread the article?
The article is proposing that they might be able to suspect unsupported tethering for people NOT using 4.3 because hotspot wasn't made available until 4.3
So if you stick with 4.1 or 3.1.3 or anything earlier than 4.3 (while using data in a way that looks like tethering)... you will stand out.
Thats how I interpreted the article.
RichP
Oct 26, 12:58 PM
Just thought I'd put in my piece of advice about DVI-DL KVM switches. I'm only aware of three of them on the market, the two most common are from Gefen (www.gefen.com). I'm using the 4x1 Gefen and it works perfectly switching my primary display between my G5 quad, two PCs and my MBP. I know the quad switch is double the price, but DO NOT BUY THE 2x1 DVI-DL SWITCH from Gefen!!!
Darn it! That is just stupid. I have a gefen DVI switch now, its sad to hear that the 2x1 is junk. Its not worth it to me for the 4x1, either 900 for a switch, for for 1280, (a few hundred more) I get ANOTHER 30"!
I wish the apple 23s just had the quality of the 20 and 30. :mad:
Darn it! That is just stupid. I have a gefen DVI switch now, its sad to hear that the 2x1 is junk. Its not worth it to me for the 4x1, either 900 for a switch, for for 1280, (a few hundred more) I get ANOTHER 30"!
I wish the apple 23s just had the quality of the 20 and 30. :mad:
macwannabe
Oct 13, 11:19 AM
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
takao
Mar 13, 08:20 AM
might be better suited to the political forum
in reality nothing has really changed in my opinion it was just another event showing how the risks simply can't really be anticipated and also how the nuclear industry likes to reap the profits while not having to insure angainst any disasters _what so ever_
the society gets that burden + cost of potential failures
statistic wise: out of the 55 reactors: 5 were offline because of earlier incidents
of the remaining 51: 11 had emergency shutdowns, 5-6 had massive cooling failures, 2 (partial) meltdowns, including exploding structures
that with such a situation in japan some UK 'nuclear expert' professor goes to an austrian newspaper and talks about "how safe japans nuclear industry is" is just putting the icing on the cake
in reality nothing has really changed in my opinion it was just another event showing how the risks simply can't really be anticipated and also how the nuclear industry likes to reap the profits while not having to insure angainst any disasters _what so ever_
the society gets that burden + cost of potential failures
statistic wise: out of the 55 reactors: 5 were offline because of earlier incidents
of the remaining 51: 11 had emergency shutdowns, 5-6 had massive cooling failures, 2 (partial) meltdowns, including exploding structures
that with such a situation in japan some UK 'nuclear expert' professor goes to an austrian newspaper and talks about "how safe japans nuclear industry is" is just putting the icing on the cake
CalBoy
Mar 27, 07:14 PM
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
There is a big difference between felling conflicted about one's sexual attractions (because it is taboo for example) and desiring to change it. There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
We can surgically change gender, but everyone I've ever spoken to who has had such a procedure done has told me that they never felt "at home" in their prior gender. The medical procedures we have help to align how a person feels their body should be, not the other way around.
There is a big difference between felling conflicted about one's sexual attractions (because it is taboo for example) and desiring to change it. There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
We can surgically change gender, but everyone I've ever spoken to who has had such a procedure done has told me that they never felt "at home" in their prior gender. The medical procedures we have help to align how a person feels their body should be, not the other way around.
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 09:22 AM
In case anyone was wondering. ;)
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 05:38 PM
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
prove it. links , otherwise this is FUD.
prove it. links , otherwise this is FUD.
citizenzen
Mar 14, 07:34 PM
The equation has to be considered in its entirety.
Did they attack your reading comprehension skills too?
The meanies. :(
Did they attack your reading comprehension skills too?
The meanies. :(
notjustjay
Apr 6, 11:58 AM
forgot to add that the "+" (maximize) button is wildly inconsistent in its function.
maximizing to full screen in general isn't the way OS X "works", which is why most programs don't do that...but it seems Apple never really decided what the maximize button is supposed to do.
That's because Apple didn't decide what the maximize button was supposed to do. That was supposed to be up to each application developer.
Don't think of it as a "maximize" button, think of it as "optimize". As in "Hey, application, the user just clicked your green button. Go ahead and resize yourself to whatever you think is most appropriate given what document is currently open." Most apps should resize their window to display the full width without needing scrollbars. In theory.
I agree with the person a few posts up who said "Don't think about how you did it in Windows. Think about what you think would make sense" and it usually works.
As for the other little quibbles discussed in this thread: yes, OS X is a little different (most of these issues are with Finder versus Explorer, I notice). You just get used to it. I use XP at work and OSX at home every day, and I learn to work with each. I do some of the tricks mentioned in this thread (like adding a shortcut to my Applications folder on the dock to mimic a Start menu) but not so much because "I prefer the Windows way" as "this is efficient and makes sense".
maximizing to full screen in general isn't the way OS X "works", which is why most programs don't do that...but it seems Apple never really decided what the maximize button is supposed to do.
That's because Apple didn't decide what the maximize button was supposed to do. That was supposed to be up to each application developer.
Don't think of it as a "maximize" button, think of it as "optimize". As in "Hey, application, the user just clicked your green button. Go ahead and resize yourself to whatever you think is most appropriate given what document is currently open." Most apps should resize their window to display the full width without needing scrollbars. In theory.
I agree with the person a few posts up who said "Don't think about how you did it in Windows. Think about what you think would make sense" and it usually works.
As for the other little quibbles discussed in this thread: yes, OS X is a little different (most of these issues are with Finder versus Explorer, I notice). You just get used to it. I use XP at work and OSX at home every day, and I learn to work with each. I do some of the tricks mentioned in this thread (like adding a shortcut to my Applications folder on the dock to mimic a Start menu) but not so much because "I prefer the Windows way" as "this is efficient and makes sense".
Apple OC
Apr 23, 10:57 PM
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
DanielCoffey
Apr 15, 09:28 AM
What's LGBT?
I believe it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (or something similar).
I believe it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (or something similar).
pmz
Mar 18, 09:13 AM
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
7racer
Sep 12, 07:42 PM
This will be a nice solution if HD streaming is available.
I record my trips/vacations on a HD Sony camcorder and make a iDVD of it.
Hopefully, I will be able to stream this with HiDef to my TV without the need for either Bluray or HDDVD standard to play itself out.
I record my trips/vacations on a HD Sony camcorder and make a iDVD of it.
Hopefully, I will be able to stream this with HiDef to my TV without the need for either Bluray or HDDVD standard to play itself out.
ender land
Apr 23, 09:45 PM
Yes there are. In theistic belief.
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.