Lollypop
Aug 7, 06:46 AM
Not really. I just moved to Mac and i was surprised by the intuitive networking in OSX. However, i agree that it still could be better. Why the aliases? Why won't it connect to the PC when i type its local IP adress? Why is it so hard to have a permanently mounted network drive on your mac? I keep loosing it, having to re-mount it everytime i have taken my MacBook out of WiFi-range. Such things. Maybe most of it is me being a newbie, but still, that proves that it is not intuitive enough.
Networking in the Finder is one of the biggest complaints people seem to have. Said it before and will say it until its done, FTFF! :cool:
Networking in the Finder is one of the biggest complaints people seem to have. Said it before and will say it until its done, FTFF! :cool:
miloblithe
Aug 31, 03:00 PM
Let's hope that those specs aren't the final ones. That they're just to clear inventory.
I'm hoping for Merom based mac minis.. Merom costs the same so why not ?
Knowing that Apple doesn't pay listed prices, it's not unreasonable to assume that Apple could get the Yonah chips for less than Merom ones.
Also, Apple has historically liked to scale its product lineup to encourage buying then next item up the scale. Some have even referred to it as "crippling" the lower machines.
I'm hoping for Merom based mac minis.. Merom costs the same so why not ?
Knowing that Apple doesn't pay listed prices, it's not unreasonable to assume that Apple could get the Yonah chips for less than Merom ones.
Also, Apple has historically liked to scale its product lineup to encourage buying then next item up the scale. Some have even referred to it as "crippling" the lower machines.
Nym
Nov 30, 10:31 AM
Microsoft owns nothing of Apple, just to make that clear, and of course they don't Apple to succeed... they want it to sink. :)
The fact that M$ owns a portion of Apple is a myth, not true.
The fact that M$ owns a portion of Apple is a myth, not true.
andiwm2003
Jul 14, 06:20 AM
i hope blu-ray stays optional. a superdrive is good enough for me. blu ray at the current time is a waste of money for me.
zwilliams07
Jul 14, 10:23 AM
Faster processors, I'll take those of course. Blu-Ray? Hell no, I don't want that turd. Pretty much every format Sony has ever come up with is dead, just look at the UMD now, its a joke.
I'll pass on that MPAA sponsored DRM ladden expensive dog turd.
I'll pass on that MPAA sponsored DRM ladden expensive dog turd.
JoeG4
Jan 10, 08:55 PM
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_zZDRx0MKYqE/TSu-x0eQu1I/AAAAAAAAA64/_d8vR0gg4C4/s800/TheCar%20026.JPG
Still fantastic. :D And gorgeous!
Still fantastic. :D And gorgeous!
noservice2001
Aug 24, 08:24 PM
c'mon apple, i promise to buy one when its released...
tktaylor1
Feb 5, 02:09 PM
2002 Audi A4. 18th birthday present
adroit
Nov 15, 11:25 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
minnesotamacman
Sep 1, 03:29 PM
http://static.flickr.com/95/231249512_9eccfef387_o.jpg
I had to quickly get the drool off of the keyboard before I could type... But hotdiggetydog if the 23" looked like this I would have an order in as soon as the store was back online...
Here is to hoping!
I had to quickly get the drool off of the keyboard before I could type... But hotdiggetydog if the 23" looked like this I would have an order in as soon as the store was back online...
Here is to hoping!
Fuchal
Mar 22, 03:49 PM
Just curious, Why?
Bluetooth headphones, bluetooth audio in cars, etc
Bluetooth headphones, bluetooth audio in cars, etc
NathanMuir
Mar 19, 06:05 PM
It's so close to labia, that I get excited. :o
I was under the impression he was referring to the 'Lybia' in the thread title.
I was under the impression he was referring to the 'Lybia' in the thread title.
apb3
Aug 19, 10:38 AM
If Apple do that then iPod sales will die whenever their competitors are offer all the other services along with an MP3 player. Apple isn't about conservatisim and playing it safe, the reason the iPod was a success was precisely the opposite: innovation.
"Pure" machines are a dying breed, there are very few around these days. Consoles, computers and mobile phones have all shown that the more you offer the better you sell and that "pure" machines are soon to be extinct.
And apb3, what you're describing in the chocolate and PSP is NOT a QWERTY keyboard. Look at the youtube video of the MYLO.
Never actually held the chocolate, just saw the TV ad. But you know what I mean and you cannot possible say that they are easy inpurt methods for even moderately extended use. Or are you? But, in any case, thanks for putting me straight on that.
The iPod would continue to sell "pure" (and I know I'm being contradictory as my original 1Gen iPod is a much different machine than my vid iPod but we're talking of the iPod as a basic walkman-type device) as there will always be demand for a music/media player at a fairly reasonably price. Either through attrition, improvements to current features (bigger screens, easier input methods, color screens, longer battery life, new battery types, etc) there will ALWAYS be demand for the iPod.
Using your reasoning, why not add all these features and more to every TV on the market cuz, "Hey, pure machines are going to be extinct soon. Everybody has a TV so we're not going to be selling any more pretty soon... Let's add keyboards and webcams to the remotes. make 'em with wireless net access, hell, throw in Vista and a dock for the refrigerator to show you how much beer is left so you don't have to get up!!!" That's not what happens. Improvements come and are incorporated and even stick around if people like them or are weeded out in the next model. But those improvements are all related to the TV viewing experience. Remember webTV? and that was only offered as a separate add-on if memory serves.
You can innovate wothout mucking about with a winner by adding a battery draining, mostly useless "feature(s)" to the best selling media device in the world. No one is going to jump ship because they can't control their dishwasher from their iPod interface. If apple feels there is a market for what some members of this forum are calling for and said market is large enough the smart move seems to me to be a new device along with that device's new profit stream, limit it's ability to cannibalize your other products in any large way. You get the idea. You don't need to make the iPod the be-all end-all device. In fact, I think if you did, you'd lose market share to other devices without the bloat.
And the argument that no one wants a "utility belt" with a million devices each dedicated to one function just doesn't hold water with me. I carry a lot of gear. A laptop, a comm device of some sort and my iPod would do anything I need to do as a civilian back in the world. Obviously I carry much more here as I have the desire to make it back to the real world but that's not what the real market is.
But maybe I'm the oddd man out in this argument. I hope not but I have ben wrong once or twice. My wife says so.
"Pure" machines are a dying breed, there are very few around these days. Consoles, computers and mobile phones have all shown that the more you offer the better you sell and that "pure" machines are soon to be extinct.
And apb3, what you're describing in the chocolate and PSP is NOT a QWERTY keyboard. Look at the youtube video of the MYLO.
Never actually held the chocolate, just saw the TV ad. But you know what I mean and you cannot possible say that they are easy inpurt methods for even moderately extended use. Or are you? But, in any case, thanks for putting me straight on that.
The iPod would continue to sell "pure" (and I know I'm being contradictory as my original 1Gen iPod is a much different machine than my vid iPod but we're talking of the iPod as a basic walkman-type device) as there will always be demand for a music/media player at a fairly reasonably price. Either through attrition, improvements to current features (bigger screens, easier input methods, color screens, longer battery life, new battery types, etc) there will ALWAYS be demand for the iPod.
Using your reasoning, why not add all these features and more to every TV on the market cuz, "Hey, pure machines are going to be extinct soon. Everybody has a TV so we're not going to be selling any more pretty soon... Let's add keyboards and webcams to the remotes. make 'em with wireless net access, hell, throw in Vista and a dock for the refrigerator to show you how much beer is left so you don't have to get up!!!" That's not what happens. Improvements come and are incorporated and even stick around if people like them or are weeded out in the next model. But those improvements are all related to the TV viewing experience. Remember webTV? and that was only offered as a separate add-on if memory serves.
You can innovate wothout mucking about with a winner by adding a battery draining, mostly useless "feature(s)" to the best selling media device in the world. No one is going to jump ship because they can't control their dishwasher from their iPod interface. If apple feels there is a market for what some members of this forum are calling for and said market is large enough the smart move seems to me to be a new device along with that device's new profit stream, limit it's ability to cannibalize your other products in any large way. You get the idea. You don't need to make the iPod the be-all end-all device. In fact, I think if you did, you'd lose market share to other devices without the bloat.
And the argument that no one wants a "utility belt" with a million devices each dedicated to one function just doesn't hold water with me. I carry a lot of gear. A laptop, a comm device of some sort and my iPod would do anything I need to do as a civilian back in the world. Obviously I carry much more here as I have the desire to make it back to the real world but that's not what the real market is.
But maybe I'm the oddd man out in this argument. I hope not but I have ben wrong once or twice. My wife says so.
leekohler
Mar 22, 11:45 AM
I love how "gays" freak out when non-homosexual people do something. But yet when "gays" want to do something extreme it's because we don't accept them, so when they get in trouble it's a huge ordeal.
To me this is like the people that don't support war. If a veteran was killed in action and a funeral is happening they can picket the funeral all day long (talk about bull ****!) But yet if we don't let them picket they freak out scream free rights free rights. Well guess what those veterans (me included since I serve) gave them that freedom to stand there in picket.
Gays are the same way. I have no issue with gays, I don't agree with it but if your gay, be gay. Just don't expect the world to conform to your way of life, especially a country (United States) founded on Christianity. If anything go to a foreign country and complain then see how bad it really is to come out, unless it's Amsterdam, Iraq or Afghan they'll love your butt over there.
Oh hell yes, you have a problem with gays. You just basically told us to shut up. Just because things are worse in other countries does not mean we don't work to make things better here. And you don't make things better by keeping quiet.
The United States was also NOT FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY. There is not national religion in this country and it is expressly forbidden to do so in our Constitution.
You don't like hearing gay people scream for our rights? Well then, give us our rights. We'll shut up. Until then, expect to hear it a lot more.
To me this is like the people that don't support war. If a veteran was killed in action and a funeral is happening they can picket the funeral all day long (talk about bull ****!) But yet if we don't let them picket they freak out scream free rights free rights. Well guess what those veterans (me included since I serve) gave them that freedom to stand there in picket.
Gays are the same way. I have no issue with gays, I don't agree with it but if your gay, be gay. Just don't expect the world to conform to your way of life, especially a country (United States) founded on Christianity. If anything go to a foreign country and complain then see how bad it really is to come out, unless it's Amsterdam, Iraq or Afghan they'll love your butt over there.
Oh hell yes, you have a problem with gays. You just basically told us to shut up. Just because things are worse in other countries does not mean we don't work to make things better here. And you don't make things better by keeping quiet.
The United States was also NOT FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY. There is not national religion in this country and it is expressly forbidden to do so in our Constitution.
You don't like hearing gay people scream for our rights? Well then, give us our rights. We'll shut up. Until then, expect to hear it a lot more.
AussieRocket
Nov 28, 08:19 PM
in five years neither the iPod nor the Zune will have any significance. The hardware market will be dominated by Samsung and distribution by walmart.
Samsung is becoming the most dominant consumer electronics company in the world: from LCD TVs to cell phones, to camcorders, to MP3 players. in 2006 they will have sold 150 million phones, growing much faster than Nokia and Motorola. Their camcorder business is just picking off with megapixel camcorders priced below $300. They are just now getting to be serious about the MP3 market. The YP-Z5 would have been one of the top players, had they decided to be agressive on pricing, however for some reason it's held very high selling prices throut the world. Now watch for the YP-T9, it will outsell iPod nano in 2007. It is ridiculously loaded with features and is much better priced than the Z5s.
Walmart controls 40% of DVD distribution. If the DVD goes the way of the music CD, they are not going to let this market slip away from them. They have just started selling digital downloads and have much more clout with content companies than either Microsoft or Apple.
Amazon.com rankings offer extremely limited view of the world. They are only USA, plus research shows that it is the preferred vendor for highly sophisticated users. The world is much bigger. Creative Zen Nano is #1 electronics seller at Amazon.fr and Amazon.de (France and Germany) you can check it out. Creative is not a powerhouse, though. Watch out for Samsung to start ramping up the YP-T9s next year and blow everyone out of the water. As it is now, they are on backorder and sold out at many outlets... Plus Samsung's music phones will far outsell the Iphone...
Samsung is becoming the most dominant consumer electronics company in the world: from LCD TVs to cell phones, to camcorders, to MP3 players. in 2006 they will have sold 150 million phones, growing much faster than Nokia and Motorola. Their camcorder business is just picking off with megapixel camcorders priced below $300. They are just now getting to be serious about the MP3 market. The YP-Z5 would have been one of the top players, had they decided to be agressive on pricing, however for some reason it's held very high selling prices throut the world. Now watch for the YP-T9, it will outsell iPod nano in 2007. It is ridiculously loaded with features and is much better priced than the Z5s.
Walmart controls 40% of DVD distribution. If the DVD goes the way of the music CD, they are not going to let this market slip away from them. They have just started selling digital downloads and have much more clout with content companies than either Microsoft or Apple.
Amazon.com rankings offer extremely limited view of the world. They are only USA, plus research shows that it is the preferred vendor for highly sophisticated users. The world is much bigger. Creative Zen Nano is #1 electronics seller at Amazon.fr and Amazon.de (France and Germany) you can check it out. Creative is not a powerhouse, though. Watch out for Samsung to start ramping up the YP-T9s next year and blow everyone out of the water. As it is now, they are on backorder and sold out at many outlets... Plus Samsung's music phones will far outsell the Iphone...
toddybody
Mar 24, 09:52 PM
So has anyone stuck a 6970 in a mac pro yet?
PS for the people who don't know apple does not support Crossfire or SLI in mac os x so the 6990 which is a dual GPU on a single card solution will not and can not be supported until they change how osx works.
Well then, Apple is gonna confuse alot of people with the 5770 crossfire MP upgrade. Look it up folks, crossfire is supported
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTg5MTY5NDQ
PS for the people who don't know apple does not support Crossfire or SLI in mac os x so the 6990 which is a dual GPU on a single card solution will not and can not be supported until they change how osx works.
Well then, Apple is gonna confuse alot of people with the 5770 crossfire MP upgrade. Look it up folks, crossfire is supported
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTg5MTY5NDQ
Zoddino
Mar 31, 10:03 AM
I'd like to see this too! The old one was pretty bland at the bottom so if this is true I'm glad they changed it.
it's true, it's changed!
here it is to download it!
http://cl.ly/3I371o1z0w003t371d0l
it's true, it's changed!
here it is to download it!
http://cl.ly/3I371o1z0w003t371d0l
redAPPLE
Nov 28, 10:14 AM
imo, like in sports, a loss is a loss.
wheezy
Nov 15, 06:37 PM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
What a very lovely analogy. Thank you.
For me... 8 cores for the bragging rights only... so I guess I won't get one anytime soon. I'm sure 4 would suit me fine though, I need to upgrade my 1Ghz G4!!!
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
What a very lovely analogy. Thank you.
For me... 8 cores for the bragging rights only... so I guess I won't get one anytime soon. I'm sure 4 would suit me fine though, I need to upgrade my 1Ghz G4!!!
logandzwon
Apr 21, 01:24 PM
One of the many advantages of my iPhone 4 tracking me, is that I have big brother watching me. I'm never alone.
The only problem is my stupid Android phone can't do the same.
I have an appointment with Apple next week, I'm giving them the keys to my house, cars, and all my tax returns, stock certificates and investment portfolio. They promise to do every thing for less than 70% of my annual income. A great deal.
I'm in good hands with Apple, not a worry in the world. I'm now an official Apple fanboy. Living in the walled garden all I have to do is be an Apple drone :)
Woo Hoo life is sweet.
Wow, how can I sign up for this? At 80K yearly that would leave you with 2K a month to spend each month, (with your house, cars, taxes, and investments covered.)
The only problem is my stupid Android phone can't do the same.
I have an appointment with Apple next week, I'm giving them the keys to my house, cars, and all my tax returns, stock certificates and investment portfolio. They promise to do every thing for less than 70% of my annual income. A great deal.
I'm in good hands with Apple, not a worry in the world. I'm now an official Apple fanboy. Living in the walled garden all I have to do is be an Apple drone :)
Woo Hoo life is sweet.
Wow, how can I sign up for this? At 80K yearly that would leave you with 2K a month to spend each month, (with your house, cars, taxes, and investments covered.)
Otaillon
Jan 9, 08:58 AM
I was finally able to take my own pics of my just acquired '88 BMW 325is with M50B25TU engine swap. Darn this car is quick and handles so very well.
Don't mind my nerdy self, It's who I am and I have come to accept it over a decade ago:D
This car is just perfect! Congratulations on the new purchase!
Don't mind my nerdy self, It's who I am and I have come to accept it over a decade ago:D
This car is just perfect! Congratulations on the new purchase!
Lollypop
Jul 18, 01:49 AM
I'm sufficiently excited. Here's hoping for higher quality (than the current TV shows) and Netflix-esque pricing.
Start "TS isn't accurate/only for the US" whining in 3, 2, 1�
I was trying to avoid the whining, but now that you bring it up... when is apple going to bring the video content to other coutries?
Start "TS isn't accurate/only for the US" whining in 3, 2, 1�
I was trying to avoid the whining, but now that you bring it up... when is apple going to bring the video content to other coutries?
hobbyrennfahrer
Feb 7, 03:58 PM
My new "old" car...:cool:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5211/5384826941_9becd4f811_z.jpg
Win :D
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5211/5384826941_9becd4f811_z.jpg
Win :D
BC2009
Oct 25, 05:58 AM
Bullcrap. WTF looks through CR to read bad reports? I look in it to find the BEST performing and quality products, not the worst. I only care about the worst if it was something I was considering at which point I take a much closer look.
I agree with you on that point -- nobody looks through CR for a bad report -- but you missed my point. If I am NOT a CR subscriber and the news comes out with some big thing CR uncovered then I am more likely to think "Wow, CR is a great publication -- I should subscribe". But if CR releases yet another glowing review of something from Honda, Apple, Toyota then I would think "I already knew that -- those are good brands".
CR gets notoriety in the media when they uncover something on one of the brand favorites. It also helps give them credibility with the masses by going after these guys. Sometimes they are over-zealous in their efforts. Their reviewers have personal bias too and I fully believe that comes to play in their reviews. It was just over obvious in the video they released on iPhone-4. The reviewer's little attempts at humor tipped his hand. Watch the video again and ask yourself "was this an unbiased reviewer?" The answer is an obvious "No".
The reviewers at CR make their mark by uncovering the missteps by the big-name brands. Its how they build their career. Apple is a big target for any of their reviewers (as are any automobile manufacturer when it comes to safety issues -- these are big news).
I've never seen the 11:00 news lead with a story on "Consumer Reports says the new iPhone is the best", but they are certainly going to lead with "Consumer Reports says Apple's new phone is fundamentally flawed". The reviewers know this and they look to get the big story. They are human and their personal motivations play into what they do, just like everyone else.
I agree with you on that point -- nobody looks through CR for a bad report -- but you missed my point. If I am NOT a CR subscriber and the news comes out with some big thing CR uncovered then I am more likely to think "Wow, CR is a great publication -- I should subscribe". But if CR releases yet another glowing review of something from Honda, Apple, Toyota then I would think "I already knew that -- those are good brands".
CR gets notoriety in the media when they uncover something on one of the brand favorites. It also helps give them credibility with the masses by going after these guys. Sometimes they are over-zealous in their efforts. Their reviewers have personal bias too and I fully believe that comes to play in their reviews. It was just over obvious in the video they released on iPhone-4. The reviewer's little attempts at humor tipped his hand. Watch the video again and ask yourself "was this an unbiased reviewer?" The answer is an obvious "No".
The reviewers at CR make their mark by uncovering the missteps by the big-name brands. Its how they build their career. Apple is a big target for any of their reviewers (as are any automobile manufacturer when it comes to safety issues -- these are big news).
I've never seen the 11:00 news lead with a story on "Consumer Reports says the new iPhone is the best", but they are certainly going to lead with "Consumer Reports says Apple's new phone is fundamentally flawed". The reviewers know this and they look to get the big story. They are human and their personal motivations play into what they do, just like everyone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment