NAG
Jan 12, 09:07 PM
So gizmodo is responsible for this how? Questioning what makes an online a journalist a journalist and not just a fan site has been going on for some time (aka: before gizmodo turned off a bunch of TVs). You're just scapegoating an easy target. If you have a problem with the conferences and expos limiting press to only a few big names go after that. Not after guys who like to prank people. You'll change nothing by attacking gizmodo.
clevin
Jan 12, 07:07 PM
ok, now, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, who is lesser evil?
trust me, they are both evil, businesslike.
At least Bill have the biggest charity foundation.
trust me, they are both evil, businesslike.
At least Bill have the biggest charity foundation.
flopticalcube
Apr 16, 04:53 PM
Hardly. Do look up "affront" in a dictionary.
Sure it is. I find your particular brand of narrow-mindedness offensive. Therefore it is an affront.
...and with that you have nothing to offer me anymore... Goodbye...
Sure it is. I find your particular brand of narrow-mindedness offensive. Therefore it is an affront.
...and with that you have nothing to offer me anymore... Goodbye...
notabadname
Apr 16, 12:24 PM
It's hard to know what features Apple wouldn't have included in the latest gen of a product if it hadn't been for competition. Maybe iPad 2 wouldn't have had the improved GPU if it had zero competing products.
One thing I'm certain of, iOS would still not have had personal hot spot if it hadn't been for the competition from Android.
This argument is flawed IMO, because, even in a vacuum of competition, Apple is going to advance the product line each year for the purpose of upgrading customers. The business model doesn't work, even in the absence of competition, to allow a product line to become static. To think that Apple wouldn't add features, make it faster, sleeker, lighter, etc is flawed. Even with no competition, there would have been an iPad 2. They are all about selling products, every year. And a lot of that consumer base is in existing customers - they've gotta keep us reinvesting in the product. And it would have to have significant improvements for people like me to trade version 1 for it.
One thing I'm certain of, iOS would still not have had personal hot spot if it hadn't been for the competition from Android.
This argument is flawed IMO, because, even in a vacuum of competition, Apple is going to advance the product line each year for the purpose of upgrading customers. The business model doesn't work, even in the absence of competition, to allow a product line to become static. To think that Apple wouldn't add features, make it faster, sleeker, lighter, etc is flawed. Even with no competition, there would have been an iPad 2. They are all about selling products, every year. And a lot of that consumer base is in existing customers - they've gotta keep us reinvesting in the product. And it would have to have significant improvements for people like me to trade version 1 for it.
marksman
May 3, 03:35 PM
Contract terms require "consideration" from both parties to be legally binding. Consideration is something you provide to the other party (i.e., money from you, data services from your carrier).
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
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.
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
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.
bigdz68
Nov 24, 04:42 AM
Oddly enough, from the education store, you can't get the extra discounts. Well at least not on the ipod...but on the government store ... YOU CAN!
I would have save an extra $30 if I went through the gvt store. OOOPS! Hopefully someone else benefits from this post and doesnt make the same mistake! I will probably call apple in the morning and see if I can get the extra savings ... but just a heads up if you are a gvt employee!
:D
I would have save an extra $30 if I went through the gvt store. OOOPS! Hopefully someone else benefits from this post and doesnt make the same mistake! I will probably call apple in the morning and see if I can get the extra savings ... but just a heads up if you are a gvt employee!
:D
wpotere
Apr 13, 11:26 AM
No, my point was to scale it back to what it was before 9/11 and maintain both domestic and international security at the pre 9/11 level of international security.
Before 9/11 I could walk right to my gate in several major airports.
Before 9/11 I could walk right to my gate in several major airports.
HyperZboy
Apr 9, 08:31 PM
Oh crap. 400 fear-mongering posts in the other thread were for naught. :eek:
LOL!
Come on people, think next time. Like Apple gives a rat's ass how their retailers horde iPads when Apple themselves can't even supply them.
HAHA!
Seems like half the people here have worked at Best Buy and the other half hate Best Buy and refuse to shop there. Yet both groups know equally as much about Best Buy's retail marketing plans as well.
Hmmm, what are the statistical chances of that happening? :D
Earth to Geeks... You think Apple doesn't specifically ship certain stock just for a promotion? (therefor it's not considered "stock" the day or week before)
Apple even ships stuff with orders to merchants not to open boxes until a certain day/time.
Not to mention, we know Apple has been having supply problems. So I see nothing wrong with Best Buy conserving stock for a promotion. This a whole lot of nothing except to the fanatics on geek websites who worship at the alter of Steve Jobs and have no lives.
If all these people posting really worked in retail, I'm convinced it must have really been at McDonald's, not Best Buy! I'm told by a reliable source they really will sell all of the Big Macs they have on hand. LOL
The only thing I've learned here is that the average Best Buy employee is not in the loop to know what they're talking about nor is the average Best Buy customer. Show me a local manager and I'd still think they're out of the loop. Unless somebody from corporate or a regional manager goes public or Apple or Best Buy makes a statement, this story is a whole lot about nothing.
LOL!
Come on people, think next time. Like Apple gives a rat's ass how their retailers horde iPads when Apple themselves can't even supply them.
HAHA!
Seems like half the people here have worked at Best Buy and the other half hate Best Buy and refuse to shop there. Yet both groups know equally as much about Best Buy's retail marketing plans as well.
Hmmm, what are the statistical chances of that happening? :D
Earth to Geeks... You think Apple doesn't specifically ship certain stock just for a promotion? (therefor it's not considered "stock" the day or week before)
Apple even ships stuff with orders to merchants not to open boxes until a certain day/time.
Not to mention, we know Apple has been having supply problems. So I see nothing wrong with Best Buy conserving stock for a promotion. This a whole lot of nothing except to the fanatics on geek websites who worship at the alter of Steve Jobs and have no lives.
If all these people posting really worked in retail, I'm convinced it must have really been at McDonald's, not Best Buy! I'm told by a reliable source they really will sell all of the Big Macs they have on hand. LOL
The only thing I've learned here is that the average Best Buy employee is not in the loop to know what they're talking about nor is the average Best Buy customer. Show me a local manager and I'd still think they're out of the loop. Unless somebody from corporate or a regional manager goes public or Apple or Best Buy makes a statement, this story is a whole lot about nothing.
Metatron
Jan 5, 04:19 PM
If I recall correctly (prob. not) Apple use to have the keynote live on TV that people could pick up with old c-band sat. recievers. What ever happend to that?
jayducharme
Apr 29, 06:49 PM
The main problem with the "slider" idea is that it wasn't intuitive which selection was active (since we're so used to a depressed icon indicating selection). I like the concept of a slider; it reminds me of the old tile games. Perhaps a compromise would have been to have the selected item's text glow, as if a little LED were behind it. That would have made it really clear which item was active.
Macxor
Apr 29, 04:06 PM
me too
+1
+1
maflynn
Apr 13, 06:24 AM
It has always been the same with the mac. Just go to the finder and look for shared computers.
OR
Taskbar: 'Go To Server/Computer'
OR
ssh/ftp > prostuff-not required
I know and either the OSX is able to connect to the windows PC or gives me errors when I try to access the folder. doing this in windows works fine. I used to use Thursby DAVE for my networking needs in OSX before apple started to provide a more robust (though problematic) set of networking tools. When I used that app, I had little problems having OSX access window's files.
Report bugs. Are you comparing b/w OSX <-> Windows and Windows <-> Windows?
I am comparing OSX to Windows vs. Windows to Windows because 99% of my networking needs is accessing files on a windows machine, whether its on a home pc, or an enterprise server, or workstation. I'm not sure what bugs I could report to apple, other then stating its slow.
You are confusing stuff.
I don't think so, perhaps my post was not worded as clearly as it could have been. My point was that networking with windows to windows is easier and windows has an advantage there. given that the companies I've dealt with, they're mostly a windows shop. My point there then is using windows to access the resources is easier, faster and has less headaches.
OR
Taskbar: 'Go To Server/Computer'
OR
ssh/ftp > prostuff-not required
I know and either the OSX is able to connect to the windows PC or gives me errors when I try to access the folder. doing this in windows works fine. I used to use Thursby DAVE for my networking needs in OSX before apple started to provide a more robust (though problematic) set of networking tools. When I used that app, I had little problems having OSX access window's files.
Report bugs. Are you comparing b/w OSX <-> Windows and Windows <-> Windows?
I am comparing OSX to Windows vs. Windows to Windows because 99% of my networking needs is accessing files on a windows machine, whether its on a home pc, or an enterprise server, or workstation. I'm not sure what bugs I could report to apple, other then stating its slow.
You are confusing stuff.
I don't think so, perhaps my post was not worded as clearly as it could have been. My point was that networking with windows to windows is easier and windows has an advantage there. given that the companies I've dealt with, they're mostly a windows shop. My point there then is using windows to access the resources is easier, faster and has less headaches.
JustSayGrr
Sep 29, 11:18 PM
I understand that the plans have to be submitted to local planning authorities for architectural and engineering reviews, etc. but I think I'd be a little upset at even the rough floor plans making it out on the web out of concern for personal safety. :eek:
I would hope that there are some elaborate physical security features as part of the build out. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why it's a relatively modestly sized home on a comparatively large lot size...a physical buffer zone.
I would hope that there are some elaborate physical security features as part of the build out. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why it's a relatively modestly sized home on a comparatively large lot size...a physical buffer zone.
l3lack J4ck
Nov 23, 11:01 PM
and when you say EPP why do u think that will imply to me? i am not part of a corporate thing only a "university" student. I am acutally a high school student but am enrolled in college classes...i have a university id tho..
so you think it will be included?
so you think it will be included?
saving107
Mar 17, 01:03 AM
Continue to justify yourself, don't worry, your not the bad guy here, Best Buy is.
And as much as you hate them, you continue to give them your business and use their Reward Zone service.
And as much as you hate them, you continue to give them your business and use their Reward Zone service.
mozmac
Oct 19, 11:41 AM
I've bought and sold quite a bit of AAPL over the years since, but always held onto my original stake. My cost basis is around $4 a share. Now I can't afford to sell it!
I was 14 back in 1997 when AAPL was sitting around $12. I told my parents and my uncle to dump tons of money into it because it was going up. They didn't really listen to me. My parents did put a little in by buying two shares for each of us kids (6 in total) for Christmas. Since then they've split a few times and are now sitting at around $80. I'm loving it. I've bought more since, but like you, I'm still holding onto my original stake, which is at 6 shares now, thanks to splits.
I was 14 back in 1997 when AAPL was sitting around $12. I told my parents and my uncle to dump tons of money into it because it was going up. They didn't really listen to me. My parents did put a little in by buying two shares for each of us kids (6 in total) for Christmas. Since then they've split a few times and are now sitting at around $80. I'm loving it. I've bought more since, but like you, I'm still holding onto my original stake, which is at 6 shares now, thanks to splits.
*LTD*
Apr 22, 06:48 PM
Sorry to break it to you but a device that records my location and saves that for reporting back, or for someone else to read is a serious breach of my privacy. As I stated, the police were fully aware of this, making this privacy breach more big brother like then anything else.
If anyone else were doing this, you'd be crying foul so fast but because its your beloved apple, they get a pass for recording your locations :confused:
No.
My locations aren't a secret. I can be photographed, recorded on video, and SEEN by everyday people.
You want privacy? Stay the **** home. There's your privacy. You have a lease, you own property, you have an address, you're on the grid. You can be found very, very easily. Especially by your creditors. Do you know that your credit report contains virtually everything about you? Employers, current and former, addresses, current and former, active credit products, dormant credit products, your bill paying history, Social Security Number, date of birth, emergency contacts/next of kin, any legal items against you, any inquiries ever made by creditors or their partners (collections agencies), etc. Any creditor or prospective creditor can have a look at it - and that includes ALL of their partners.
Tracking where you go is NOTHING.
You walk out the door, you're fair game. I have nothing to hide. I don't have the nuclear launch codes, and the big bad government and guys in the black helicopters probably know that I don't have them. Do you? LOL
Much ado about nothing. This stuff is benign for the average person.
I don't care if Apple does it, or Google, or Microsloth. What exactly are they going to do with my location information? Send a black car to tail me?
It's the *principle* of all this that's got you worried. But in *practice* there's really no affect to you. You think it's more control over your life by someone else, but it really isn't.
Live with it.
If anyone else were doing this, you'd be crying foul so fast but because its your beloved apple, they get a pass for recording your locations :confused:
No.
My locations aren't a secret. I can be photographed, recorded on video, and SEEN by everyday people.
You want privacy? Stay the **** home. There's your privacy. You have a lease, you own property, you have an address, you're on the grid. You can be found very, very easily. Especially by your creditors. Do you know that your credit report contains virtually everything about you? Employers, current and former, addresses, current and former, active credit products, dormant credit products, your bill paying history, Social Security Number, date of birth, emergency contacts/next of kin, any legal items against you, any inquiries ever made by creditors or their partners (collections agencies), etc. Any creditor or prospective creditor can have a look at it - and that includes ALL of their partners.
Tracking where you go is NOTHING.
You walk out the door, you're fair game. I have nothing to hide. I don't have the nuclear launch codes, and the big bad government and guys in the black helicopters probably know that I don't have them. Do you? LOL
Much ado about nothing. This stuff is benign for the average person.
I don't care if Apple does it, or Google, or Microsloth. What exactly are they going to do with my location information? Send a black car to tail me?
It's the *principle* of all this that's got you worried. But in *practice* there's really no affect to you. You think it's more control over your life by someone else, but it really isn't.
Live with it.
airforce1
May 2, 12:14 PM
Certainly, if Apple wanted to record my personal position it would make MUCH MUCH MUCH more sense for their servers to simply record the query my phone makes to obtain the portion of the crowd-sourced database that my phone wants to cache. That query could easily include a more exact GPS position (i.e.: give me the part of the cache near this location).
I wonder if Google records my Wifi/GPS location on Google Maps or what locations I searched when using Google Maps. Hopefully, my identity is anonymized before the query is sent to Google for what part of the Maps database to pull down and cache. But again, it would be really easy for anybody to do this on the server side.
Apple used this tacky process you described becuase they obviously wanted to CONCEAL it from users, they certainly would not want the FEDS, Washinton and other agencies to know that they where doing it to them, whether or not they picked certain individuals is a matter Congress will settle, im sure if a mafia or cartel had this type of access they would also monitor wall street and join in on the scams.
And yeah Google does record but they at least give you the option to turn it off which makesd them liable if they intrude, Apple uses suckers and propaganda on forums and BS to cover up their sweatshop companies and 3rd party developers who probably helped them spy on competitors.
I wonder if Google records my Wifi/GPS location on Google Maps or what locations I searched when using Google Maps. Hopefully, my identity is anonymized before the query is sent to Google for what part of the Maps database to pull down and cache. But again, it would be really easy for anybody to do this on the server side.
Apple used this tacky process you described becuase they obviously wanted to CONCEAL it from users, they certainly would not want the FEDS, Washinton and other agencies to know that they where doing it to them, whether or not they picked certain individuals is a matter Congress will settle, im sure if a mafia or cartel had this type of access they would also monitor wall street and join in on the scams.
And yeah Google does record but they at least give you the option to turn it off which makesd them liable if they intrude, Apple uses suckers and propaganda on forums and BS to cover up their sweatshop companies and 3rd party developers who probably helped them spy on competitors.
PeteyKohut
Jan 15, 04:05 PM
This has to be one of the worst Macworld keynotes ever....and there were a couple of stinkers. I mean....where are the new MacBook Pros? Where is a new Mini? Where is an AppleTV with an OPTICAL DRIVE! Nowhere to be seen. What do we get? A new laptop where they charge us more and give us less. I mean...when was the last time Apple shipped a computer without Firewire??? Please! Hell...they should have saved the Mac Pro announcement for today, to add SOMETHING to the awful show. Maybe then my portfolio wouldn't have taken the dive it did. Come on, Steve, is this the best you can do? Where are these new Apple/Intel devices??? My biggest disappointment is the lack of Blu-Ray though. I mean, no new iPod? No new iPhone. I mean....I don't need anything HUGE, just some storage increases. Bad....bad bad bad.
xUKHCx
Apr 21, 12:11 PM
I clicked on a post rated 0 and it went to -2. I clicked on another post rated 0, and it went to -2. I clicked - again and it went to -1.
Are you doing it in this thread? because I suspect that lots of people are voting on every post to try stuff out. Go and find a dormant post to test it on.
Are you doing it in this thread? because I suspect that lots of people are voting on every post to try stuff out. Go and find a dormant post to test it on.
Lord Blackadder
May 5, 06:24 PM
If we were to implement restrictions it would have to be nation-wide, or else it would be too easily thwarted.
What do we do with the 200 million legally owned guns? Not to mention the unknown (but surely quite significant) number of illegally owned or stolen guns we can't even track?
I think any talk of a blanket ban is pure folly and ignores the reality of the situation.
The biggest problem is just how far apart people are on this issue. People with little or no exposure to guns generally fear them and support draconian bans; people who grew up surrounded by them are much more likely to support some level of gun ownership, but a vocal minority of them want to do away with most or all regulation. I think both extreme positions (seeking to ban most/all guns vs advocating little/no regulation) are unrealistic and need to be abandoned.
The NRA's current policy leans heavily towards automatic knee-jerk attacks towards any person or organization that might appear to criticise or question any aspect of firearms ownership, or to undertake any scientific study involving guns, safety, culture, crime, etc etc. Speaking as a gun owner myself, I think the NRA is a wayward, counterproductive organization that is far too combative and has strayed too far from their original purpose, becoming in the process a horrible caricature of itself. On the other hand, a large chunk of the anti-gun lobby consists of fearmongers who are themselves largely ignorant when it comes to firearms and prey on the ignorance and fear of people to gain support.
The whole political debate is broken, and I see no evidence that this will ever change. Both sides fear nothing more than concession to their opponent, so an eternal stalemate will continue.
The OP is an example of just how far from reality the "gun debate" in this country has strayed.
What do we do with the 200 million legally owned guns? Not to mention the unknown (but surely quite significant) number of illegally owned or stolen guns we can't even track?
I think any talk of a blanket ban is pure folly and ignores the reality of the situation.
The biggest problem is just how far apart people are on this issue. People with little or no exposure to guns generally fear them and support draconian bans; people who grew up surrounded by them are much more likely to support some level of gun ownership, but a vocal minority of them want to do away with most or all regulation. I think both extreme positions (seeking to ban most/all guns vs advocating little/no regulation) are unrealistic and need to be abandoned.
The NRA's current policy leans heavily towards automatic knee-jerk attacks towards any person or organization that might appear to criticise or question any aspect of firearms ownership, or to undertake any scientific study involving guns, safety, culture, crime, etc etc. Speaking as a gun owner myself, I think the NRA is a wayward, counterproductive organization that is far too combative and has strayed too far from their original purpose, becoming in the process a horrible caricature of itself. On the other hand, a large chunk of the anti-gun lobby consists of fearmongers who are themselves largely ignorant when it comes to firearms and prey on the ignorance and fear of people to gain support.
The whole political debate is broken, and I see no evidence that this will ever change. Both sides fear nothing more than concession to their opponent, so an eternal stalemate will continue.
The OP is an example of just how far from reality the "gun debate" in this country has strayed.
darkplanets
Apr 17, 11:05 AM
Our troop casualties are staggering (nearly 32,000 injured in Iraq in addition to the 4,000 dead and over 10,000 injured along with 1,500 dead in Afghanistan).
Sorry to be the insensitive bastard, but 32k injured is hardly staggering. This isn't even comparable to a real war-time situation; 4k dead soldiers is but a drop in the bucket relative to past wars, declared or otherwise.
Again, if you want to solve the security problem, excess scanners is not the answer; profiling is. It's not that hard.
Sorry to be the insensitive bastard, but 32k injured is hardly staggering. This isn't even comparable to a real war-time situation; 4k dead soldiers is but a drop in the bucket relative to past wars, declared or otherwise.
Again, if you want to solve the security problem, excess scanners is not the answer; profiling is. It's not that hard.
rdowns
Apr 16, 04:20 PM
Your only role models should be the ones your personally know. Teaching "gay history" is more about promoting homosexuality than helping children.
I can't help but feel that your posts come from way inside the closet. Why do gay people frighten you so?
I can't help but feel that your posts come from way inside the closet. Why do gay people frighten you so?
Geckotek
Dec 19, 09:03 PM
Also if Apple was going to release a CDMA phone why haven't they for countries like China where I is the dominate cell phone tech. Instead they went with the second place carrier who supports GSM.
CDMA is not even close to being the dominate tech in cellular in China.
Correct. Some numbers to back that up.
China Mobile (GSM) = 558M subscribers (World's largest carrier)
China Unicom (GSM) = 152M subscribers
Verizon (CDMA) = 92M subscribers
China Telecom (CDMA) = 85M subscribers
China Mobile (TD-SCDMA*) = 17M subscribers
*not the same CDMA Verizon or China Telecom uses so doesn't really count
As you can see, GSM subscribers in China FAR outweigh the CDMA subscribers. Also, Verizon has more CDMA subscribers than China (not counting TD-SCDMA since it's not the same tech).
However, China Mobile's GSM network is 2G. They are rapidly rolling out TD-SCDMA as their 3G replacement. This will eat away at the GSM subscriber base. This is also why China Unicom has the iPhone and China Mobile didn't. A lot of people wondered why the larger company didn't get it.
CDMA is not even close to being the dominate tech in cellular in China.
Correct. Some numbers to back that up.
China Mobile (GSM) = 558M subscribers (World's largest carrier)
China Unicom (GSM) = 152M subscribers
Verizon (CDMA) = 92M subscribers
China Telecom (CDMA) = 85M subscribers
China Mobile (TD-SCDMA*) = 17M subscribers
*not the same CDMA Verizon or China Telecom uses so doesn't really count
As you can see, GSM subscribers in China FAR outweigh the CDMA subscribers. Also, Verizon has more CDMA subscribers than China (not counting TD-SCDMA since it's not the same tech).
However, China Mobile's GSM network is 2G. They are rapidly rolling out TD-SCDMA as their 3G replacement. This will eat away at the GSM subscriber base. This is also why China Unicom has the iPhone and China Mobile didn't. A lot of people wondered why the larger company didn't get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment