Eidorian
May 4, 12:16 AM
You really want to watch video on a 10" screen?That's the joke.
On a more serious note, not really. I was trying to think of something other than web browsing. I have a HTPC that I cobbled together that takes care of that.
On a more serious note, not really. I was trying to think of something other than web browsing. I have a HTPC that I cobbled together that takes care of that.
paradox00
May 3, 04:14 PM
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you. You aren't legally obligated to pay twice for that same 2 GB of consideration if you want to use a tethering app.
Any concerns carriers have with bandwidth use can be addressed through their data plans, which they have full control of. They are not within their rights to start dictating what apps can or can't access data on your phone. Even if tethering apps generate a lot of data use, charging specifically for tethering is just a stopgap for a larger problem with their data plan pricing structure. Tethering apps are just one type of many high bandwidth apps. Are they going to start charging for all of them? Do you think that's reasonable?
Today your wireless ISP charges extra for tethering, tomorrow it will charge extra to access Netflix, and perhaps later on, your local ISP will want in on the action and start charge per device connected to your router. This segmented path of internet service is not a path I want to go down. The moment data becomes more than just data, and becomes data by application or use, is the day that consumers lose.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you. You aren't legally obligated to pay twice for that same 2 GB of consideration if you want to use a tethering app.
Any concerns carriers have with bandwidth use can be addressed through their data plans, which they have full control of. They are not within their rights to start dictating what apps can or can't access data on your phone. Even if tethering apps generate a lot of data use, charging specifically for tethering is just a stopgap for a larger problem with their data plan pricing structure. Tethering apps are just one type of many high bandwidth apps. Are they going to start charging for all of them? Do you think that's reasonable?
Today your wireless ISP charges extra for tethering, tomorrow it will charge extra to access Netflix, and perhaps later on, your local ISP will want in on the action and start charge per device connected to your router. This segmented path of internet service is not a path I want to go down. The moment data becomes more than just data, and becomes data by application or use, is the day that consumers lose.
miamialley
Apr 8, 01:55 PM
I realize this is a rumor site, but posting conflicting rumors in the same day is getting obnoxious. Is there ANY fact checking at all?
clintob
Oct 3, 06:27 PM
The MBP is a Pro machine. I'd be willing to be that most of Apple's pro user-base does know the difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.
Ahh... but you assume the average customer cares. I agree, the MBP is intended to be a pro machine. But there are a lot of customers out there who buy the biggest and brightest because they can afford it and they want it. I have a boss who doesn't know his elbow from his... well... you know. And he has an MBP and a 20" Intel iMac. He can barely use his email, but he's got the toys. And these people are not that rare... particularly when it comes to Apple. Sad but true.
And as a minor technicality, sending IMs and loading web pages depend on the speed of your internet connection, not your processor.
Yeah, I know... I was just making a point. Internet connection being equal, the generic apps (Safari, Mail, iChat) are all simple enough to run at basically same speed on a Powerbook G4 as they do on a brand new MacPro.
I predict MBPs will be out sooner than you might think, otherwise Apple risks being scoffed at by the technology community
I'm sure we'll see them soon too, if only because it's been a while since the last MBP refresh. But the people who are clamoring or saying that the tech community will scoff at Apple are mistaken. We all bitch and moan because we want the latest, but whenever it comes, even if it's in January, we'll all still buy because at the end of the day the processor is only a piece of the puzzle. Apple is head and shoulders better than everyone else, so those of us in the know will always buy... they've built more than enough confidence over the past few years to earn the technology community's trust.
Ahh... but you assume the average customer cares. I agree, the MBP is intended to be a pro machine. But there are a lot of customers out there who buy the biggest and brightest because they can afford it and they want it. I have a boss who doesn't know his elbow from his... well... you know. And he has an MBP and a 20" Intel iMac. He can barely use his email, but he's got the toys. And these people are not that rare... particularly when it comes to Apple. Sad but true.
And as a minor technicality, sending IMs and loading web pages depend on the speed of your internet connection, not your processor.
Yeah, I know... I was just making a point. Internet connection being equal, the generic apps (Safari, Mail, iChat) are all simple enough to run at basically same speed on a Powerbook G4 as they do on a brand new MacPro.
I predict MBPs will be out sooner than you might think, otherwise Apple risks being scoffed at by the technology community
I'm sure we'll see them soon too, if only because it's been a while since the last MBP refresh. But the people who are clamoring or saying that the tech community will scoff at Apple are mistaken. We all bitch and moan because we want the latest, but whenever it comes, even if it's in January, we'll all still buy because at the end of the day the processor is only a piece of the puzzle. Apple is head and shoulders better than everyone else, so those of us in the know will always buy... they've built more than enough confidence over the past few years to earn the technology community's trust.
more...
G58
Apr 5, 06:14 PM
Unfortunately, Clukas's quote above is a perfect example of how the majority of the board is reacting to this post. 'Lost cause', 'loser', 'moron', 'has no life' are all insults I've seen all over this posting. Incredibly immature and unnecessary if you ask me.
There are people, they're often called socialists, who believe that it's somehow unfair that a few people make more money than everyone else. These same people probably applaud when stores get looted in a crisis, protests or during civil unrest.
An ad, a good ad, is like a mini movie. It tells a story. The people who make these ads are very often [though not exclusively] Apple users.
I think what we're witnessing here in response to this story is the effect of the new breed of Apple buyer - a creature with the resources to afford the best, but non of the appreciation to discern the value of anything.
There are people, they're often called socialists, who believe that it's somehow unfair that a few people make more money than everyone else. These same people probably applaud when stores get looted in a crisis, protests or during civil unrest.
An ad, a good ad, is like a mini movie. It tells a story. The people who make these ads are very often [though not exclusively] Apple users.
I think what we're witnessing here in response to this story is the effect of the new breed of Apple buyer - a creature with the resources to afford the best, but non of the appreciation to discern the value of anything.
leekohler
May 6, 10:09 AM
I believe this might LITERALLY be the first time I've ever read something from Lee, been impressed with it's depth, and not been saddened by the complete opacity of his partisan blinders.
Very well said, sir. I agree, 100%
Funny, you could really use this advice more than anyone else here.
I would take that as a compliment, but it was just another backhanded insult.
Here's a little knowledge. Try to empower yourself with it.
I've shot guns.
And yet ... somehow ... I'm not bewitched by the thrill of firearms.
I know. How is that even possible? :eek:
Well, good for you. Maybe other people do enjoy them. Different strokes, dude. I tried marijuana, and wasn't "bewitched" by that thrill either. That doesn't mean I don't think other people should not be able to use it.
Very well said, sir. I agree, 100%
Funny, you could really use this advice more than anyone else here.
I would take that as a compliment, but it was just another backhanded insult.
Here's a little knowledge. Try to empower yourself with it.
I've shot guns.
And yet ... somehow ... I'm not bewitched by the thrill of firearms.
I know. How is that even possible? :eek:
Well, good for you. Maybe other people do enjoy them. Different strokes, dude. I tried marijuana, and wasn't "bewitched" by that thrill either. That doesn't mean I don't think other people should not be able to use it.
more...
RaZaK
Oct 9, 11:16 AM
i have no love for Verizon, but that was certainly a hilarious commercial.
I guess 'desperation is the mother of all invention' applies here (i know that's not the correct quote :rolleyes:)
it will be interesting to see what happens next year when exclusivity supposedly ends
it will also be interesting to see if Android gains momentum with support from all the phone carriers.
:D
still, :apple: FTW
I guess 'desperation is the mother of all invention' applies here (i know that's not the correct quote :rolleyes:)
it will be interesting to see what happens next year when exclusivity supposedly ends
it will also be interesting to see if Android gains momentum with support from all the phone carriers.
:D
still, :apple: FTW
jbennardo
Apr 6, 08:23 AM
Their store, their rules I guess.
more...
mw360
Apr 6, 10:05 AM
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
Object-X
Sep 25, 01:54 PM
That's a very public beta which has been steadily improved over that time (the last update was yesterday). Unlike Apple, Adobe haven't charged for the beta experience. Amusingly, some of the top new Apple "innovations" are clones of Lightroom features.
Yes, a very good point. And it makes me wonder if Adobe will ever charge for it. In fact, now they have rebranded it Adobe "Photoshop" Darkroom, it leads me to believe it will be included as part of Photoshop and not as a seperate product. This might also be why they haven't released it yet, since the next version of Photoshop isn't finished. This strategy would undercut Apple since most photography professionals undoubtedly already own Photoshop and will upgrade.
Yes, a very good point. And it makes me wonder if Adobe will ever charge for it. In fact, now they have rebranded it Adobe "Photoshop" Darkroom, it leads me to believe it will be included as part of Photoshop and not as a seperate product. This might also be why they haven't released it yet, since the next version of Photoshop isn't finished. This strategy would undercut Apple since most photography professionals undoubtedly already own Photoshop and will upgrade.
more...
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 04:43 PM
I am not surpised by that design. A lot of phones on the market are being released right now as single piece aluminum. Take for example the htc desire, legend and Motorola devior. All 3 are single piece aluminum phones so it is no surprised apple is coping that design as the style is becoming popular again.
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 21, 02:39 PM
Yes, you'll get a great idea by the votes. :D
haha. Well yeah you will get a highly biased perspective of course. That's a given. But the tendency will be for things that are good for Apple as a company. As long as you understand the bias you can base your own opinions off of the biased opinion. :p
haha. Well yeah you will get a highly biased perspective of course. That's a given. But the tendency will be for things that are good for Apple as a company. As long as you understand the bias you can base your own opinions off of the biased opinion. :p
more...
Sannekita
Jan 15, 01:41 PM
The macbook air looks really cool i think. but it's so useless!
Hm... i'll quitly wait for the MBP update... got too excited.
and it was quite the bummer when he didn't say OMT... :-(
Hm... i'll quitly wait for the MBP update... got too excited.
and it was quite the bummer when he didn't say OMT... :-(
bbplayer5
Dec 13, 09:49 AM
Ill be handing out grains of salt.
more...
Lennholm
Apr 16, 08:53 AM
I dislike it when people keep saying that line over and over. Does competition really make products better? Where's the truth in that? If it's truly the case, why do we still see half-baked consumer products for the end user?
If anything, I feel that there seldom really is a better product for us because of competition. A competing product with better specs does not necessarily result in a better product. And frankly, judging by the gadget industry, Apple's been releasing consumer-satisfied products left and right despite better (in specs) products being released by their competitors.
Okay. So did competition [from other manufacturers] make Apple release a better product? No. Because from how the Internet reacts, every other manufacturer outspecs Apple and Apple "overcharges for something you can get with much more for much less"
But Apple does release products to get with the times, however, I feel that Apple products don't need high-end specs to provide consumer satisfaction.
Besides, the iOS today looks the same as the iOS from the iPhone 1 but with upgrades. Did competition spur Apple into doing the upgrades? I doubt it. They seem to have their own idea of where to direct their OS. Honeycomb on the other hand looks and functions very differently from Froyo. That [design decision] instead seems to be driven by competition.
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.
If anything, I feel that there seldom really is a better product for us because of competition. A competing product with better specs does not necessarily result in a better product. And frankly, judging by the gadget industry, Apple's been releasing consumer-satisfied products left and right despite better (in specs) products being released by their competitors.
Okay. So did competition [from other manufacturers] make Apple release a better product? No. Because from how the Internet reacts, every other manufacturer outspecs Apple and Apple "overcharges for something you can get with much more for much less"
But Apple does release products to get with the times, however, I feel that Apple products don't need high-end specs to provide consumer satisfaction.
Besides, the iOS today looks the same as the iOS from the iPhone 1 but with upgrades. Did competition spur Apple into doing the upgrades? I doubt it. They seem to have their own idea of where to direct their OS. Honeycomb on the other hand looks and functions very differently from Froyo. That [design decision] instead seems to be driven by competition.
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.
systole
Mar 28, 07:39 PM
Isn't the design awards just a fancy carrot in disguise?
Personally, I think that the biggest detriment to developers is control. If you find an app on their website, the developer controls the shopping environment, and licensee terms. By submitting their app, developers loose control first, profit second.
Personally, I think that the biggest detriment to developers is control. If you find an app on their website, the developer controls the shopping environment, and licensee terms. By submitting their app, developers loose control first, profit second.
more...
vizkiz
Apr 15, 04:14 PM
I call yours fake. They forgot to put in the switch.
This (black plastic)http://assets.gearlive.com/blogimages/gallery/iphone-unboxing/13-iphone-mute-volume_medium.jpg
is different than this (hole)http://media.boygeniusreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/30951.jpg
First off, it's supposedly a picture of the next-gen phone, it's not going to have the same rocker as the current or previous model. My 3G doesn't have the same switch as the first-gen iPhone.
Second, it's supposedly photos of the CASE, not the whole phone.
And, as someone pointed out in the MacRumors thread with these pictures, there's no space for the camera flash, which the next-gen phone supposedly will have, as there are things pointing to it in the OS 4.0 Beta. They're most likely fakes. Not the best ones, but certainly not terrible either.
This (black plastic)http://assets.gearlive.com/blogimages/gallery/iphone-unboxing/13-iphone-mute-volume_medium.jpg
is different than this (hole)http://media.boygeniusreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/30951.jpg
First off, it's supposedly a picture of the next-gen phone, it's not going to have the same rocker as the current or previous model. My 3G doesn't have the same switch as the first-gen iPhone.
Second, it's supposedly photos of the CASE, not the whole phone.
And, as someone pointed out in the MacRumors thread with these pictures, there's no space for the camera flash, which the next-gen phone supposedly will have, as there are things pointing to it in the OS 4.0 Beta. They're most likely fakes. Not the best ones, but certainly not terrible either.
kgtenacious
May 2, 02:33 PM
I kinda liked the fact i could look at where I've been with my phone.
We kind of liked the fact that we could look at where you've been with your iPhone, too.
Signed,
Mr. Stalker, Mr. Hacker and Mr. Big Brother :cool:
We kind of liked the fact that we could look at where you've been with your iPhone, too.
Signed,
Mr. Stalker, Mr. Hacker and Mr. Big Brother :cool:
brsboarder
Nov 24, 06:56 PM
apple store US site is down, are they just rolling back the prices?
coday182
Oct 3, 09:28 PM
Xmas 2007 maybe :rolleyes:
No that will probably the the MBP with merom chips lol
No that will probably the the MBP with merom chips lol
firewood
Mar 24, 09:33 PM
I had a Apple PowerMac 7100 with an external HD so I could dual boot into an Apple distribution of MkLinux, circa '96 to '99. I may still have the MkLinux CD somewhere.
And before that there was A/UX for some 680x0 desktop Macs, which was too expensive for me to try, IIRC.
And before that there was A/UX for some 680x0 desktop Macs, which was too expensive for me to try, IIRC.
Chundles
Sep 12, 08:07 AM
I thought tht too, but there's already a section on the page for trailer. Just about the iTunes Videos
The link from Transporter 2 includes Movies+Trailers in the URL. As does the one below it, the other two include Games+Trailers.
Here's the full link from the Transporter 2 bit.
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/inboundRedirect?omni-ch=Store+Front&omni-pg=Movie+Trailers&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apple.com%2Fmoviesxml%2Fh%2Findex.xml
The link from Transporter 2 includes Movies+Trailers in the URL. As does the one below it, the other two include Games+Trailers.
Here's the full link from the Transporter 2 bit.
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/inboundRedirect?omni-ch=Store+Front&omni-pg=Movie+Trailers&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apple.com%2Fmoviesxml%2Fh%2Findex.xml
BHP41
Dec 13, 08:23 PM
A verizon phone without that ugly ass logo on the front and back. No way!!! LOL. The next iPhone will have hsdpa+ not CDMA. Does verizon need the iPhone. Yes. Will they get it next year. No. To all those that say "I can't wait because I "need" better service". Sit down please. If you "needed" better service you'd be with verizon,sprint or tmobile already. It funny how people will buy the iPhone, comlaon about service then start threads like this. News flash.... A PHONE IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE NETWORK IT IS CONECTED TO. In my case, it doesn't matter. I don't live in the hills so I have great service from all the wireless providers. I choose the iPhone 4 as my main device for work and play even though I have many BB's,a nexus 1, and a incredible. Verizon is stuck so far up motorolas,htc,and samsungs ass that they can't handle apple. Their too busy releasing and stocking a new android every 3 weeks.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 6, 05:47 PM
My original iPhone was not subsidized and I had to buy it at full price. I chose the device with no qualms about what network I was required to use.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
I think the biggest problem is when Apple had the chance to change the game by not doing subizided cost they instead give in and just make it worse by forcing a much larger than average subsudize on there phone ($400 vs $250).
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete. But as long as it is lock in together it should be choose network first
i get what your sayin, but nah, they can still complain all they want... i dont think it says in the contract be expected to have 30% dropped calls.
people complain not only to relieve themselves, but to eventually get whats right. (complaining on macrumors isnt exactly the best way of going about it, ill give you that)
Well the people who choose the iPhone knowing service are spotty put the label on them as not smart.
Smart people look things over and choose what works best for them. For me I know service is the first thing I look at and that is how I got to ATT (Cingular at the time )for my phone and dump Verizon. Verizon service was crap where I was 6 months out of the year. Sprint and Cingular/ATT were king in that area. I used Sprint for a while and it was great. Switch to ATT because most of my friends and family were on it so M2M.
Either way I choose the service first then pick out the phones from there.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
I think the biggest problem is when Apple had the chance to change the game by not doing subizided cost they instead give in and just make it worse by forcing a much larger than average subsudize on there phone ($400 vs $250).
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete. But as long as it is lock in together it should be choose network first
i get what your sayin, but nah, they can still complain all they want... i dont think it says in the contract be expected to have 30% dropped calls.
people complain not only to relieve themselves, but to eventually get whats right. (complaining on macrumors isnt exactly the best way of going about it, ill give you that)
Well the people who choose the iPhone knowing service are spotty put the label on them as not smart.
Smart people look things over and choose what works best for them. For me I know service is the first thing I look at and that is how I got to ATT (Cingular at the time )for my phone and dump Verizon. Verizon service was crap where I was 6 months out of the year. Sprint and Cingular/ATT were king in that area. I used Sprint for a while and it was great. Switch to ATT because most of my friends and family were on it so M2M.
Either way I choose the service first then pick out the phones from there.
No comments:
Post a Comment