or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by dave2012

Thanks Marvin!   >They've removed the Mac Pro category from all the European stores because of new safety rules that came into effect early this month. There will be a replacement >of some kind but not for another 4-6 months.  
Why doesn't the UK online Apple Store sell Mac Pro's any more? Is there going to be a replacement?
Will you be able to use it as a computer monitor?
OK thanks! And how far are you away from the screen?
How close do people look at their screens? I'm about 40/45cm - 16/18 inches away so I wonder do I actually get close enough to benefit from these high resolution screens?
Charlituna said           It's not as simple as that - at least under UK law. Here it's possible to have cover against defects that develop later if the product that was delivered to you didn't have a sufficiently durable design. So the defect at delivery was lack of durability.
I'm sure Apple would love to introduce a cheap model because of the importance of locking people into the IOS ecosystem as early as possible, but I believe what's holding them back is fear of cannibalising the rest of their product line. I think the answer is to have a two tier product line - cheaper plastic products where they aren't afraid to be expressive and innovative (a return to the spirit of the original Imac) then the more serious prosumer products that they...
Apple sells more touch tablets than all the other companies in the world put together - but somehow it still doesn't have 'market share'? How much of a market does one company need before it can be described as having 'market share'?
I think there's two misconceptions that a lot of the posters here make: 1. Apple doesn't want market share. 2. Customers don't want basic products. Well... 1. Apple is proving with the Ipad that it wants market share. 2. The Ipod has a price range between £329 and £40 so some customers are opting for simplicity, I don't see a reason why some phones can't be really simple too.  
I assume a more realistic way of stating his stock awards would be to say it's equivalent to a ten year contract worth $37.6m a year. I presume the reason for giving his pay in stock is to act as an incentive to wisely steer the company over ten years, but personally I don't see how this is an incentive at all. Will it make any difference to his life if he runs the company abysmally and averages $30m a year instead of $37.6m? I don't think he'll notice the difference,...
New Posts  All Forums: