Why? the definition showed up at the top of the Google Search without having to follow another link to get there as you did with Bing.
What did you see at the very top of the Google Search results before the links were even offered?
Why what? Why would I choose the one that had the correct definition at the top as opposed to one that didn't have it listed clearly even after further narrowing the use of the initialism?
Now Windows continues to decline (it's still on top PC wise, but it's largely irrelevant in terms of growth, much like Blackberry was/is) and all because they were the dominant OS, and they didn't Fee L they needed to ch Ange too much of their OS.Apple is following this trend.
You can call me a troll, you can say I'm spreading fud, W hatever. Apple doesn't have the pull it used to, it can't continue it's status quo unless it's making efforts to reinvent technology and the internet. They have the capabilities, the money, the talent, and the manufacturing chain. They are sitting on a G old m I ne in terms of te C hnological resources, and yet they squander that by playing it safe.
Take a couple of paragraphs out of a troll rant and what do you get?
A mirror, have you heard of it? Because if you would look into it, you might get a sense of understanding why your own posts attract a fresh new batch of Android and/or MS fans to AI, members some here playfully call "trolls"
I don't write the articles, and and I think you give way too much credit to what posts I make. It's pretty clear what the intent of Daniel's op-ed was IMO. . .
and it worked well. 7 pages of response's on a weekend!
Why what? Why would I choose the one that had the correct definition at the top as opposed to one that didn't have it listed clearly even after further narrowing the use of the initialism?
I thought the Google definition was correct. altho there's obviously other less common meanings for that acronym as you pointed out. Since you're saying it wasn't the intended definition I'll trust you on that. I was apparently wrong. I figured MSRP would be the typical and expected acronym for suggested manufacturer prices, with the Google definition for RRP being correct. That's the first time I'd ever heard RRP being related to a suggested retail price.
How could this possibly work? Look at how long its taken Apple to get to every area of the world with cellular reception. Now look at the cost and time it has taken to just get LTE up in markets. Most of Europe still seems to be without it. I simply don't see how Apple could build towers across every country they work in to get the coverage they need to support the iPhone.
Now lets say they invest the hundreds of billions to do this across 200 countries overnight. What happens if the iPhone isn't popular enough in a country to warrant its own network? What if the product itself falters across the globe? Does Apple then open it up to other handsets? What about those that have plans that may include a range of cellular connected devices? Do they get off their Verizon shared plan to make their life more cumbersome by having to move everything but their grandparents emergency cell phone that was only $10 a month to a more expensive plan?
Then there is the MVNO but that's just worse all around. It costs Apple less up front but you get a poorer network as you're piggybacking off an MNO.
No matter how you go at it just doesn't work to pair a proprietary cellular network to a proprietary handset.
As for Google Maps, I have no idea why that would be an example. Google Maps works across every OS that has a web browser. It's not tied simply to Android or Chrome OS.
I think all iPhone should be connected to the network, regardless if the consumer has a plan. The idea would be all the native apps would get free Internet, such as iTunes, Maps, etc. For apps, the customer would pay per MB used within the apps. So if you download a music streaming service app like Pandora, you will essentially pay more than if you used an offline app.
I also think they should charge for the size of the app, for example if the app is 2 GB in size, then it would cost something like $20-25 to download (on top of the app cost)
I think the hidden advantage to this is people will
1) use native apps over App store apps
2) People will be more conscious about downloading apps via WiFi.
3) People who don't use their phones like heavy users won't get penalized with a higher payment.
4) The idea of having free calls, text, and Web will entice people to buy the phone and use Apple products.
So what would be the end goal of an Apple device only wireless network? To set a standard. What I mean is, too many mobile phones connected to different networks, switching frequencies, and using an open standards (LTE) is inefficient. Apple could create it's own radio communication standard with its own packet management system that would allow for its infrastructure to suffer minimum overload. Plus it would get them off paying Samsung for LTE patents. They could operate on a separate frequency from other networks. This would save them on costs of modems, as you only have one frequency and one standard radio technology that you support.
By creating this closed standard for connecting devices to the Internet, Apple could lease connectivity to accessory makers. For example you can have a vehicle that interfaces with your iPhone via the network, using your Apple ID. So if I'm driving and I forgot my iPhone at home, I could still answer the call with my vehicle, because it's all connected to one Apple ID. I could manage what devices are part of my account so if my vehicle is stolen, I could use the track my iPhone app, but instead it's track my car.
How could this possibly work? Look at how long its taken Apple to get to every area of the world with cellular reception. Now look at the cost and time it has taken to just get LTE up in markets. Most of Europe still seems to be without it. I simply don't see how Apple could build towers across every country they work in to get the coverage they need to support the iPhone.
Now lets say they invest the hundreds of billions to do this across 200 countries overnight. What happens if the iPhone isn't popular enough in a country to warrant its own network? What if the product itself falters across the globe? Does Apple then open it up to other handsets? What about those that have plans that may include a range of cellular connected devices? Do they get off their Verizon shared plan to make their life more cumbersome by having to move everything but their grandparents emergency cell phone that was only $10 a month to a more expensive plan?
Then there is the MVNO but that's just worse all around. It costs Apple less up front but you get a poorer network as you're piggybacking off an MNO.
No matter how you go at it just doesn't work to pair a proprietary cellular network to a proprietary handset.
As for Google Maps, I have no idea why that would be an example. Google Maps works across every OS that has a web browser. It's not tied simply to Android or Chrome OS.
I didn't say anything about proprietary cellular network, or anything else you have refuted here.
I think all iPhone should be connected to the network, regardless if the consumer has a plan. The idea would be all the native apps would get free Internet, such as iTunes, Maps, etc. For apps, the customer would pay per MB used within the apps. So if you download a music streaming service app like Pandora, you will essentially pay more than if you used an offline app.
I also think they should charge for the size of the app, for example if the app is 2 GB in size, then it would cost something like $20-25 to download (on top of the app cost)
I think the hidden advantage to this is people will
1) use native apps over App store apps
2) People will be more conscious about downloading apps via WiFi.
3) People who don't use their phones like heavy users won't get penalized with a higher payment.
4) The idea of having free calls, text, and Web will entice people to buy the phone and use Apple products.
So what would be the end goal of an Apple device only wireless network? To set a standard. What I mean is, too many mobile phones connected to different networks, switching frequencies, and using an open standards (LTE) is inefficient. Apple could create it's own radio communication standard with its own packet management system that would allow for its infrastructure to suffer minimum overload. Plus it would get them off paying Samsung for LTE patents. They could operate on a separate frequency from other networks. This would save them on costs of modems, as you only have one frequency and one standard radio technology that you support.
By creating this closed standard for connecting devices to the Internet, Apple could lease connectivity to accessory makers. For example you can have a vehicle that interfaces with your iPhone via the network, using your Apple ID. So if I'm driving and I forgot my iPhone at home, I could still answer the call with my vehicle, because it's all connected to one Apple ID. I could manage what devices are part of my account so if my vehicle is stolen, I could use the track my iPhone app, but instead it's track my car.
And why would a carrier allow millions of iPhones on it's network then? What benefit would they have? Why must everything be good for Apple but bad for all others? If you don't want a data plan then don't buy a iPhone.
I think all iPhone should be connected to the network, regardless if the consumer has a plan. The idea would be all the native apps would get free Internet, such as iTunes, Maps, etc. For apps, the customer would pay per MB used within the apps. So if you download a music streaming service app like Pandora, you will essentially pay more than if you used an offline app.
I also think they should charge for the size of the app, for example if the app is 2 GB in size, then it would cost something like $20-25 to download (on top of the app cost)
I think the hidden advantage to this is people will
1) use native apps over App store apps
2) People will be more conscious about downloading apps via WiFi.
3) People who don't use their phones like heavy users won't get penalized with a higher payment.
4) The idea of having free calls, text, and Web will entice people to buy the phone and use Apple products.
So what would be the end goal of an Apple device only wireless network? To set a standard. What I mean is, too many mobile phones connected to different networks, switching frequencies, and using an open standards (LTE) is inefficient. Apple could create it's own radio communication standard with its own packet management system that would allow for its infrastructure to suffer minimum overload. Plus it would get them off paying Samsung for LTE patents. They could operate on a separate frequency from other networks. This would save them on costs of modems, as you only have one frequency and one standard radio technology that you support.
By creating this closed standard for connecting devices to the Internet, Apple could lease connectivity to accessory makers. For example you can have a vehicle that interfaces with your iPhone via the network, using your Apple ID. So if I'm driving and I forgot my iPhone at home, I could still answer the call with my vehicle, because it's all connected to one Apple ID. I could manage what devices are part of my account so if my vehicle is stolen, I could use the track my iPhone app, but instead it's track my car.
I do commend and appreciate you for at least detailing your point here and you do bring up some unique ideas. Unfortunately it's a flawed idea and I wish I had the time to detail why.
I don't actually think that most people have actually bothered to read my posts properly! I am NOT having a go at Apple at all I really like 90% of their kit but it's NOT perfect and I was simply expressing my opinion which lots of people didn't like. The last chap was slagging me off in a post where I was basically saying I liked the new maps app but it had issues (which Apple had agreed to!)
Oh well I've been a member on here for twice as long as some of the moderation staff but I don't post very often.
Sounds like one of those sleeper-cell trolls I've heard about! Pardon, make that sleeper-cell concern troll.
Another example off why Google still offers the better search experience IMO
I searched "rrp" in both Bing and Google. Bing got the right answer on the first result, and Google got the right answer on the second. So how does this show that Google still offers the better search experience? Oh wait - "IMO" - in your opinion. Well you're certainly entitled to your own opinion...
I thought 'Kool Aid' was a reference to the electric acid kool aid test, as in 'tripped out', rather than jim jones
Disagree. I use it in referencing the Jonestown tragedy where followers of Jim Jones blindly drank the poisoned kool-aid. Also use the phrase ,"drinking the grape kool-aid," as that was supposedly the flavor that was used.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
You know, back when Apple was struggling, nobody talked about sales.
<Verbal Diarrhea>
Elon Musk should be Apple CEO, merge the Tesla car with Apple. Then true progress will happen inside Apple.
Boy, did I just learn something.
If you're going to come to a forum for attention make sure you keep your attempts to criticism only.
Because once you start recommending things you REALLY start to look like a f*cking idiot.
You're not in business, Mr Rodriguez, are you?
Thank you for that.
"I refuted his opinion with my opinion..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Try the same search terms in a Google Search. . .
Another example off why Google still offers the better search experience IMO
Recommended Retail Price.
Bing is better, if only because it isn't Google.
I thought 'Kool Aid' was a reference to the electric acid kool aid test, as in 'tripped out', rather than jim jones
Why what? Why would I choose the one that had the correct definition at the top as opposed to one that didn't have it listed clearly even after further narrowing the use of the initialism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
Now Windows continues to decline (it's still on top PC wise, but it's largely irrelevant in terms of growth, much like Blackberry was/is) and all because they were the dominant OS, and they didn't F ee L they needed to ch A nge too much of their OS.Apple is following this trend.
You can call me a troll, you can say I'm spreading fud, W hatever. Apple doesn't have the pull it used to, it can't continue it's status quo unless it's making efforts to reinvent technology and the internet. They have the capabilities, the money, the talent, and the manufacturing chain. They are sitting on a G old m I ne in terms of te C hnological resources, and yet they squander that by playing it safe.
Take a couple of paragraphs out of a troll rant and what do you get?
deleted
I don't write the articles, and and I think you give way too much credit to what posts I make. It's pretty clear what the intent of Daniel's op-ed was IMO. . .
and it worked well. 7 pages of response's on a weekend!
I thought the Google definition was correct. altho there's obviously other less common meanings for that acronym as you pointed out. Since you're saying it wasn't the intended definition I'll trust you on that. I was apparently wrong. I figured MSRP would be the typical and expected acronym for suggested manufacturer prices, with the Google definition for RRP being correct. That's the first time I'd ever heard RRP being related to a suggested retail price.
My apologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Gee, a new fun forum game. Thanks.
Tooli?
It would depend on the message being conveyed, I always assume the Jim Jones followers.
I think all iPhone should be connected to the network, regardless if the consumer has a plan. The idea would be all the native apps would get free Internet, such as iTunes, Maps, etc. For apps, the customer would pay per MB used within the apps. So if you download a music streaming service app like Pandora, you will essentially pay more than if you used an offline app.
I also think they should charge for the size of the app, for example if the app is 2 GB in size, then it would cost something like $20-25 to download (on top of the app cost)
I think the hidden advantage to this is people will
1) use native apps over App store apps
2) People will be more conscious about downloading apps via WiFi.
3) People who don't use their phones like heavy users won't get penalized with a higher payment.
4) The idea of having free calls, text, and Web will entice people to buy the phone and use Apple products.
So what would be the end goal of an Apple device only wireless network? To set a standard. What I mean is, too many mobile phones connected to different networks, switching frequencies, and using an open standards (LTE) is inefficient. Apple could create it's own radio communication standard with its own packet management system that would allow for its infrastructure to suffer minimum overload. Plus it would get them off paying Samsung for LTE patents. They could operate on a separate frequency from other networks. This would save them on costs of modems, as you only have one frequency and one standard radio technology that you support.
By creating this closed standard for connecting devices to the Internet, Apple could lease connectivity to accessory makers. For example you can have a vehicle that interfaces with your iPhone via the network, using your Apple ID. So if I'm driving and I forgot my iPhone at home, I could still answer the call with my vehicle, because it's all connected to one Apple ID. I could manage what devices are part of my account so if my vehicle is stolen, I could use the track my iPhone app, but instead it's track my car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How could this possibly work? Look at how long its taken Apple to get to every area of the world with cellular reception. Now look at the cost and time it has taken to just get LTE up in markets. Most of Europe still seems to be without it. I simply don't see how Apple could build towers across every country they work in to get the coverage they need to support the iPhone.
Now lets say they invest the hundreds of billions to do this across 200 countries overnight. What happens if the iPhone isn't popular enough in a country to warrant its own network? What if the product itself falters across the globe? Does Apple then open it up to other handsets? What about those that have plans that may include a range of cellular connected devices? Do they get off their Verizon shared plan to make their life more cumbersome by having to move everything but their grandparents emergency cell phone that was only $10 a month to a more expensive plan?
Then there is the MVNO but that's just worse all around. It costs Apple less up front but you get a poorer network as you're piggybacking off an MNO.
No matter how you go at it just doesn't work to pair a proprietary cellular network to a proprietary handset.
As for Google Maps, I have no idea why that would be an example. Google Maps works across every OS that has a web browser. It's not tied simply to Android or Chrome OS.
I didn't say anything about proprietary cellular network, or anything else you have refuted here.
And why would a carrier allow millions of iPhones on it's network then? What benefit would they have? Why must everything be good for Apple but bad for all others? If you don't want a data plan then don't buy a iPhone.
How in the hell are we suppose to read that as not an iOS-only network if you specifically write "But what about an iOS-only network."
I do commend and appreciate you for at least detailing your point here and you do bring up some unique ideas. Unfortunately it's a flawed idea and I wish I had the time to detail why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowasaki
I don't actually think that most people have actually bothered to read my posts properly! I am NOT having a go at Apple at all I really like 90% of their kit but it's NOT perfect and I was simply expressing my opinion which lots of people didn't like. The last chap was slagging me off in a post where I was basically saying I liked the new maps app but it had issues (which Apple had agreed to!)
Oh well
Sounds like one of those sleeper-cell trolls I've heard about! Pardon, make that sleeper-cell concern troll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Try the same search terms in a Google Search. . .
Another example off why Google still offers the better search experience IMO
I searched "rrp" in both Bing and Google. Bing got the right answer on the first result, and Google got the right answer on the second. So how does this show that Google still offers the better search experience? Oh wait - "IMO" - in your opinion. Well you're certainly entitled to your own opinion...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack
I thought 'Kool Aid' was a reference to the electric acid kool aid test, as in 'tripped out', rather than jim jones
Disagree. I use it in referencing the Jonestown tragedy where followers of Jim Jones blindly drank the poisoned kool-aid. Also use the phrase ,"drinking the grape kool-aid," as that was supposedly the flavor that was used.