Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

it's really great, and they're smart to offer new devices both with (kindle, kindle touch) and without (Fire) e-ink.

i remember the first time i was using it, on a long flight, and i forgot i wasn't reading an actual paperback at one point

again, i'm going to disagree. i cited examples of poor products put out by apple that failed despite the supposed "unquestioning populace".

Well, there's a bit of a difference in the two products you cited: they differed from Apple's successes in that I believe they were relatively new ideas, rather than substantial upgrades of products in the marketplace. Apple has always been at its best when it's allowed others to enter the space first and then made vast improvements on competitors' mistakes. People had been using smartphones and mp3 players for years, but then Apple came in and made major upgrades inside a package that looked really cool, so people wanted to suddenly own these things. And yes, they are good devices. As a Mac owner, I will never dispute the quality of Apple's products.

Did AppleTV really have a competitor? To be honest, I don't even know what AppleTV is. It just seems like an expensive way to hook your computer up to your TV, which anyone can already do anyway. And I don't get what MobileMe's function is, either, especially since it seems to have had its usefulness replaced by what smartphones and free Google products do. I think it's worth noting that in both cases, Apple's marketing plan was either severely lacking or non-existent. I remember six year-old IPod ads vividly, but I remember nothing about AppleTV ads, if there ever were any. Those products might be great, I really don't know, but they did a lousy job of marketing them; hence, people didn't buy them.

And if you want to argue that the iPad was a fresh innovation from the ground up, I'll argue that the iPad was a larger, upgraded version of the iPhone. The iPad would never exist without the iPhone first greasing the wheels of the customer base.


1) the new iphone. people are disappointed because it's not the huge leap forward everyone expected, but it is a substantially upgrade over an already an already wildly successful product. if it's a huge hit, that will be why. and anyway, its too early to know how successful it will ultimately prove to be.

Trust me. It's going to be a huge hit because of brand loyalty. The evangelists are already out in full force, admitting its shortcomings but still telling you that you need to buy one. It blows my mind that Apple is releasing a new phone that can't access the seven month-old 4G LTE network, yet Apple is probably the only company that can release a product that is far from cutting edge and still see a massive public demand for it. BTW, it's genius that this thing is called a 4S, as many will mistakenly think it can access 4G. I'm surprised they didn't call it the 4E because the rhyme would be even closer, although I won't be surprised to hear people say the 4S accesses its own special network.

2) the ipad. again, it's arguably the best tablet on the market and was a major leap forward in mobile computing. there is no disputing that. many people find it a better device to do most of what they used to do on a computer. if the kindle fire proves to be competitive product with it's cheaper price, they will get a big bit of the market, just like droid vs iphone. it's that simple.

I was talking about the iPad's release. When it was launched, no one knew what to do with it, but they needed it anyway for reasons they couldn't fully explain. That's not to say it's a bad product, but its functionality wasn't apparent and didn't materialize for several months down the line.

And here's the ultimate brilliance of the iPad mystique-- how lame would you be considered if you bought someone a tablet as a gift but it wasn't an iPad? Sure, you could argue that the Android or Kindle device could do everything they'd need, but you would look incredibly lame in giving someone something that is perceived as the econo-buy version of the iPad, even though it may be anything but.

again, i'm just not seeing good examples of an apple product that has succeeded despite being a poor product because everyone is a lemming, while i've cited examples that it poor apple products do, in fact, fail.

By all means. show me where I've called Apple products "poor." I hope the rest of your life is free because this is gonna take you a while.

my brother in law lives on the west coast and just had twins so he insisted he and his sister (my wife) go in on the ipad2 as a gift to my inlaws so they could facetime with the babies (even though they have skpye and use it regularly).

You just made my point for me, thanks.

Well, there's a bit of a difference in the two products you cited: they differed from Apple's successes in that I believe they were relatively new ideas, rather than substantial upgrades of products in the marketplace.

not really. apple tv was a product similar to roku and wasn't some kind of crazy new idea. i believe it failed because it's library was pitiful.

mailme was some kind of integrated email system that was supposed to sync perfect with your other devices, it just didn't work that well. jobs supposedly went apeshit at it's failure and immediately disbanded the team that created it.



And if you want to argue that the iPad was a fresh innovation from the ground up, I'll argue that the iPad was a larger, upgraded version of the iPhone. The iPad would never exist without the iPhone first greasing the wheels of the customer base.

no doubt; the real success of the ipad was a continuation of the success of apple's mobile OS. but tablet computing was something that the industry had been trying to develop, without much success, for years. so whether or not the ipad was an example of "fresh innovation", the bottom line is they put out the first successful model.



Trust me. It's going to be a huge hit because of brand loyalty. The evangelists are already out in full force, admitting its shortcomings but still telling you that you need to buy one. It blows my mind that Apple is releasing a new phone that can't access the seven month-old 4G LTE network, yet Apple is probably the only company that can release a product that is far from cutting edge and still see a massive public demand for it.

i'm with you on this and it's a primary reason i am not getting this phone (and i have never owned an iphone). there is no way i am upgrading to anything other than a 4G. i will say that i have a friend who is an iphone nut and has been insisting i get an iphone for months. when i told him that i didn't want to get a new phone without 4G, he said the 3G on the iphone is super fast and not an issue. i have no idea, personally.



I was talking about the iPad's release. When it was launched, no one knew what to do with it, but they needed it anyway for reasons they couldn't fully explain. That's not to say it's a bad product, but its functionality wasn't apparent and didn't materialize for several months down the line.

that's a fair point and led to its initial success, but it ultimately would have failed had people not loved the product. like it or not, apple products are going to get the benefit of the doubt.



By all means. show me where I've called Apple products "poor."

i never said you did, but you have implied repeatedly that apple is at least partly successful because people are dumb and will buy anything apples releases. i'm saying that evidence of this would be a poor product that was nonetheless successful. so far, we haven't really found an example. the iphone 4S and the ipad are the closest examples of hype being part of the success, but these are still good products.

I still don't get the iPad. Almost everyone I know who has one barely uses it.

You just made my point for me, thanks.

it's not quite that simple. my brother in law is a computer guy by profession but not a mac person, so he's no fanboy. he honestly thought (and still thinks) facetime is better than skype (and it is, i use both). he just overestimated the use they'd get out of it otherwise.

I still don't get the iPad. Almost everyone I know who has one barely uses it.

i think we're too old. i have a co worker who is also an adjunct professor (and in her twenties). she loves her ipad and uses it all the time for teaching, grading papers, etc. she has no problem typing on it either.

yeah, it's huge in education. books, apps for classwork, student and instructor resources that come with the book, tons of uses.

us, yeah, it's a big version of the phone many of us already have and use

What would you guys recommend for education? I'm not a huge reader, but my wife is. We both take classes periodically.

I haven't really considered it until recently, but it may come in handy.

The real heroes are the Chinese slave labor employed by Jobs to assemble Apple gadgets.

Do they get any tributes when one of them commits suicide due to hating their job so much?

i guess it depends on what kinds of class you're taking. we have anatomy books, so an e-reader with lcd is great for the illustrations and figures. We also have text-only books, so it's perfect for the kindle.

f-d, you also have to make sure that the book you'll need for class has an e-edition

not really. apple tv was a product similar to roku and wasn't some kind of crazy new idea. i believe it failed because it's library was pitiful.

Okay, so I just looked up Roku, and I still don't get it. Isn't this just an expensive way to avoid running a cable from your computer into your TV?

I just don't think there was an established market for either of these devices/products, which differs greatly with Apple's success with mp3 players, smartphones, and really big smartphones that don't make phone calls.


no doubt; the real success of the ipad was a continuation of the success of apple's mobile OS. but tablet computing was something that the industry had been trying to develop, without much success, for years. so whether or not the ipad was an example of "fresh innovation", the bottom line is they put out the first successful model.

I read that Jobs had been working on the iPad for many, many years, but he had to wait until the iPhone was adopted before he could get the people to embrace the next substantial "upgrade."

i'm with you on this and it's a primary reason i am not getting this phone (and i have never owned an iphone). there is no way i am upgrading to anything other than a 4G. i will say that i have a friend who is an iphone nut and has been insisting i get an iphone for months. when i told him that i didn't want to get a new phone without 4G, he said the 3G on the iphone is super fast and not an issue.

Wow. Your friend sounds like a total tool. I mean, I'm dying to know how he tested the super fast nature of the iPhone's 3G performance versus other models on the 4G network. At least you are being sensible here, although I doubt the customer base will follow your logic-based lead.


i never said you did, but you have implied repeatedly that apple is at least partly successful because people are dumb and will buy anything apples releases.

Well, I'll say this much-- the success of the iPhone 4S will demonstrate my feelings on this matter. It may be a good device, but it's a far cry from the innovations presented on the now endless bi-monthly parade of new Android phones and it's lacking in cutting edge technology, yet it will be a rousing success regardless. Why? When Apple markets their products well, people put blind faith in them.

Okay, so I just looked up Roku, and I still don't get it. Isn't this just an expensive way to avoid running a cable from your computer into your TV

yes

Onion obituary.


click here

I considered getting a Roku before I cancelled Netflix and thought it served a purpose. I could hook up my computer to my TV, but I'd rather not.

Okay, so I just looked up Roku, and I still don't get it. Isn't this just an expensive way to avoid running a cable from your computer into your TV?

expensive? no. its simply a devise that streams your netflix instant queue to your tv. you can get a roku2 box for $60 bucks and if you already have a netflix account, no additional monthly fee, (well, i guess that's changed now that netflix had divided it's operations).

but we use it almost everyday, plus it's through the roku box that we watch our stuff on amazon, mlb.tv and a bunch of other internet networks. it also has excellent functionality as opposed to say, hulu, which works well on a computer but is poorly designed to work on a tv by remote control.

I definitely like the idea of an appliance or some fixed piece of technology for that kind of thing, whether it's a PS3, Roku, Internet enabled BluRay, internet enabled TV, etc.

Hooking up your computer to your TV to watch a movie = DORM ROOM.

Wow. Your friend sounds like a total tool. I mean, I'm dying to know how he tested the super fast nature of the iPhone's 3G performance versus other models on the 4G network. At least you are being sensible here, although I doubt the customer base will follow your logic-based lead.

ha, well, i don't know that he's a total tool, but he does have a childlike excitement and naivety when it comes to most things. but it's possible, i assume, for a good processor to minimize the deficiencies of 3G v 4G?

i mean, my air is way faster on the internet than my old macbook through the same wifi connection.

Sheesh.

All I really think about Jobs:

1) brilliant.
2) ...yet overdone obit-wise.

Jobs doesn't annoy me. Apple snobs do though. As do people who get emotional over gadgetry.

that's fine, olv, but that not close to what you originally said so no need for the "sheesh". you said "If Steve Jobs looked like Bill Gates nobody would know his name", and that his adulation came from the fact that he was a quote machine and had charisma.

it didn't exactly seem like you were saying he was brilliant.

glad we cleared it up, though.

...in response to a quote on the Slimes front page: "I will think of you every time I use my Iphone".

Somehow I don't see this kind of outpouring coming when Gates dies.

olv, maybe from the people Gates helps through his charity. Probably not from the common American though.

The irony, of course, is that Gates is viewed by the average joe as some sort of nebbish villain, while Jobs is considered to be a hero among the giants of American history.

Of course, the reality is that Gates has given and is committed to continue giving a massive chunk of his colossal fortune to charity, spearheading global initiatives that tackle massively important problems in the Third World and will uplift the lives of millions for generations to come. Meanwhile, Jobs was notoriously stingy with his personal wealth and rarely gave to charity on a pace remotely close to his peers.

Image is everything.

Somehow I don't see this kind of outpouring coming when Gates dies.

I can only assume you're joking at this point. Seriously, Olv?

I'll spoil the surprise, you're right (but it's not a liberal media conspiracy). Apple is a unique brand with an extremely loyal following and Jobs wasn't just the head of the company...he was the face of every product.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86  87 88 89 90 
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131