SPUY767
Oct 3, 08:32 AM
Right, there are only billions of people who can watch DVD's on computers of their choice now because of his efforts who couldn't before, spawning all kinds of video editing, DVR, and high-quality conversion systems that couldn't have existed without his work.
He defeated a system designed to take away fair use rights from the citizenry and hasn't done anything productive? OK, if you don't care about your rights maybe you have a point.
Billions huh? There are scarcely a billion personal computers out there, forget the linux numbers, they are in the low millions. And you honestly think that there are tons of people using Open Source just because we do? No, the masses are content to use Windows Media in all its crappiness to play all their DVDs. We, my friend, are few and far between.
He defeated a system designed to take away fair use rights from the citizenry and hasn't done anything productive? OK, if you don't care about your rights maybe you have a point.
Billions huh? There are scarcely a billion personal computers out there, forget the linux numbers, they are in the low millions. And you honestly think that there are tons of people using Open Source just because we do? No, the masses are content to use Windows Media in all its crappiness to play all their DVDs. We, my friend, are few and far between.
chubad
Nov 24, 05:38 AM
can you combine w/ educational discount or no?
No you cannot combine discounts.
No you cannot combine discounts.
samiwas
Mar 5, 10:38 AM
Now: corporate contributions are legal money laundering operations. If you follow the money, I pay for goods which go into company funds which are used to contribute to buy Republican candidates who are dedicated to passing corporate-friendly laws that make my air dirtier and my food unhealthier, and that lower my standard of living until they finally ship my job to another country. Nice racket they have going. Has anybody ever noticed that the well never dries of money to buy off our government? I just love watching them cry about regulation; very classy.
Almost took the words right out of my mouth. Anyone who doesn't realize the hypocrisy in the original statement has their head in the sand.
Almost took the words right out of my mouth. Anyone who doesn't realize the hypocrisy in the original statement has their head in the sand.
dunk321
Mar 17, 01:12 AM
Haaaaaaa just shared a launch day story, and the majority of you would have hauled ass with iPad in hand for the price I paid. Haters lmfao
Rocketman
Nov 23, 11:11 PM
I voted positive.
This is real news so page 1 makes sense.
This is of interest to far more people than some news items, as many people shift purchases from November and December to black Friday to take advantage of the paultry 10% savings. Some people are just cheap.
Let's not forget the MacBook C2D and MacBookPro 17 C2D and Shuffle are at the beginning of their --available-- product cycles, so some people might have only shifted buying a couple of weeks on those items.
I doubt Apple will release sales figures so we can judge, but one thing is for sure. This black friday practice of Apple is widely known, there are for more stores now, and far more new, recent, and exciting products it applies to than ever before.
I suggest it just might rock!
Rocketman
This is real news so page 1 makes sense.
This is of interest to far more people than some news items, as many people shift purchases from November and December to black Friday to take advantage of the paultry 10% savings. Some people are just cheap.
Let's not forget the MacBook C2D and MacBookPro 17 C2D and Shuffle are at the beginning of their --available-- product cycles, so some people might have only shifted buying a couple of weeks on those items.
I doubt Apple will release sales figures so we can judge, but one thing is for sure. This black friday practice of Apple is widely known, there are for more stores now, and far more new, recent, and exciting products it applies to than ever before.
I suggest it just might rock!
Rocketman
Yebot
Sep 8, 10:10 AM
Kanye West is one of the most amazing things to happen to hip-hop in the past several years.
And apparently a complete moron when it comes to politics.
And apparently a complete moron when it comes to politics.
Popeye206
Mar 29, 08:03 AM
1. You intentionally ignored the point that referred to Apple's Terms of Service. For example, applications like VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop or even SuperDuper! could never be distributed through the Mac AppStore because they belong in a category that Apple does not ALLOW in their AppStore. As a matter of fact, even their own Xcode violates their TOS. But they wouldn't be Apple if the same rules also applied to themselves...
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons. Anti-trust lawsuits, anyone? Microsoft would only get away with that if they implemented a "choose your AppStore" program that would let the people choose which online store they want to use - just like they had to do it for the web browsers. I think that Apple should also be forced to do the same. After all, there is at least one other "AppStore" for the Mac out there that is even OLDER than Apple's own AppStore, and Apple misuses their power to drive those guys out of business. People stopped using Netscape when Internet Explorer came pre-installed on the operating system. Now people will not even try to look for another online store when the AppStore and iTunes are pre-installed on their computers. The same thing. The same rules should apply to Apple as they obviously apply to Microsoft.
Winni.... you're obviously playing lawyer and have no idea what you're talking about. Microsoft could do what Apple is doing. There is nothing illegal or anti trust about distributing software. They just have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If Apple was to give away the distribution, that would be more in line with anti-trust because then they would be using their power to give something that others pay for. As long as Microsoft would keep their rules within the boundaries of the industry practice, they would be fine to do the same.
Things change and companies with the better idea's thrive while others go away. Music stores are dying. Video stores are dying. Book stores are dying and software distribution stores are dying. But not because of just Apple.... because with the digital age many companies are by-passing channel completely and going direct. What Apple does would be no different than Ford or Mercedes distributing 3rd party accessories through their dealerships to their customers.
Also.... your rights on software depends on what's in the license when you buy it. If it's non-transerable, it's non-transferable. That's why you can get away with buying some of this software for $5. But it's not your legal right to resell. That depends on the license you agree to.
Whoa! The jury is still out as to whether the Mac App Store is a success. While a few apps at the top have trumpeted their success, I dare say there is a far greater mass of apps that are doing less business than before the Mac App Store opened.
In my own market segment the Mac App Store has reduced the cash flow for everyone due largely, among other factors, to the increased and sustained visibility of the freebies. It is crazy for Apple to court developers and then throw up a list of freebies alongside my own paid offering. Thanks so much -- for nothing! Where are the free alternatives to Garage Band, Keynote, or Numbers? You can be sure they are not on the same page in the Mac App Store...
As far as I am concerned as a developer, the Mac App Store is a waste of time unless we can all go write $1.99 apps that get downloaded by a million people (good luck!). Anything that requires significant development time is a loss. Plus, anything that costs real money can't be tried first from the Mac App Store. Developers still have to maintain websites, demos, and bandwidth but then pay Apple 30% for the sale in an environment that depresses prices. Success? By what measure and for whom?
I hear your point, but disagree. Putting your software in the App store will not guarantee success or failure. People buy what's worth it to them. They will pay for what meets their needs. Also, they have to know you exist too. Yes, the App Store can give you exposure, but you still have to market and sell your solution for people to find you or want you. Plus, the AppStore is one outlet and your other outlets should never be abandoned.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced. And as you point out... that is hard to compete in too.... back to my first point.
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons. Anti-trust lawsuits, anyone? Microsoft would only get away with that if they implemented a "choose your AppStore" program that would let the people choose which online store they want to use - just like they had to do it for the web browsers. I think that Apple should also be forced to do the same. After all, there is at least one other "AppStore" for the Mac out there that is even OLDER than Apple's own AppStore, and Apple misuses their power to drive those guys out of business. People stopped using Netscape when Internet Explorer came pre-installed on the operating system. Now people will not even try to look for another online store when the AppStore and iTunes are pre-installed on their computers. The same thing. The same rules should apply to Apple as they obviously apply to Microsoft.
Winni.... you're obviously playing lawyer and have no idea what you're talking about. Microsoft could do what Apple is doing. There is nothing illegal or anti trust about distributing software. They just have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If Apple was to give away the distribution, that would be more in line with anti-trust because then they would be using their power to give something that others pay for. As long as Microsoft would keep their rules within the boundaries of the industry practice, they would be fine to do the same.
Things change and companies with the better idea's thrive while others go away. Music stores are dying. Video stores are dying. Book stores are dying and software distribution stores are dying. But not because of just Apple.... because with the digital age many companies are by-passing channel completely and going direct. What Apple does would be no different than Ford or Mercedes distributing 3rd party accessories through their dealerships to their customers.
Also.... your rights on software depends on what's in the license when you buy it. If it's non-transerable, it's non-transferable. That's why you can get away with buying some of this software for $5. But it's not your legal right to resell. That depends on the license you agree to.
Whoa! The jury is still out as to whether the Mac App Store is a success. While a few apps at the top have trumpeted their success, I dare say there is a far greater mass of apps that are doing less business than before the Mac App Store opened.
In my own market segment the Mac App Store has reduced the cash flow for everyone due largely, among other factors, to the increased and sustained visibility of the freebies. It is crazy for Apple to court developers and then throw up a list of freebies alongside my own paid offering. Thanks so much -- for nothing! Where are the free alternatives to Garage Band, Keynote, or Numbers? You can be sure they are not on the same page in the Mac App Store...
As far as I am concerned as a developer, the Mac App Store is a waste of time unless we can all go write $1.99 apps that get downloaded by a million people (good luck!). Anything that requires significant development time is a loss. Plus, anything that costs real money can't be tried first from the Mac App Store. Developers still have to maintain websites, demos, and bandwidth but then pay Apple 30% for the sale in an environment that depresses prices. Success? By what measure and for whom?
I hear your point, but disagree. Putting your software in the App store will not guarantee success or failure. People buy what's worth it to them. They will pay for what meets their needs. Also, they have to know you exist too. Yes, the App Store can give you exposure, but you still have to market and sell your solution for people to find you or want you. Plus, the AppStore is one outlet and your other outlets should never be abandoned.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced. And as you point out... that is hard to compete in too.... back to my first point.
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
kcmac
Mar 28, 05:49 PM
What happens if you never open the Mac App Store?
Let me guess�uh sorry. Too difficult.
Let me guess�uh sorry. Too difficult.
Bregalad
Apr 16, 04:23 PM
I don't see how they would go back to angles after touting the more curved and comfortable 3G / 3GS back. There was a big focus on how much more comfortable the new iPhone was to hold compared to the first.
The iPod touch is a different beast. The second generation has a nicer feel around the screen, but the smooth rounded back makes it harder to hold. Fortunately there are some really good cases out there to rectify the situation.
The iPod touch is a different beast. The second generation has a nicer feel around the screen, but the smooth rounded back makes it harder to hold. Fortunately there are some really good cases out there to rectify the situation.
28monkeys
Mar 24, 09:54 PM
Happy BD keynote?!
tvguru
Sep 12, 07:35 AM
I'm still waiting for my TV Shows in the UK :(
You and every other non-american. Someday....One can dream.
You and every other non-american. Someday....One can dream.
frjonah
Apr 29, 10:12 PM
This may be off-topic, but does anyone know if the recently purchased Mac products are "grandfathered in" for a Lion release? In other words, I just bought a new MacBook Pro yesterday... am I going to need to pay to upgrade to Lion?
It would, of course, be nice if the upgrade was free for recent purchasers similar to what MS did with the release of Win 7, but I'm assuming that since I can't find anything out about it, there's probably nothing to be hopeful about.
It would, of course, be nice if the upgrade was free for recent purchasers similar to what MS did with the release of Win 7, but I'm assuming that since I can't find anything out about it, there's probably nothing to be hopeful about.
psycoswimmer
Jan 9, 02:58 PM
Okay. I don't know when the keynote will update but I'll do what I usually do. Now that I already know the products, I'll go to apple.com and check the site and then watch the keynote later to see them "in action". This is what I usually do, anyway.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 6, 04:25 PM
I still disagree with you. The device is material. The network is supposed to be invisible. You're not supposed to notice the network. AT&T's service isn't great, but I'll put up with it to use the device of my choice.
The mobile industry has a strange business model compared to other industries. You don't buy a desktop computer that you can only use on one ISP or a car that you can only fill up at particular gas stations (excluding electric). However, If these industries were to operate this way, I still think people would go for the product over the commodity.
To me, and apparently many others, mobile service is just a commodity. Some may be a bit better than others, but in the end you're getting a comparable service. The devices, on the other hand, vary. And, yes, I still think the iPhone was game changing. All I remember before January 2007 were RAZRs and Chocolates. Unintuitive text-based interfaces with linear button-mashing controls in a hyped-up shell.
I think your arugument would be valid if phones were not subsudized and you have to buy them at full price. Because AT&T in this case is paying Apple $400 per phone you should choose a network first.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
The mobile industry has a strange business model compared to other industries. You don't buy a desktop computer that you can only use on one ISP or a car that you can only fill up at particular gas stations (excluding electric). However, If these industries were to operate this way, I still think people would go for the product over the commodity.
To me, and apparently many others, mobile service is just a commodity. Some may be a bit better than others, but in the end you're getting a comparable service. The devices, on the other hand, vary. And, yes, I still think the iPhone was game changing. All I remember before January 2007 were RAZRs and Chocolates. Unintuitive text-based interfaces with linear button-mashing controls in a hyped-up shell.
I think your arugument would be valid if phones were not subsudized and you have to buy them at full price. Because AT&T in this case is paying Apple $400 per phone you should choose a network first.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
Chip NoVaMac
Mar 9, 11:06 PM
It's Apple's philosophy. It comes down to building priorities around it and executing on them.
<snip>
It's not marketing-speak or hyperbole for the camera. It's an artist speaking about his work. Can you identify with this?
Apple operates from a completely different place and mindset from everyone else.
Why?
Simple. They actually give a damn about the User Experience. They understand that tech is used by PEOPLE, and people have lives to get on with. So . . . simplify, simplify, simplify; cut, cut cut; and then work to perfect what's left over.
That's the beauty of it. It's very Zen. Perfection - or rather, sublimity - is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away.
Why doesn't the competition do this or think this way?
1) Their priority is to make as much money in as little time as possible and to do it as cheaply as possible.
2) They're stupid.
Most of the time, #1 happens because of #2.
And there is no cure for #2.
Very well put... it is Apple's attention to the user experience that keeps us buying Apple products that we never knew we wanted or needed. Only time will tell if Steve Jobs is/was the visionary that brought Apple to the heights it now enjoys. IMO he is... he brought Apple back from near bankruptcy.
To be honest, I yawned when the first iPod was released. But then I finally bit the "Apple" and was won over. Smartphones left me wanting. Tried the Windows and Palm smartphones and they left me wanting. Till I got the 1st gen iPhone. This was what I expected a smartphone to be like. Three years later I upgraded to the iPhone 4.
To be blunt, there have been some misses. The first ATV was nice but could not see it for the price and the limits it had out of the box. But the ATV2 gave me what I was looking for at a price that made it a no brainer for me.
Some call me an Apple fanboy. To me that is not fair. Some feel that Apple offers products that exists in a closed system that Apple controls, and that is true. But it is that closed system that I believe helps in some ways the user experience and safety from malware.
And in some ways it hurts the user experience at the same time. Example is with ATV2 and Netflix. I can not search for GLBT titles from ATV2 as a genre.
Is Apple perfect in their business model? No, but I am willing to accept it for the overall user experience....
<snip>
It's not marketing-speak or hyperbole for the camera. It's an artist speaking about his work. Can you identify with this?
Apple operates from a completely different place and mindset from everyone else.
Why?
Simple. They actually give a damn about the User Experience. They understand that tech is used by PEOPLE, and people have lives to get on with. So . . . simplify, simplify, simplify; cut, cut cut; and then work to perfect what's left over.
That's the beauty of it. It's very Zen. Perfection - or rather, sublimity - is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away.
Why doesn't the competition do this or think this way?
1) Their priority is to make as much money in as little time as possible and to do it as cheaply as possible.
2) They're stupid.
Most of the time, #1 happens because of #2.
And there is no cure for #2.
Very well put... it is Apple's attention to the user experience that keeps us buying Apple products that we never knew we wanted or needed. Only time will tell if Steve Jobs is/was the visionary that brought Apple to the heights it now enjoys. IMO he is... he brought Apple back from near bankruptcy.
To be honest, I yawned when the first iPod was released. But then I finally bit the "Apple" and was won over. Smartphones left me wanting. Tried the Windows and Palm smartphones and they left me wanting. Till I got the 1st gen iPhone. This was what I expected a smartphone to be like. Three years later I upgraded to the iPhone 4.
To be blunt, there have been some misses. The first ATV was nice but could not see it for the price and the limits it had out of the box. But the ATV2 gave me what I was looking for at a price that made it a no brainer for me.
Some call me an Apple fanboy. To me that is not fair. Some feel that Apple offers products that exists in a closed system that Apple controls, and that is true. But it is that closed system that I believe helps in some ways the user experience and safety from malware.
And in some ways it hurts the user experience at the same time. Example is with ATV2 and Netflix. I can not search for GLBT titles from ATV2 as a genre.
Is Apple perfect in their business model? No, but I am willing to accept it for the overall user experience....
Vidder
Dec 6, 06:03 PM
It does take too little killstreaks to gain really. But at least the killstreaks top out at 11 on this one, which I think makes it better.
The attack dogs really do my head in though!
the kill streak rewards are so low because its practically impossible to get more then 11 kills in one game with the ****** spawns. (unless you get lucky) 25 was feasible in Modern Warfare because it was a much better game and strategic players who knew how to play could get 25 kills cause they were fighting dip *****. in Black Ops everyone (dip ***** and good players alike) seems to be forced into the same run and gun strategy.
The attack dogs really do my head in though!
the kill streak rewards are so low because its practically impossible to get more then 11 kills in one game with the ****** spawns. (unless you get lucky) 25 was feasible in Modern Warfare because it was a much better game and strategic players who knew how to play could get 25 kills cause they were fighting dip *****. in Black Ops everyone (dip ***** and good players alike) seems to be forced into the same run and gun strategy.
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.
HelloPanda
Apr 16, 06:53 PM
How does Gnome 3.0 on Linux compare to the new UI in OSX Lion?
I've been playing around with Gnome 3.0, and it seems like the designers have a similar philosophy about desktop navigation.
Gnome 3.0 Preview (This is not my video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBXc3IGRBw
I've been playing around with Gnome 3.0, and it seems like the designers have a similar philosophy about desktop navigation.
Gnome 3.0 Preview (This is not my video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBXc3IGRBw
balamw
Apr 16, 02:18 PM
Apple doesn't have much in common with the company that promised that updates. MS might have changed since their Longhorn days, but they are still much closer times wise for MS. We'll see in Vista a screw up for MS after resting on XP's success for so long, or if 7 was a fluke and MS has lost it.
I'm seeing 8 as a good OS X, but not the upgrade 7 was. Which is in part due to the mess that was Vista and the age of XP at the time of 7's launch.
While I agree with you overall, I think there have been plenty of features that NeXT-Apple has teased, but not ultimately delivered on. "Home on the iPod" is one and "resolution independence" is another, I'm sure there are more but these are two that might actually have mattered to me.
B
I'm seeing 8 as a good OS X, but not the upgrade 7 was. Which is in part due to the mess that was Vista and the age of XP at the time of 7's launch.
While I agree with you overall, I think there have been plenty of features that NeXT-Apple has teased, but not ultimately delivered on. "Home on the iPod" is one and "resolution independence" is another, I'm sure there are more but these are two that might actually have mattered to me.
B
Yukon Jack
May 3, 09:44 PM
I'll buy one when it has an 8MHz processor, 13-inch monochrome CRT screen and a big fat "Turbo" button.
I'm waiting for the model with the VGA adapter, 2 USB ports, an SD card slot, a 5.25" floppy drive, Appletalk, an ADB port for my keyboard, a SCSI port for my 130MB external drive, Blu-Ray, 8.3 super surround sound, double retina display; all for $300.
I'm waiting for the model with the VGA adapter, 2 USB ports, an SD card slot, a 5.25" floppy drive, Appletalk, an ADB port for my keyboard, a SCSI port for my 130MB external drive, Blu-Ray, 8.3 super surround sound, double retina display; all for $300.
Dunepilot
Nov 22, 03:46 AM
the current 17" C2D iMac is 6.8 inches thick
The Apple site quotes that as the 'depth' of the iMac (presumably the space needed to situate it on a desk, including the depth of the stand. I seem to remember the actual iMac 'screen' itself being around 2 inches thick when they introduced the G5 version. Have a look at the C2D iMac in a shop - it's certainly not 6.8" thick.
Back OT - there's really no reason why Apple would look at AMD now. They have a good relationship with Intel, are getting the supply of chips that they need, and they've very much fallen into bed with the company for the lower-end machines (integrated graphics etc). At present they're doing well with one supplier where they had mixed success with dealing with two in the past (IBM and Freescale).
The Apple site quotes that as the 'depth' of the iMac (presumably the space needed to situate it on a desk, including the depth of the stand. I seem to remember the actual iMac 'screen' itself being around 2 inches thick when they introduced the G5 version. Have a look at the C2D iMac in a shop - it's certainly not 6.8" thick.
Back OT - there's really no reason why Apple would look at AMD now. They have a good relationship with Intel, are getting the supply of chips that they need, and they've very much fallen into bed with the company for the lower-end machines (integrated graphics etc). At present they're doing well with one supplier where they had mixed success with dealing with two in the past (IBM and Freescale).
sailnavy
Jan 15, 02:13 PM
So are we ever going to see Time Machine support for the TB drive I bought for my AEBS in preparation for Time Machine release?
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.
iCeltic
Apr 16, 04:41 AM
I bet Google try to sell to the label the idea of free advertisement supported music, and Google get to keep 70% of the revenue.:eek:
