appletastic
Jul 30, 06:34 AM
Iphone? I just can't see it... It will kill their ipod sales - it will be like shooting themselves in the foot. The reason is that all phones are now free with a contract - we have difficulty in having any value in our phones nowadays.. if you had a free iphone with a contract which had ipod facilities then why would you buy an ipod? It just doesnt make sense.. unless they ONLY sell it sim free. If they do bring one out then i'll certainly buy one, but I am not sure that it is such a good idea... I'd rather they produced a phone/pda hybrid like the xda - I think that this would fit better into their existing product portfolio..
ucfgrad93
May 6, 07:08 PM
Com'on lads! we are waisting precious time.
i just need one volunteer to split off, or one volunteer to lead the group so i split off.
it really is worth to do this as it cuts down on unproductive turns, which means lees varmints to soil our weapons with.
I'll volunteer.
i just need one volunteer to split off, or one volunteer to lead the group so i split off.
it really is worth to do this as it cuts down on unproductive turns, which means lees varmints to soil our weapons with.
I'll volunteer.
ticman
Nov 12, 06:52 PM
Yup, the 12/2 date was a disappointment but in hindsight not a big surprise. I am sure many of us jumped at the price and got in line to receive the car kit, hoping to be the first on our block to get it. LOL Might have been good marketing strategy by BLT or an honest demand far exceeding supply as at least one member here did receive their unit from BLT before "take a number and be patient" started.
Regardless I am going to wait it out. I can use my Navigon app for times when I need to--just a little awkward keeping it in the ashtray or cup holder--LOL
Regardless I am going to wait it out. I can use my Navigon app for times when I need to--just a little awkward keeping it in the ashtray or cup holder--LOL
BlizzardBomb
Jul 21, 03:25 PM
something to remember about product update cycles:
iSight iMac G5 came out in October '05, Intel iMac came out just 3 months later... in January '06.
just thought I should remind everyone.
Remind us about what? Please be a little less cryptic because some people are tired here :p
iSight iMac G5 came out in October '05, Intel iMac came out just 3 months later... in January '06.
just thought I should remind everyone.
Remind us about what? Please be a little less cryptic because some people are tired here :p
bwillwall
Apr 24, 08:09 AM
That one hell of an icon lol
ticman
Nov 21, 01:14 PM
I can't believe your BlueAnt is working for you. Yes my phone is a 3Gs. I had other replies to an earlier post that indicated that Apple did not allow some of the BT technology to work on their phone.
I will try and "pair" again to iPhone and see if it works. I agree with you re hitting a button on the visor.
I will try and "pair" again to iPhone and see if it works. I agree with you re hitting a button on the visor.
firestarter
Mar 29, 08:41 AM
Seems strange that they're not rolling this out to iDevices. I can't see them having to hand over 30% of the revenue to Apple - this looks like more of a Dropbox competitor.
Possibly Apple's launch of a competitor is imminent, and Amazon just doesn't think that they can compete on Apple's home turf?
I hope this is true. Could be quite useful.
Possibly Apple's launch of a competitor is imminent, and Amazon just doesn't think that they can compete on Apple's home turf?
I hope this is true. Could be quite useful.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 11, 02:42 AM
Has anyone ever considered that the media mac would not be a hardware upgrade to the mini but a software one via itunes 7
or is it just me?
I think you need both. I can't imagine that Apple want us to get a DVR on top of a Media Mac, so a Mediad Mac should have a built in TV-tuner. I wouldn't be surprised if this gadget also double as an Airport Extreme.
or is it just me?
I think you need both. I can't imagine that Apple want us to get a DVR on top of a Media Mac, so a Mediad Mac should have a built in TV-tuner. I wouldn't be surprised if this gadget also double as an Airport Extreme.
macenforcer
Aug 7, 05:47 PM
3ghz Xeon = 80W
2.66ghz Xeon = 65W
2ghz Xeon = 65W
Looks like the 2.66ghz Xeon is the best bang for buck and heat.
2.66ghz Xeon = 65W
2ghz Xeon = 65W
Looks like the 2.66ghz Xeon is the best bang for buck and heat.
appleguy123
May 3, 11:40 PM
Then I want Don't panic(is this a reference to hitchhiker's guide?) to be our leader.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
stridemat
May 7, 02:05 PM
hmmm ............. iWork.com is free.
maybe some combined functionality setup soon?
Over the air syncing for iWork documents on the iPad?
maybe some combined functionality setup soon?
Over the air syncing for iWork documents on the iPad?
cotak
Mar 29, 03:05 PM
ah nothing like starting the day with a bit of ignorance. :cool:
+1 to some reality check.
This thread shows a lot of over simplification of how economies works and what is actually causing job loses.
+1 to some reality check.
This thread shows a lot of over simplification of how economies works and what is actually causing job loses.
kainjow
Aug 7, 02:14 PM
Hmm... Cinema displays also got a bump.
20" ACD
Brightness: 250 cd/m2 -> 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 400:1 -> 700:1
23" ACD
Brightness: 270 cd/m2 -> 400 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 400:1 -> 700:1
Nice find, thanks. I was hoping they'd update the displays. Now to see when my local Apple Store will have them in stock :p
20" ACD
Brightness: 250 cd/m2 -> 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 400:1 -> 700:1
23" ACD
Brightness: 270 cd/m2 -> 400 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 400:1 -> 700:1
Nice find, thanks. I was hoping they'd update the displays. Now to see when my local Apple Store will have them in stock :p
aog
Sep 15, 04:38 PM
I hope the 2.33GHz processor comes standard in the 17" since it�s the highest-end model...:D
lukecro
Mar 27, 04:12 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
A slightly improved version of the iPad 2 could also be released around that time, to be sold alongside the current version. September's Apple event could be a lot more than just new iPods. iPad 2 only just launched yesterday in various other countries. It will most likely sell out there this weekend as well. Most people still have a few weeks to wait for ordered iPad 2's. They can barely meet demand now. App developers have barely even scratched the surface of updating and writing apps to take advantage of all the new goodies in the iPad 2. With the tragedy in Japan, some components are in short supply. iPad 2 has barely gotten out of the gate! With a track record like that for the iPad 2, I just can't see how anyone can believe any type of iPad 3 launch will take place in the Fall. Besides, that's when they launch iPods for Xmas anyway. They already have a product schedule for that window. "2011 is the Year of iPad 2".
Look for iPad 3 March/April 2012.
Steve Jobs said there was no point in making a small iPad - but maybe apple will work around that by making a big iPod Touch. Perhaps in the fall, at the iPod event, they'll announce a 6"-7" Maximum Touch, aka iPad Mini. It'll run iPhone/Touch apps but not iPad apps. They sort out the screen resolution/display in a way so that iPhone apps will be automatically blown up to fit the screen so developers won't have to create iPad Mini-specific apps. No retina display. Will be kept at a modest price point - between the regular iPad and Touch prices. Released just in time for the holiday shopping season: An iPad that's cheaper than a regular iPad and can fit in a purse. A great present for the wife. It'll be THE stocking stuffer of the year. This iPad mini could be what the "new iPad in September" rumors are really about. Just don't call it an iPad 3 or Mr. jobs will get mad. It's the "Big Touch," yo.
A slightly improved version of the iPad 2 could also be released around that time, to be sold alongside the current version. September's Apple event could be a lot more than just new iPods. iPad 2 only just launched yesterday in various other countries. It will most likely sell out there this weekend as well. Most people still have a few weeks to wait for ordered iPad 2's. They can barely meet demand now. App developers have barely even scratched the surface of updating and writing apps to take advantage of all the new goodies in the iPad 2. With the tragedy in Japan, some components are in short supply. iPad 2 has barely gotten out of the gate! With a track record like that for the iPad 2, I just can't see how anyone can believe any type of iPad 3 launch will take place in the Fall. Besides, that's when they launch iPods for Xmas anyway. They already have a product schedule for that window. "2011 is the Year of iPad 2".
Look for iPad 3 March/April 2012.
Steve Jobs said there was no point in making a small iPad - but maybe apple will work around that by making a big iPod Touch. Perhaps in the fall, at the iPod event, they'll announce a 6"-7" Maximum Touch, aka iPad Mini. It'll run iPhone/Touch apps but not iPad apps. They sort out the screen resolution/display in a way so that iPhone apps will be automatically blown up to fit the screen so developers won't have to create iPad Mini-specific apps. No retina display. Will be kept at a modest price point - between the regular iPad and Touch prices. Released just in time for the holiday shopping season: An iPad that's cheaper than a regular iPad and can fit in a purse. A great present for the wife. It'll be THE stocking stuffer of the year. This iPad mini could be what the "new iPad in September" rumors are really about. Just don't call it an iPad 3 or Mr. jobs will get mad. It's the "Big Touch," yo.
nanofrog
Apr 28, 03:54 PM
I'm not exactly sure why Apple put those "vents" in the plate, they sure don't go through the whole panel, though. The compartment to the top is indeed closed apart from a few tiny holes.
There's not a lot of venting on the back (nor ability to install a fan in push mode), so it's likely as a means of moving additional heat out of the PCIe zone, and pull it out through the PSU (not as hot when mixed with cool air drawn in around from the front of the case past the ODD's, so it shouldn't be hot enough to cause damage to the PSU).
Just a thought anyway... ;)
There's not a lot of venting on the back (nor ability to install a fan in push mode), so it's likely as a means of moving additional heat out of the PCIe zone, and pull it out through the PSU (not as hot when mixed with cool air drawn in around from the front of the case past the ODD's, so it shouldn't be hot enough to cause damage to the PSU).
Just a thought anyway... ;)
ghostee
May 4, 02:50 PM
I like the idea. Hopefully the App Store purchase will be versatile. I'd like to see:
- Buy on the App Store and perform a local upgrade
- Buy on the App Store and upgrade or fresh install another machine on the network
- Buy on the App Store and burn a disk to fresh install the local machine, or any other machine I want to
- Get a free copy of the above for a Mac purchased within X days of the Lion release.
The pricing also needs to be fair. The price should not be greater than what I could obtain the disk for, including any discounts retailers may provide.
- Buy on the App Store and perform a local upgrade
- Buy on the App Store and upgrade or fresh install another machine on the network
- Buy on the App Store and burn a disk to fresh install the local machine, or any other machine I want to
- Get a free copy of the above for a Mac purchased within X days of the Lion release.
The pricing also needs to be fair. The price should not be greater than what I could obtain the disk for, including any discounts retailers may provide.
Jett0516
Apr 26, 04:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
And how many android devices are free or buy one, get one free? It's amazing how fast you can gain market usage when you give your stuff away...
At&t is selling the 3gs for $49.
And how many android devices are free or buy one, get one free? It's amazing how fast you can gain market usage when you give your stuff away...
At&t is selling the 3gs for $49.
syc23
Apr 26, 03:22 PM
You don't hear about Ferrari and Porsche worrying about their market share. Neither should Apple. Let the other guys squabble in the lower end of the market leaving Apple to continue to deliver a premium product and user experience.
rhinosrcool
Apr 20, 01:29 AM
iPhone 4 with 3.5" screen: 115.2mm x 58.6mm x 9.3mm
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Sure it is only 5% taller, but 12% wider and almost 50% thicker as well as 15% heavier.
Perhaps you don't know anything about Apple, but they take the size of their devices very seriously.
I also don't understand how some of you think it is possible to have a significantly larger screen without making the phone bigger. It is not like the current iPhone has a lot of space. Again it seems people just read a bigger number and think it must be better. If we left it up to other companies smartphones would all be twice as thick and weigh twice as much as they do now, while being massively unwieldy. Apple actually has an aesthetic set of benchmarks that are important to them as anything else. It is not only aesthetic either, but actually using the device and carrying it around, the size makes a big difference.
My 3.5" iPhone 4 screen is pretty amazing, especially considering the size and weight of the device. Much more impressive than any 4" screened device I have seen.
Edit: In case anyone is wondering the 4" Samsung Galaxy S specs: 122.4mm x 64.2mm x 9.9mm weight 118 grams. It weighs less, but the physical dimensions are larger in ever way.
Please! Make the damn phone bigger! Oh no, it may weigh a few more grams. Currently, the iphone4 is a tiny phone. For us adults, please increase the screen size, and probably, the width.
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Sure it is only 5% taller, but 12% wider and almost 50% thicker as well as 15% heavier.
Perhaps you don't know anything about Apple, but they take the size of their devices very seriously.
I also don't understand how some of you think it is possible to have a significantly larger screen without making the phone bigger. It is not like the current iPhone has a lot of space. Again it seems people just read a bigger number and think it must be better. If we left it up to other companies smartphones would all be twice as thick and weigh twice as much as they do now, while being massively unwieldy. Apple actually has an aesthetic set of benchmarks that are important to them as anything else. It is not only aesthetic either, but actually using the device and carrying it around, the size makes a big difference.
My 3.5" iPhone 4 screen is pretty amazing, especially considering the size and weight of the device. Much more impressive than any 4" screened device I have seen.
Edit: In case anyone is wondering the 4" Samsung Galaxy S specs: 122.4mm x 64.2mm x 9.9mm weight 118 grams. It weighs less, but the physical dimensions are larger in ever way.
Please! Make the damn phone bigger! Oh no, it may weigh a few more grams. Currently, the iphone4 is a tiny phone. For us adults, please increase the screen size, and probably, the width.
JaimeChinook
Dec 9, 12:26 AM
OK, I've had it on my MBP for about 3 weeks and I've noticed the spinning beach ball a lot more than I remember... no crashes though.
I've just taken it off; or at least tried to. I used AppDelete and it took off everything except the icon on my top bar. When I click on the icon, it says there are updates available... dooooh...
I've just taken it off; or at least tried to. I used AppDelete and it took off everything except the icon on my top bar. When I click on the icon, it says there are updates available... dooooh...
codyc815
Apr 26, 02:47 PM
Good! I don't like Apple being highest in these kind of things. The number one retailer in the country is Walmart, doesn't make it good. Audi and Mercedes aren't the most used cars, but they're the nicest.
psingh01
May 7, 02:29 PM
It used to be free, back when it was called iTools.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий