deputy_doofy
Sep 19, 08:54 AM
Not that I really believe we'll see something today, but if we do, I'm buying - magnetic latch or not. :p
BJNY
Aug 23, 11:05 AM
If you're willing, you could start up from the Hardware Test disc, and run the test which makes the fans go non-stop except for the rearmost fans.
Temp widget http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/status/istatnano.html
Temp widget http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/status/istatnano.html
matticus008
Nov 29, 06:13 AM
One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
ChrisA
Jul 20, 11:00 AM
.... Introduction of world's first commercial 8-core system.
Not quite the first. Sun has been shipping a commercial 8-core systems for about a year now. The T2000 has all 8 cores on one chip but each core also does four-way hyper threading so they claim 32 hardware threads. The price for an 8-core T1000 is about $8K. A system with 8 cores and 8GB RAM burns about 250W
Of course it does not run OS X but Gnome on Solaris has a very OS X -like "feel" to it.
It's a lot like a Mac Pro because Sun like Apple builds both the hardware and the OS and the machine ships with many of the same applications Both are unix based with a pretty point and click window system on top. Sun is also tranitioning to X86 but they are going much slower. So far only Sun's low-end machines have moved to AMD's Operon. All the high end stuff is still SPARC.
Not quite the first. Sun has been shipping a commercial 8-core systems for about a year now. The T2000 has all 8 cores on one chip but each core also does four-way hyper threading so they claim 32 hardware threads. The price for an 8-core T1000 is about $8K. A system with 8 cores and 8GB RAM burns about 250W
Of course it does not run OS X but Gnome on Solaris has a very OS X -like "feel" to it.
It's a lot like a Mac Pro because Sun like Apple builds both the hardware and the OS and the machine ships with many of the same applications Both are unix based with a pretty point and click window system on top. Sun is also tranitioning to X86 but they are going much slower. So far only Sun's low-end machines have moved to AMD's Operon. All the high end stuff is still SPARC.
Scottsdale
Apr 6, 11:31 AM
I'm pretty sure you are aware that Apple would use LV CPU in 13", not ULV. That bumps us to 2.3GHz plus Turbo. You have said this yourself too and I already covered the reason in my other post.
This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
That isn't what this story reads, and I don't think anyone but you and I have even read the actual facts supposed here.
I actually find this one of the least accurate stories ever posted on MacRumors.com for several reasons... the OP is assuming ULV in the 13" MBA. The OP is assuming that if SB IGP is good enough for MBP it's fine for MBA. There is no rumor or timeframe listing these chips especially not in the 13" MBA. It seems like it's a blatant attempt to stir up activity without any real facts, rumors, or even common knowledge about the chips used in the MBAs.
Certainly the people haven't read the story or they're somehow focusing on the 11" MBA. Sure, this would be fine for the 11" MBA in terms of CPU clock speed but even then it's a gigantic loss in the graphics capabilities. That leads to a problem with the author saying good enough for 13" MBP than good enough for MBA. However, the IGP clock speed used in this ULV chip will be nearly a 50% drop in graphics performance. That for me doesn't equate to if this then that...
I am disappointed with MR for even writing such a poor piece of garbage. Forget that I cannot stand the SB IGP... the assumptions made here are absurd! It
definitely doesn't warrant this sort of reply from the fans of the MBA. You and I
could assume things all day, but that isn't the story written.
This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
That isn't what this story reads, and I don't think anyone but you and I have even read the actual facts supposed here.
I actually find this one of the least accurate stories ever posted on MacRumors.com for several reasons... the OP is assuming ULV in the 13" MBA. The OP is assuming that if SB IGP is good enough for MBP it's fine for MBA. There is no rumor or timeframe listing these chips especially not in the 13" MBA. It seems like it's a blatant attempt to stir up activity without any real facts, rumors, or even common knowledge about the chips used in the MBAs.
Certainly the people haven't read the story or they're somehow focusing on the 11" MBA. Sure, this would be fine for the 11" MBA in terms of CPU clock speed but even then it's a gigantic loss in the graphics capabilities. That leads to a problem with the author saying good enough for 13" MBP than good enough for MBA. However, the IGP clock speed used in this ULV chip will be nearly a 50% drop in graphics performance. That for me doesn't equate to if this then that...
I am disappointed with MR for even writing such a poor piece of garbage. Forget that I cannot stand the SB IGP... the assumptions made here are absurd! It
definitely doesn't warrant this sort of reply from the fans of the MBA. You and I
could assume things all day, but that isn't the story written.
georgee2face
Mar 23, 08:57 AM
Well, let's hear it for the Angles and the Saxons who came down frrom the North Sea ( Dennmark, Germany, france and the Netherlands) to start the language we can argue over so fluently and ardently today!!!!!
G
You know, this silly attitude really becomes tiring. Modern English really began in the 1600s, as did English colonization of what is now North America. The British English and American English languages formed concurrently, American is NOT a late offshoot. Rather, they both stem from the same Middle and Old English, but separately.
Get over yourselves.
G
You know, this silly attitude really becomes tiring. Modern English really began in the 1600s, as did English colonization of what is now North America. The British English and American English languages formed concurrently, American is NOT a late offshoot. Rather, they both stem from the same Middle and Old English, but separately.
Get over yourselves.
ssk2
Mar 22, 04:40 PM
You know, on second thought....there never will be an iPad "killer".
Show me a single tablet, from any manufacturer...that will out-sell the iPad.
You can't.
Which of the announced competitors will sell over 15 million in a year? To be the iPad killer...something will have to sell at least 15 million...and that was before iPad2 was released.
Even if you take into account something that has not been announced yet...you can't find an iPad killer. There are too many competitors to the throne...how can the public differentiate between the competitors, some of which are the same thing hardware and software wise....and pick one that will be the "killer".
There has not been an iPhone killer released ever....there has not been an iPod killer released ever...and there will not be an iPad killer released...ever.
And yes, the Android fanboi cult will chime in and tout the latest and greatest...which will be superseded in two weeks by something else from HTC or Motorola or whoever...if any of these are the killer..why are their sales so much lower than a comparative iDevice?
And don't toss me total number of Android sales or activations....show me a single model from any manufacturer that has sold greater than any comparable Apple portable device (iPad, iPhone, iPod)....there isn't one.
(awaiting the "sales don't matter" comments...and "specs are where its at" dribble.....)
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my first post on this thread - fanboyism at its worst.
"There will never be an iPad killer"? What a ridiculous statement to make. Who knows where mobile tablet computing is heading in the next 1/2/3/10 years. Maybe demand for small tablets will rise? Maybe other operating systems will outstrip iOS? You knows how many units ANY particular tablet will sell next year? It so dismaying to see such a ridiculous view spouted as gospel.
And anyway, why the obsession with a 'killer'? People don't use a Dyson vacuum cleaner because its a Bosch vacuum killer, people don't use chopsticks because they are cutlery killers, hell, apply the analogy to anything. People will ALWAYS pick (rabid fanboys aside) the consumer tool that works best for them. If that means that I find the Playbook fits my needs, I don't give two hoots if it's not an iPad killer. It really doesn't matter to the sane individual.
FWIW, I believe that for all its failings, Android's spread across many developer platforms DOES have its benefits - who knows, we may seem a really strong Android OS this time next year?
Show me a single tablet, from any manufacturer...that will out-sell the iPad.
You can't.
Which of the announced competitors will sell over 15 million in a year? To be the iPad killer...something will have to sell at least 15 million...and that was before iPad2 was released.
Even if you take into account something that has not been announced yet...you can't find an iPad killer. There are too many competitors to the throne...how can the public differentiate between the competitors, some of which are the same thing hardware and software wise....and pick one that will be the "killer".
There has not been an iPhone killer released ever....there has not been an iPod killer released ever...and there will not be an iPad killer released...ever.
And yes, the Android fanboi cult will chime in and tout the latest and greatest...which will be superseded in two weeks by something else from HTC or Motorola or whoever...if any of these are the killer..why are their sales so much lower than a comparative iDevice?
And don't toss me total number of Android sales or activations....show me a single model from any manufacturer that has sold greater than any comparable Apple portable device (iPad, iPhone, iPod)....there isn't one.
(awaiting the "sales don't matter" comments...and "specs are where its at" dribble.....)
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my first post on this thread - fanboyism at its worst.
"There will never be an iPad killer"? What a ridiculous statement to make. Who knows where mobile tablet computing is heading in the next 1/2/3/10 years. Maybe demand for small tablets will rise? Maybe other operating systems will outstrip iOS? You knows how many units ANY particular tablet will sell next year? It so dismaying to see such a ridiculous view spouted as gospel.
And anyway, why the obsession with a 'killer'? People don't use a Dyson vacuum cleaner because its a Bosch vacuum killer, people don't use chopsticks because they are cutlery killers, hell, apply the analogy to anything. People will ALWAYS pick (rabid fanboys aside) the consumer tool that works best for them. If that means that I find the Playbook fits my needs, I don't give two hoots if it's not an iPad killer. It really doesn't matter to the sane individual.
FWIW, I believe that for all its failings, Android's spread across many developer platforms DOES have its benefits - who knows, we may seem a really strong Android OS this time next year?
dernhelm
Aug 5, 07:43 PM
To me the answer to the whole IR/Mac Pro/Front Row thing is obvious - put an integrated IR receiver into the keyboard. The keyboard would come with the Mac Pro (unlike the display) and is rarely under the desk. :)
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
Don't like it. I don't want a new keyboard - I just want FR. Besides, anyone with an older laptop would not be served by that. Just put a USB dongle in the case and sell it with the software!
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
Don't like it. I don't want a new keyboard - I just want FR. Besides, anyone with an older laptop would not be served by that. Just put a USB dongle in the case and sell it with the software!
bushman4
Apr 11, 10:00 PM
No IPHONE5 in june-july watch the stock drop and the negative impact on Apple overall not just the stock price
janstett
Sep 13, 01:11 PM
Sheesh...just when I'm already high up enough on Apple for innovating, they throw even more leaps and bounds in there to put themselves even further ahead. I can't wait 'til my broke @$$ can finally get the money to buy a Mac and chuck all my Windows machines out the door.
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
greenstork
Jul 27, 09:45 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
This was one of the advantages of the G5 but IBM stalled and Intel has essentially blown past everybody. AMD will answer no doubt, but it appears that Intel has about a 6 month jump on them.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
This was one of the advantages of the G5 but IBM stalled and Intel has essentially blown past everybody. AMD will answer no doubt, but it appears that Intel has about a 6 month jump on them.
gorgeousninja
Mar 22, 08:18 PM
10" Tab, here I come!
cool.. maybe if you hang out long enough at your local store you'll find another Tab customer one day and you can both form a support group...
cool.. maybe if you hang out long enough at your local store you'll find another Tab customer one day and you can both form a support group...
Demoman
Aug 5, 08:22 PM
More speculation than rumour, but for Leopard I'd bet on:
-Resolution Independent UI http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/5/22/4065
-Quartz 2D Extreme http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/14
Honestly, I'm surprised they're not in the rumour roundup.
David :cool:
Thanks for the links, Dave! I found them both very informative, especially the one on Quartz 2 Extreme.
Do you have any feel for when we will see a roll-out of the pro apps? I recall quite a bit of rumor-mongering just before the Intel announcement. Since then it has been rather silent. I thought the sudden drop in Quake might be a precursor to something fairly soon??
-Resolution Independent UI http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/5/22/4065
-Quartz 2D Extreme http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/14
Honestly, I'm surprised they're not in the rumour roundup.
David :cool:
Thanks for the links, Dave! I found them both very informative, especially the one on Quartz 2 Extreme.
Do you have any feel for when we will see a roll-out of the pro apps? I recall quite a bit of rumor-mongering just before the Intel announcement. Since then it has been rather silent. I thought the sudden drop in Quake might be a precursor to something fairly soon??
janmike34
Apr 11, 03:37 PM
If we're waiting until September for PRODUCTION, then I think we'll see something great in the late fall or early winter.
I just want a leap with iOS 5. My take on notifications:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqWO6VkJh-0
I just want a leap with iOS 5. My take on notifications:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqWO6VkJh-0
Chakotay
Apr 6, 02:17 PM
I guess it wouldn't hurt their future sales to announce international release dates. Several people I know have ordered or bought an iPad 2 simply because it is available (even with order backlogs) compared to Honeycomb tablets.
Here in continental Europe, all I saw so far was an announcement for the second quarter, which can slip to whenever...
Those of you who already got it - is it worth the wait?
Here in continental Europe, all I saw so far was an announcement for the second quarter, which can slip to whenever...
Those of you who already got it - is it worth the wait?
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 10:57 AM
Go figure - an American phone with less features than the one sold in the rest of the world.
Doesn't that suggest Paris this year being a very likely time and place for the introduction of the iPhone? I doubt Apple will wait one more year considering the competition (see SE W810i (http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp?cc=us&lc=en&ver=4000&template=pp1_loader&php=PHP1_10376&zone=pp&lm=pp1&pid=10376) and others)
Doesn't that suggest Paris this year being a very likely time and place for the introduction of the iPhone? I doubt Apple will wait one more year considering the competition (see SE W810i (http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp?cc=us&lc=en&ver=4000&template=pp1_loader&php=PHP1_10376&zone=pp&lm=pp1&pid=10376) and others)
sparks9
Sep 19, 05:16 AM
Eh what choices do you have if Apple doesn't wish to play by your needs... buy from another vendor? Let the "free market" decide? Oh wait, I forgot, for Macs there is no free market, it is basically a monopoly.
Why do you even visit this site? You are doing nothing but criticising Apple and their products. Please leave.
Ps. If I was Admin I would ban you :p
Why do you even visit this site? You are doing nothing but criticising Apple and their products. Please leave.
Ps. If I was Admin I would ban you :p
Chupa Chupa
Apr 8, 06:17 AM
The problem is not the number of retail-locations selling iPads, the problem is number of iPads in those stores. Now that BB is out of the picture, other retailers can receive more units. Now Apple can stop supplying BB-stores, and use those units to supply some other stores instead. You know, stores that actually sell the product to a customer?
My point is that Apple sells BB more products than the iPad. If it gets pissy about how the iPad is sold and holds units back then it's going to strain the relationship and right now Apple needs BBs floor space to show off its other products b/c there are lots of gaps in Apple Store locations.
As I said this story is fantasy and B.S.
My point is that Apple sells BB more products than the iPad. If it gets pissy about how the iPad is sold and holds units back then it's going to strain the relationship and right now Apple needs BBs floor space to show off its other products b/c there are lots of gaps in Apple Store locations.
As I said this story is fantasy and B.S.
Reventon
Aug 10, 10:47 AM
The Signature Edition is only available in Europe and Australia/NZ and not North America.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/111/1110501p1.html
That said, I've already pre-ordered the Collector's Edition when they announced its release. (I probably wouldn't get it anyway, I'm not to keen on spending $300 for a game when I could get a Logitech G27 for roughly the same price). I love the GT series. The graphics look AMAZING and I can't wait for November to roll around. :D
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/111/1110501p1.html
That said, I've already pre-ordered the Collector's Edition when they announced its release. (I probably wouldn't get it anyway, I'm not to keen on spending $300 for a game when I could get a Logitech G27 for roughly the same price). I love the GT series. The graphics look AMAZING and I can't wait for November to roll around. :D
Multimedia
Aug 27, 02:59 AM
I already have those stats, I want to see them drop in a high-end Conroe (~3GHz) so I would know that I could feasibly upgrade my 2GHz Core Duo in the future. It's possible, isn't it? I mean, the G5's were really hot, and the iMac enclosure could handle that, wouldn't the new Intel ones be able to handle the Conroe Extremes?I think you might be able to put a Merom 2.33GHz in there without much trouble. But I dont' think Conroe is pin compatable with your iMac. :)
itsmemuffins
Mar 22, 08:15 PM
'nuff said (http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/22/samsung-galaxy-tab-8-9-and-new-galaxy-tab-10-1-thinner-than-the/).
nuff said what?
Did you miss the bit where they say the software walkthrough is on the older device?
nuff said what?
Did you miss the bit where they say the software walkthrough is on the older device?
epitaphic
Sep 13, 02:00 PM
I think you've misunderstood. Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same.
Conroe and its derivatives are a step away from Intel's former flagship NetBurst, but even these processors are a bit of a dying breed: during Intel's shift to 45nm, the company will no longer focus on derived microprocessor cores in favor of refined unified core architectures.
So what do you think they meant with M/C/W being a derived arch and Penryn,etc being unified archs?
From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.
Conroe and its derivatives are a step away from Intel's former flagship NetBurst, but even these processors are a bit of a dying breed: during Intel's shift to 45nm, the company will no longer focus on derived microprocessor cores in favor of refined unified core architectures.
So what do you think they meant with M/C/W being a derived arch and Penryn,etc being unified archs?
From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.
iGary
Sep 12, 11:02 AM
The folks over at Anandtech have dropped engineering samples of the quad core cloverton into a Mac Pro - http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6
and it worked ... all eight cores were recognised.
The rest of the article was interesting too.
This willl probably be the update I purchase next year - if it makes it into the Mac Pro - thanks for the link.
and it worked ... all eight cores were recognised.
The rest of the article was interesting too.
This willl probably be the update I purchase next year - if it makes it into the Mac Pro - thanks for the link.
marksman
Mar 23, 03:33 AM
Is MacRumors branching out to coverage of all tablets and media players now? I can't speak for everyone who visits the site but I come here to read about Apple products, not the competition's knock-offs.
To be fair, every smartphone on the market is an iPhone clone and every tablet an iPad clone, so it is all related to Apple in that way.
To be fair, every smartphone on the market is an iPhone clone and every tablet an iPad clone, so it is all related to Apple in that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment