Auax
Apr 12, 10:11 PM
It is said that some important features will be achieved on iOS 5. So i will keep waiting and expecting the magic on iPhone 5.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 8, 12:05 PM
Actually, Sony explained that the damage is not unlocked or progressive as one dives deeper into the game. It's just that as one goes further into the game, one is able to FINALLY collect more premium cars which do have the better damage engine.
This is exactly opposite to what I've read and seen in the game.
This is exactly opposite to what I've read and seen in the game.
�algiris
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
Why did it take so long for Apple to release a statement?
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 05:54 AM
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
Kane.Elson
Jul 27, 10:21 PM
Ahh so many announcments !!! Kill me now !
I'm waiting for the end of august then I'm buying whatever I can get.
I'm waiting for the end of august then I'm buying whatever I can get.
Macnoviz
Apr 12, 10:57 AM
So the presentation should be in about 10 hours?
Has any one heard of live coverage? A livestream will probably be too much to ask, but maybe one of the tech blogs is doing a text/photo update.
Has any one heard of live coverage? A livestream will probably be too much to ask, but maybe one of the tech blogs is doing a text/photo update.
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 10:09 AM
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
Wow Im having to do a lot of explaining of my posts, im beginning to think im a bit retarded. :(
24Ghz is (in my head) an 8 core machine running at 3Ghz i.e. 8x3=24
Its just an example to make things easier for people to answer my OP. :)
DISCLAIMER: All information contained within my posts sounded right in my head at the time of writing. However I may have been A) Quickly typing because I should actually be working B) Trying to be funny but failing miserabley or C) Drunk. It is not my intention to confuse people but I seem to do it quite easily and without knowledge. Please address any complaints to the complaints dept. at Microsoft Corporation.
Wow Im having to do a lot of explaining of my posts, im beginning to think im a bit retarded. :(
24Ghz is (in my head) an 8 core machine running at 3Ghz i.e. 8x3=24
Its just an example to make things easier for people to answer my OP. :)
DISCLAIMER: All information contained within my posts sounded right in my head at the time of writing. However I may have been A) Quickly typing because I should actually be working B) Trying to be funny but failing miserabley or C) Drunk. It is not my intention to confuse people but I seem to do it quite easily and without knowledge. Please address any complaints to the complaints dept. at Microsoft Corporation.
kdarling
Apr 20, 09:49 AM
No they wouldn't. They have to prove likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion. Actual confusion is evidence of likelihood of confusion, but it's not necessary.
Yes sir, that's why I explicitly said "could" have to provide proof, because I read of cases where evidence of actual confusion ended up being one of the methods used.
Thank you, as always, for making the clarification in any case.
Yes sir, that's why I explicitly said "could" have to provide proof, because I read of cases where evidence of actual confusion ended up being one of the methods used.
Thank you, as always, for making the clarification in any case.
dicklacara
Apr 19, 02:56 PM
One of the three basics that must be proven in order to win a trade dress case, is the likelihood of confusion.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
Yes! Some people will think they are buying a Samsung iPhone.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
Yes! Some people will think they are buying a Samsung iPhone.
akadmon
Sep 19, 11:30 AM
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
Me worry? :D
Me worry? :D
wolfie37
Apr 25, 01:50 PM
"a perfect storm", "overreaction", "typical for the us to sue.."
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
You aren't being tracked by Apple, you aren't being tracked to the meter. You can opt out, just switch off location services.
And by the way even if you do switch off location services your location is still being tracked by the mobile phone companies everytime your phone makes a connection with one of their masts, which happens everytime you move cell. Oh and this happens with every phone, otherwise they wouldn't work.
Stop being a paranoid sheep and start reading the facts of this case not the media hype.
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
You aren't being tracked by Apple, you aren't being tracked to the meter. You can opt out, just switch off location services.
And by the way even if you do switch off location services your location is still being tracked by the mobile phone companies everytime your phone makes a connection with one of their masts, which happens everytime you move cell. Oh and this happens with every phone, otherwise they wouldn't work.
Stop being a paranoid sheep and start reading the facts of this case not the media hype.
davisjw
Aug 12, 12:17 AM
Is this going to be a phone or more of a hybrid cell/ blackberry... Seeing as its from a computer company I hope its more of a hybrid and will be in perfect sync with my Macs!
Iconoclysm
Apr 19, 08:46 PM
Motorola had iDEN well before Apple had an iPhone. Apple copied the i just like they did the Beatle's logo. They are he innovators of copying. But it's ok when they do it.
Motorola wasn't the first company to create an iProduct and using an Apple may have infringed on The Beatles' production company's logo (not The Beatles' logo) but it was not a US company. Do you really think that Jobs got the idea for using the Apple name from The Beatles?
Motorola wasn't the first company to create an iProduct and using an Apple may have infringed on The Beatles' production company's logo (not The Beatles' logo) but it was not a US company. Do you really think that Jobs got the idea for using the Apple name from The Beatles?
Lone Deranger
Mar 31, 05:30 PM
To put it in Nelson's words:
ghostlyorb
Apr 8, 08:17 AM
How many times does it need to be said, "don't screw around with Apple"?
fivepoint
Apr 28, 09:50 AM
Imagine that, three responses which utterly fail to refute let alone dispute my clear and truthful argument. Instead, they leave snide remarks. No substance WHATSOEVER. :)
NJRonbo
Jun 22, 03:01 PM
myemosoul,
What district/area is this?
I am in central NJ and counting on some
stores around here to get a few...hopefully.
What district/area is this?
I am in central NJ and counting on some
stores around here to get a few...hopefully.
Nym
Nov 29, 11:28 AM
I don't listen to anything that comes from that Universal Artists list shown above :)
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
AHAHAHAHAHA
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
More like a Capitalist, he thinks they should get money, profit logic.
Universal is being greedy, they are entitled to 1$ per iPod the same way as I am, because after all, I'm advertising for Apple when I'm holding it in my hand right? It's just stupid beyond everything I've heard! And the artists will be the last ones to get even a glimpe of the money that M$ is gonna pay Universal (7$ ??).
If by any chance Apple would give in to Universal, every crap Record Label would start requiring the same fee and one day we'll have "the new iPod Nano, starting at 500$" :)
iPoop on Record Labels :D
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
AHAHAHAHAHA
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
More like a Capitalist, he thinks they should get money, profit logic.
Universal is being greedy, they are entitled to 1$ per iPod the same way as I am, because after all, I'm advertising for Apple when I'm holding it in my hand right? It's just stupid beyond everything I've heard! And the artists will be the last ones to get even a glimpe of the money that M$ is gonna pay Universal (7$ ??).
If by any chance Apple would give in to Universal, every crap Record Label would start requiring the same fee and one day we'll have "the new iPod Nano, starting at 500$" :)
iPoop on Record Labels :D
Bengt77
Aug 17, 04:11 PM
I'll just wait until the 4GHZ Mac Pro. I wonder what that bad boy can do.:rolleyes:
Yeah. I'm waiting for the 16GHz Mac Pro Super Duper Ultra Extreme. Boy, you don't even want to know what that machine will be able to do...
Yeah. I'm waiting for the 16GHz Mac Pro Super Duper Ultra Extreme. Boy, you don't even want to know what that machine will be able to do...
jdminpdx
Apr 8, 01:31 AM
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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
macbookmike
Apr 6, 06:00 PM
please, please, P...L...E...A...S...E - Can we have an integrated Cellular data chip
ugp
Jun 9, 02:49 PM
I am probably going to Radio Shack since I use to Manage one and my best friend is still a Manager at a local store. They are more than likely opening at 6AM and where I live the nearest AT&T store is 30 minutes away and Apple store is 1-1/2 hours away.
I am not sure if I am doing the trade in or not since I have a 16GB 3GS recently replaced by Apple so it's Like New but I really don't want to mess with eBay just to make a couple of extra dollars on it over the Trade-In price.
As for Upgrade Fees I am not concerned since I know the AT&T Rep for the Radio Shack still and I can get it waived regardless. I am sure Radio Shack will work something out and give some sort of incentive because Wireless is their main focus and biggest money maker right now.
I will agree with most everyone else though that Radio Shack has a bad name for itself because of their employees not being helpful and that comes down to the Manager at fault. When I was Manager I ran a tight ship and my store was there to serve the customers walking in and to solve their problems regardless where they bought their product. Stores forget what Customer Service is about. If it were for my best friend still the Manager there I would not be going to a Radio Shack to purchase my new iPhone. I would probably go to the AT&T store like I did with the rest of the iPhones I purchased. Where you purchase doesn't really matter because the warranty will be the same and have the same process.
I just called a local store here in SC and this was pretty much all confirmed. His computer system was down, so he didn't have the info in front of him, but he said it would run pretty much like the EVO did, with a $50 downpayment for the pre-orders. Unfortunately he wasn't yet sure if all stores would be doing pre-orders or just the "in-stock" stores. I'll call back Monday to see if that store can get me a phone on the 24th, since it's close to my work. We'll see, I guess.
I was told the same $50 Down-Payment via a Radio Shack Gift card would be the process more than likely like they did with the Evo. And if a Pre-Order is placed you will receive your phone launch day. The shipments will arrive at the store on the 23rd. This source came from the Store Manager. No Memo yet has been issued to them, only verbal information from the DM via a Conference Call after the iPhone was announced.
BEST BUY HAS BETTER TRADE IN PRICE
32gb 3GS = $315.00 compared to radioshacks $279
Personally i would try ebay, theyre going for about 400-500, thast 100-200 dollars more. Spoke to radioshack managers and they charge the upgrade fee, ATT and Apple and best buy are waiving upgrade fee.
Early Upgrade fee also available at all retail locations, Wal-mart, apple, att, radioshack, best buy
I would not ever go to a Best Buy myself and purchase a Cell Phone. They have no incentive to sell you anything really. An AT&T Store would be a better choice if you have no Apple Stores local. Best Buy and Wal-Mart would be my last option hands down. I would rather go somewhere that the employee makes commission and has more of a reason to serve and help you with your purchase than someone that is being paid hourly to be there. Apple Store is an exception here.
That's "THE SHACK" to you sir! Sorry, I still can't over this crappy, crappy branding decision of theirs to call themselves "The Shack." Really?
When I watched basketball performances, it was from "The Shack." When I was 12, I had my porno hidden in "The Shack." And when I was 15 and in the Boy Scouts and I went camping/boating, I took a crap in "The Shack." But, when I was 16 and built a home-made rocket, I got my parts from "RADIO SHACK."
I agree with you, I am glad I quit Radio Shack before they transitioned to all this new stuff. The reason I see they are rebranding is because they no longer are in the Radio business and want to move along with the Technology and keep up. The parts they were known for selling when they started is just not a high demand market and is hard to target.
I am not sure if I am doing the trade in or not since I have a 16GB 3GS recently replaced by Apple so it's Like New but I really don't want to mess with eBay just to make a couple of extra dollars on it over the Trade-In price.
As for Upgrade Fees I am not concerned since I know the AT&T Rep for the Radio Shack still and I can get it waived regardless. I am sure Radio Shack will work something out and give some sort of incentive because Wireless is their main focus and biggest money maker right now.
I will agree with most everyone else though that Radio Shack has a bad name for itself because of their employees not being helpful and that comes down to the Manager at fault. When I was Manager I ran a tight ship and my store was there to serve the customers walking in and to solve their problems regardless where they bought their product. Stores forget what Customer Service is about. If it were for my best friend still the Manager there I would not be going to a Radio Shack to purchase my new iPhone. I would probably go to the AT&T store like I did with the rest of the iPhones I purchased. Where you purchase doesn't really matter because the warranty will be the same and have the same process.
I just called a local store here in SC and this was pretty much all confirmed. His computer system was down, so he didn't have the info in front of him, but he said it would run pretty much like the EVO did, with a $50 downpayment for the pre-orders. Unfortunately he wasn't yet sure if all stores would be doing pre-orders or just the "in-stock" stores. I'll call back Monday to see if that store can get me a phone on the 24th, since it's close to my work. We'll see, I guess.
I was told the same $50 Down-Payment via a Radio Shack Gift card would be the process more than likely like they did with the Evo. And if a Pre-Order is placed you will receive your phone launch day. The shipments will arrive at the store on the 23rd. This source came from the Store Manager. No Memo yet has been issued to them, only verbal information from the DM via a Conference Call after the iPhone was announced.
BEST BUY HAS BETTER TRADE IN PRICE
32gb 3GS = $315.00 compared to radioshacks $279
Personally i would try ebay, theyre going for about 400-500, thast 100-200 dollars more. Spoke to radioshack managers and they charge the upgrade fee, ATT and Apple and best buy are waiving upgrade fee.
Early Upgrade fee also available at all retail locations, Wal-mart, apple, att, radioshack, best buy
I would not ever go to a Best Buy myself and purchase a Cell Phone. They have no incentive to sell you anything really. An AT&T Store would be a better choice if you have no Apple Stores local. Best Buy and Wal-Mart would be my last option hands down. I would rather go somewhere that the employee makes commission and has more of a reason to serve and help you with your purchase than someone that is being paid hourly to be there. Apple Store is an exception here.
That's "THE SHACK" to you sir! Sorry, I still can't over this crappy, crappy branding decision of theirs to call themselves "The Shack." Really?
When I watched basketball performances, it was from "The Shack." When I was 12, I had my porno hidden in "The Shack." And when I was 15 and in the Boy Scouts and I went camping/boating, I took a crap in "The Shack." But, when I was 16 and built a home-made rocket, I got my parts from "RADIO SHACK."
I agree with you, I am glad I quit Radio Shack before they transitioned to all this new stuff. The reason I see they are rebranding is because they no longer are in the Radio business and want to move along with the Technology and keep up. The parts they were known for selling when they started is just not a high demand market and is hard to target.
ugp
Jun 10, 06:33 PM
Without any adapters and just the phone this is what Radio Shack says...
My phone was just replaced by Apple a few weeks ago. I am curious to see if the value drops as each day goes on. I don't want to be without a phone right now but that isn't a bad value being the value of them on eBay right now. Making $30-40 isn't worth the trouble on eBay. I will be trading mine in for sure.
http://i50.tinypic.com/1z9nbd.jpg
My phone was just replaced by Apple a few weeks ago. I am curious to see if the value drops as each day goes on. I don't want to be without a phone right now but that isn't a bad value being the value of them on eBay right now. Making $30-40 isn't worth the trouble on eBay. I will be trading mine in for sure.
http://i50.tinypic.com/1z9nbd.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment