Re: OT - Apple rejects Iboobs.

Froot Bat <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:46:47 +0000, Meng <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Froot Bat wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:54:49 +0000, Mike Plowman
<mike.plowman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/23/iboobs/

LOl, I would buy an Iphone just for that app! :-)

True, it's about the best reason to buy one.

OTOH, Apple's response typifies one reason why I would never buy one
of their overpriced and overrated products.

Steve Jobs puts Hitler to shame when it comes to control freakery. If
I pay for a product I don't see any reason why the manufacturer should
dictate what I can or cannot use it for.

Still it all keeps the Apple kool-aid brigade happy.

I use a computer that allows you run OSX or Windows. Or both.

Thanks for proving my point. Because, unlike Jobby, Bill doesn't try
and dictate what hardware you can install his Operating System on.

Actually it's Steve "Monkey Boy" Ballmer pulling the strings now.

Here he is!:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FncILxajmlw

Fortunately, for people with Windows, there is no need to boot to OSX
at all, since there is nothing that can be done on OSX that can't be
done on Windows.

Is that in the same way there's nothing you can do with a Mercedes you
can't do with a Lada? And how there's nothing you can do with a 50 inch
plasma you can't do with a 15 inch CRT?

OTOH it's telling that a major feature of 'Macs' now, that you have
just bragged about, is that they can boot Windows.

The Mac platform doesn't limit you as to what OS you can use; the 'PC'
platform doesn't limit you as to what hardware you can use. Neither
approach is inherantly wrong. Just diff'rent strokes for diff'rent
folks.

So I can pay £300 for a WinXP laptop, or pay three times that for a
'Mac' laptop which does less unless I install WinXP on it? Cool.

And the cliche of the day is: You get what you pay for! I'm sorry if
you can't see it that way. Tis just a matter of perspective.

I'm guessing you use one that only allows Windows.

Correct. I've tried every single OS and found NT5.x (Windows 2000/XP)
is a better OS than any other, including Vista, Linux and OSX.

Whereas I find using pre-Vista Windows like stepping back into the dark
ages, barely one step up from a Commodore 64. Aren't opinions great?
;-p

Vista is a fatter, shinier XP, Linux still has some way to go, and OSX
is a toy for illiterate 'tards who like shiny icons that bounce and
huge icons instead of words.

Am I an "illiterate 'tard" then?

I know this because I had a £250 laptop with all three of those OS
installed. How much did you pay for your Jobby-approved PC?

£250 + plus £750 Pure Profit for Apple? Good for you.

Do you honestly believe a Macbook costs the same to make as a £250 PC
laptop? Really?

And you're just another sheep like all those androids in those ***
"I'm a PC" ads.

If 'being a PC' is being a *** android why do you use a PC? Because
that's what a Mac is that can run Windows, genius.

Do you think Microsoft intends the usage of "I'm a PC" to include Macs?

And given the whole "I'm a..." series of ads were started by Apple,
where a Mac user is styled as a smug, laid-back 'cool dude' *** that
most people would happily beat to death in a second, you're on pretty
shaky ground knocking the Windows ads.

I think you have to have a sense of humour to 'get' the Apple ads... or
the Microsoft ones for that matter.

Not that the Apple ads are shown on UK TV anyway. Which does all kind
of question what will Joe Bloggs make of the Microsoft ads anyway?
Without the Apple ads as context, they don't really mean anything.

--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!

http://whynotmac.net76.net/
.