AZREOSpecialist
Apr 18, 03:21 PM
Ooop. Apple already so afraid? No wonder when a phone OS (Galaxy tab with Android 2.2) takes almost 20% marketshare in less than 3 months in the tablet market...
What is your source for this information?
What is your source for this information?
macaddict06
Jul 21, 03:46 PM
Three words: Back to School.
One word: September.
MacBooks are not getting a big bump at WWDC. If anything, the website will post speed upgrades, but other than that, no.
iPods? Just no. They will come out in September, or else the September 17th due date for a free Nano would be dumb.
One word: September.
MacBooks are not getting a big bump at WWDC. If anything, the website will post speed upgrades, but other than that, no.
iPods? Just no. They will come out in September, or else the September 17th due date for a free Nano would be dumb.
Nightarchaon
Apr 23, 04:34 PM
I'm not impressed if this is where the iMac display is potentially going , the current GPUs can barely drive the resolutions they have now in anything other than simple desktop apps . , can you imagine what video card you would need to drive a game (say portal 2 which has low to modest requirements) at 30fps + on a screen with 3200 or higher resloution ? Well whatever that GPU is , apple will ship with the one released 2 years ago and half the RAM it shipped with on the PC .
I love the mac OS , I love the mac design , I hate the "last years tech with a shiney shell" we seem to have to put up with , super high res screens and faster I/O ports are all well and good , but put a decent GPU in now the mac is becoming a contender as a home gaming platform .
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry :rolleyes:
I love the mac OS , I love the mac design , I hate the "last years tech with a shiney shell" we seem to have to put up with , super high res screens and faster I/O ports are all well and good , but put a decent GPU in now the mac is becoming a contender as a home gaming platform .
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry :rolleyes:
drewyboy
May 6, 08:05 AM
All I have to say is thank goodness 90% Of you aren't running companies, especially apple. So many short sighted ppl. Great workers I''m sure but bad visionaries. All options must be considered when a company is looking at long term plans. Doing the opposite is how you kill a company by saying, keep things same and forward ho! By long term I mean 10+ years out.
mikemac11
Mar 30, 08:47 PM
Did apple ever say it will release golden masteR?
It will release the gold master probably around WWDC. This is no where close to it. Actual developers will tell you there is a large list of bugs.
It will release the gold master probably around WWDC. This is no where close to it. Actual developers will tell you there is a large list of bugs.
Sox
Aug 4, 09:32 AM
What are the odds that Apple Stores will offer to upgrade the Yonah processors in the MacBooks, iMacs, and Minis to the Merom chips (for a fee, of course)?
I'm guessing they won't do this, but I thought I'd ask.
I'm guessing they won't do this, but I thought I'd ask.
jasonefmonk
May 6, 01:47 AM
There have been good reasons discussed for why this could happen. Mainly the future goals of ARM development, and the fusion of iOS and OSX.
I still can't see how ARM could keep up with Intel. I just got a new MacBook Pro, it's just the base model but it has a hell of a kick for 2.3GHz dual core. It seems to virtually create four cores (threads?). Intel always seems to be ahead of expectation with performance and efficiency. Apple has a lot of money, but can they really buy all the experience needed to compete with a company of this much history?
I still can't see how ARM could keep up with Intel. I just got a new MacBook Pro, it's just the base model but it has a hell of a kick for 2.3GHz dual core. It seems to virtually create four cores (threads?). Intel always seems to be ahead of expectation with performance and efficiency. Apple has a lot of money, but can they really buy all the experience needed to compete with a company of this much history?
kev0476
Aug 3, 11:04 PM
they are just cycling through old rumors now... only difference, it is so close to wwdc.
gruvdone
Apr 26, 04:02 PM
I love that argument - who told Apple to only make 1 phone? Nobody it was their decision. This is PC vs Mac all over again - history repeating itself.
That's a narrow and erroneous view. Are there some parallels? Sure. There are however some important differences.
First, market share is not anywhere near as important as revenue share. Apple is absolutely trouncing Google and everyone else in this area.
Second, developers are not making any money on Android, as it's user base appears to be comprised of spend-thrifts. It doesn't matter how many people you have using the platform, if developers can't sell applications that well then the lure isn't as strong. Combine that with the exceedingly frustrating fragmentation and inconsistent experience from device to device that makes the task of even writing an Android application that much harder, and it is less appealing still. Will that slow Android down? No, as there will always be customers for the Wal-Mart of mobile operating systems. It does, however limit them as any sort of real 'threat'.
Third, let us not forget that absolute whoring out of hardware at 2 or even 3 for 1 deals is a huge factor in this surge in usage. It's quite easy to inflate your numbers when you hand stuff out for free. Again, in reference to my previous point, they really aren't doing the platform any favors long term, as it will bring down the revenue curve.
Fourth, these numbers are for the US only. The worldwide picture is very different.
I can't wait to see how Steve Jobs spins this somehow at WWDC - my guess is he'll throw iPod Touches and iPads into their numbers so it doesn't look as horrible as the Nielsen chart shows.
Why wouldn't he? iPod touch and iPad run the exact same mobile OS. Just because there is no real competition to either of these devices in the Android space, doesn't devalue their presence. Truthfully, I always take a skeptical stance on the motives of any 'report' on mobile OS usage which conveniently leaves these devices out. Smacks of fomenting, it does.
Next up...tablets :D
Yeah, cause that's been working out really well for them so far. Look, you can have your irrational "I hate Apple cause they are cool, and I rail against anything popular, cause I'M NOT A CONFORMIST!!!" BS all you want to. It doesn't change for one second the fact that Apple innovates, and everyone else imitates and tries to make all the money they can on the back of Apple's IP.
Personally, I'd say enjoy it while you can. Apple has been establishing precedent with its patent litigation against smaller targets. Now they are taking on a medium-sized one in Samsung, and once that victory is complete, Google will be the next to fall.
Look, I'm all for good old fashioned competition. But somebody besides Apple has to step up to the plate and actually create something. This whole me-too copycat crap is wearing thin.
That's a narrow and erroneous view. Are there some parallels? Sure. There are however some important differences.
First, market share is not anywhere near as important as revenue share. Apple is absolutely trouncing Google and everyone else in this area.
Second, developers are not making any money on Android, as it's user base appears to be comprised of spend-thrifts. It doesn't matter how many people you have using the platform, if developers can't sell applications that well then the lure isn't as strong. Combine that with the exceedingly frustrating fragmentation and inconsistent experience from device to device that makes the task of even writing an Android application that much harder, and it is less appealing still. Will that slow Android down? No, as there will always be customers for the Wal-Mart of mobile operating systems. It does, however limit them as any sort of real 'threat'.
Third, let us not forget that absolute whoring out of hardware at 2 or even 3 for 1 deals is a huge factor in this surge in usage. It's quite easy to inflate your numbers when you hand stuff out for free. Again, in reference to my previous point, they really aren't doing the platform any favors long term, as it will bring down the revenue curve.
Fourth, these numbers are for the US only. The worldwide picture is very different.
I can't wait to see how Steve Jobs spins this somehow at WWDC - my guess is he'll throw iPod Touches and iPads into their numbers so it doesn't look as horrible as the Nielsen chart shows.
Why wouldn't he? iPod touch and iPad run the exact same mobile OS. Just because there is no real competition to either of these devices in the Android space, doesn't devalue their presence. Truthfully, I always take a skeptical stance on the motives of any 'report' on mobile OS usage which conveniently leaves these devices out. Smacks of fomenting, it does.
Next up...tablets :D
Yeah, cause that's been working out really well for them so far. Look, you can have your irrational "I hate Apple cause they are cool, and I rail against anything popular, cause I'M NOT A CONFORMIST!!!" BS all you want to. It doesn't change for one second the fact that Apple innovates, and everyone else imitates and tries to make all the money they can on the back of Apple's IP.
Personally, I'd say enjoy it while you can. Apple has been establishing precedent with its patent litigation against smaller targets. Now they are taking on a medium-sized one in Samsung, and once that victory is complete, Google will be the next to fall.
Look, I'm all for good old fashioned competition. But somebody besides Apple has to step up to the plate and actually create something. This whole me-too copycat crap is wearing thin.
Apple OC
Apr 20, 12:22 AM
this seems very likely .... looking forward
worldfar
Aug 4, 08:17 PM
although the Merom is average faster than Yohan 10%~20%:cool:
mdriftmeyer
Apr 5, 04:31 PM
Android is still open... They are just going to be much more tighter on what Products qualify to get the google Logo and the android name.
much more tighter? Seriously? Can't you take the time to get a sentence correctly formed?
Either it's much tighter or much more tight, not much more tighter. And no, for all the Jailbreak folks, Jailbreak legally does not extend to corporate relationships.
much more tighter? Seriously? Can't you take the time to get a sentence correctly formed?
Either it's much tighter or much more tight, not much more tighter. And no, for all the Jailbreak folks, Jailbreak legally does not extend to corporate relationships.
Eidorian
Jul 22, 01:14 PM
Thanks for the link. Your right they are all in need of an update. I assumed most of them were brand new. Wow.I just spam that link and the one to my Merom guide. Someone is bound to listen.
kavika411
Apr 15, 06:37 AM
Sorry to break it to you but it's not me with the false premise. Money is like water, it flows to where there is least resistance. Money can be invested in anything and anywhere around the world. You can invest on Asian exchanges. Why not create a company in Hong Kong and invest through that? You can even invest in American companies because many of them list on several international exchanges. If you were a billionaire, would you invest with an individual account in the U.S. and be subject to a 35% tax, or invest through a corporation in Hong Kong and pay no taxes. In reality, they probably have many investments spread out. Some in the U.S., some internationally. Such a change in tax rules will simply cause them to make the appropriate changes to maximize how much they make.
The real problem is a lack of growth. There's only so much Silicon Valley can offer in location. If we really start taxing at 35% and eliminated a lot of deductions, then what reason is there to start a business in the U.S. over Shanghai or Hong Kong?
It's a sad state but we are already testing the waters for capital controls, trying to keep money in the U.S. It's a big mistake we're progressing towards. No one will want to put money into a country that makes it hard to take money out.
Three truths that no amount of emotional rhetoric or political ideology can change.
The real problem is a lack of growth. There's only so much Silicon Valley can offer in location. If we really start taxing at 35% and eliminated a lot of deductions, then what reason is there to start a business in the U.S. over Shanghai or Hong Kong?
It's a sad state but we are already testing the waters for capital controls, trying to keep money in the U.S. It's a big mistake we're progressing towards. No one will want to put money into a country that makes it hard to take money out.
Three truths that no amount of emotional rhetoric or political ideology can change.
ChipWinter
Sep 11, 12:03 AM
So ... would a Beatles announcement be the cause for a London feed? Or would that be too big of a thing for this one event?
ArtOfWarfare
Mar 26, 10:59 PM
You do realize you don't have to renew the contract right? AT&T will be more than happy to keep taking your money until such time as you feel ready to sign a new one.
How about something more along the lines of "New iPhone 5 when it's released if you agree to pay our fees for another two years"?
I guess I'm not exactly in any position to negotiate like that...
So they'll keep charging the same rates after the contract ends? And I can keep my unlimited 3G for $30 a month?
How about something more along the lines of "New iPhone 5 when it's released if you agree to pay our fees for another two years"?
I guess I'm not exactly in any position to negotiate like that...
So they'll keep charging the same rates after the contract ends? And I can keep my unlimited 3G for $30 a month?
samiwas
Apr 19, 11:09 AM
I don't think anything will get done with the extreme left and extreme right fighting it out.
With America's bleak looking future (S&P put a warning out today), something definitely has to be done. These small $10bil cuts over 10 years is not nearly enough. Those cuts are the same as me using pennies from those "Give a penny, take a penny" trays. They are moot and mean nothing.
The US needs is a complete overall of its spending and tax code.
Spending: Post every single line item on the internet so the people can see where the money is going. Place mandatory cuts on everything. Each department should be given a % of the country's income and that's all they get. NO MORE ISSUING DEBT.
Taxes: Throw away the 1 million pages of tax codes and create something much more simple. Tax income (not necessarily rates) will have to go up in order for America to survive.
-However, if income taxes go up, then make sales tax illegal. Since we are having problems with sales tax on online purchases in individual states, then just get rid of the program all together. It doesn't make sense anymore unless we have a VAT, which Americans can't afford. Sales tax is a double tax anyway. I already paid taxes on the money used to buy the goods, so why pay again?
-EVERYONE needs to pay taxes. No more of this "45% of people don't pay anything." There should be a mandatory minimum rate that you cannot drop below no matter how many deductions you have. This could be as simple as your taxes cannot drop any more than 33% of your current tax bracket. So, If you are in a 10% bracket, your taxes will be no less than 7.66%.
-Capital gains tax should only affect people making more than 50% (or some other %) of their income from capital gains. This will allow the average family to invest their money and contribute to the marketplace without being taxed on money that they already paid taxes on. Sure, they may make money or lose money on their investment, but let's cut them a break since they are using hard earned money. As for people who make more than 50% of their income from capital gains, tax them at the regular income rates.
I'm not against tax increases as long as the country is using it as a last resort. I want to see a massive effort by both parties to fix our current deficit issue. Taxes are inevitable, but lets make a good effort to reduce spending before that happens. I want to see the government act responsibly before I give them more money.
I can't believe I'm almost agreeing with someone who has a picture of George Bush as their avatar. :D
I don't fully agree with "every item needs to be cut" in spending. We honestly do not need to be cutting education any more, as it's been the first on the chopping block for every cut thus far. The education system has its problems, that's for sure, but cutting its budget will only create more. Almost everything else could easily see some cuts, especially defense. I think the cuts should come from finding waste and fraud in the larger social programs, which I'm sure is rampant. But finding those would probably cost as much money as it saves.
Fully agree on simplifying tax code. The tax code is out of control and should be much, much simpler. There are things in there that must involve three people in the country. "Do you own land on which a blue house stands that was flooded on the second Tuesday of any month ending in an 'y'?" I think most deductions could be done away with, especially the really specialized ones.
Not sure how sales tax cutting would help the states, as they are the ones who are receiving that income. I wish STATE income tax returns would be simplified, especially for non residents. My non-resident California state return this year was larger than my federal return. That's BS. A non-resident tax return should be a post card: I made $xxx in your state, your rate is x%, I owe $xx.
Indeed, everyone should pay some sort of tax, even if it's only a few percent. If you get that back in social services, then great, you win. But everyone should put something in the pot.
I can go with your capital gains idea, but I might even go lower than 50% as the starting point. Our household income is just over six figures, and I have a bit over the six-figure mark in various investments currently. My Capital Gains last year? $35. A whopping .03%. Obviously, last year wasn't the best investment year, but I think the 50% mark could be high. Say anyone with over 30% in capital gains...it's not money they "worked hard" for, so they can't use that argument. It's basically free money.
With America's bleak looking future (S&P put a warning out today), something definitely has to be done. These small $10bil cuts over 10 years is not nearly enough. Those cuts are the same as me using pennies from those "Give a penny, take a penny" trays. They are moot and mean nothing.
The US needs is a complete overall of its spending and tax code.
Spending: Post every single line item on the internet so the people can see where the money is going. Place mandatory cuts on everything. Each department should be given a % of the country's income and that's all they get. NO MORE ISSUING DEBT.
Taxes: Throw away the 1 million pages of tax codes and create something much more simple. Tax income (not necessarily rates) will have to go up in order for America to survive.
-However, if income taxes go up, then make sales tax illegal. Since we are having problems with sales tax on online purchases in individual states, then just get rid of the program all together. It doesn't make sense anymore unless we have a VAT, which Americans can't afford. Sales tax is a double tax anyway. I already paid taxes on the money used to buy the goods, so why pay again?
-EVERYONE needs to pay taxes. No more of this "45% of people don't pay anything." There should be a mandatory minimum rate that you cannot drop below no matter how many deductions you have. This could be as simple as your taxes cannot drop any more than 33% of your current tax bracket. So, If you are in a 10% bracket, your taxes will be no less than 7.66%.
-Capital gains tax should only affect people making more than 50% (or some other %) of their income from capital gains. This will allow the average family to invest their money and contribute to the marketplace without being taxed on money that they already paid taxes on. Sure, they may make money or lose money on their investment, but let's cut them a break since they are using hard earned money. As for people who make more than 50% of their income from capital gains, tax them at the regular income rates.
I'm not against tax increases as long as the country is using it as a last resort. I want to see a massive effort by both parties to fix our current deficit issue. Taxes are inevitable, but lets make a good effort to reduce spending before that happens. I want to see the government act responsibly before I give them more money.
I can't believe I'm almost agreeing with someone who has a picture of George Bush as their avatar. :D
I don't fully agree with "every item needs to be cut" in spending. We honestly do not need to be cutting education any more, as it's been the first on the chopping block for every cut thus far. The education system has its problems, that's for sure, but cutting its budget will only create more. Almost everything else could easily see some cuts, especially defense. I think the cuts should come from finding waste and fraud in the larger social programs, which I'm sure is rampant. But finding those would probably cost as much money as it saves.
Fully agree on simplifying tax code. The tax code is out of control and should be much, much simpler. There are things in there that must involve three people in the country. "Do you own land on which a blue house stands that was flooded on the second Tuesday of any month ending in an 'y'?" I think most deductions could be done away with, especially the really specialized ones.
Not sure how sales tax cutting would help the states, as they are the ones who are receiving that income. I wish STATE income tax returns would be simplified, especially for non residents. My non-resident California state return this year was larger than my federal return. That's BS. A non-resident tax return should be a post card: I made $xxx in your state, your rate is x%, I owe $xx.
Indeed, everyone should pay some sort of tax, even if it's only a few percent. If you get that back in social services, then great, you win. But everyone should put something in the pot.
I can go with your capital gains idea, but I might even go lower than 50% as the starting point. Our household income is just over six figures, and I have a bit over the six-figure mark in various investments currently. My Capital Gains last year? $35. A whopping .03%. Obviously, last year wasn't the best investment year, but I think the 50% mark could be high. Say anyone with over 30% in capital gains...it's not money they "worked hard" for, so they can't use that argument. It's basically free money.
itcheroni
Apr 15, 06:25 PM
Which "game"? Are you "trading and investing" in companies by purchasing shares in IPOs, or are you "trading and investing" on Wall St.? If it is the latter, then basically you are buying and selling ownership interests in companies, which has almost no affect on underlying companies.
Won't higher capital gains reduce your "take home" earned from trading in the secondary market? If so, don't hedge funds and the like start investing in more risk taking?
What do you think is/was the riskier investment? Investing in GE or investing in a start-up like Google? Innovation? I'm fairly certain buying 100 shares of GE from my broker didn't innovate a new lightbulb, but Google has innovated and expanded with the capital it received in its IPO. If you are trying to increase your rate of return over what you get from your GE shares, would you invest in AT&T or a little start-up called Chef John Smith, Inc. because you think he's an up and coming talent? One has a big upside, but also a lot of risk.
If the goal is to increase rate of return of an investment portfolio, your only choices are to be better at picking good stocks, or to invest in risker investments. Wouldn't that lead to an influx of start-up capital, innovation, hiring, and economic growth?
On the other hand, you can lower capital gains and encourage people to invest conservatively in the secondary market.
Firstly, your perspective would change completely if you ever decide to invest or trade. I don't want hedge funds going for more risk. That is what contributed to the housing bust and mortgage backed securities. I am completely self taught as a trader and investor. In fact, I don't know a single other person who does what I do. And when I do meet someone who works in finance, they are usually just a cog, and I have nothing in common with them.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. So, even if nothing "good" comes out of trading, one shouldn't have to make apologies for it. And if you were only able to invest in IPO's, who would you sell it to? Why invest in an IPO if you can never sell it?
Won't higher capital gains reduce your "take home" earned from trading in the secondary market? If so, don't hedge funds and the like start investing in more risk taking?
What do you think is/was the riskier investment? Investing in GE or investing in a start-up like Google? Innovation? I'm fairly certain buying 100 shares of GE from my broker didn't innovate a new lightbulb, but Google has innovated and expanded with the capital it received in its IPO. If you are trying to increase your rate of return over what you get from your GE shares, would you invest in AT&T or a little start-up called Chef John Smith, Inc. because you think he's an up and coming talent? One has a big upside, but also a lot of risk.
If the goal is to increase rate of return of an investment portfolio, your only choices are to be better at picking good stocks, or to invest in risker investments. Wouldn't that lead to an influx of start-up capital, innovation, hiring, and economic growth?
On the other hand, you can lower capital gains and encourage people to invest conservatively in the secondary market.
Firstly, your perspective would change completely if you ever decide to invest or trade. I don't want hedge funds going for more risk. That is what contributed to the housing bust and mortgage backed securities. I am completely self taught as a trader and investor. In fact, I don't know a single other person who does what I do. And when I do meet someone who works in finance, they are usually just a cog, and I have nothing in common with them.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. So, even if nothing "good" comes out of trading, one shouldn't have to make apologies for it. And if you were only able to invest in IPO's, who would you sell it to? Why invest in an IPO if you can never sell it?
Full of Win
Apr 23, 07:03 PM
Resolution is a function of both pixel count and screen size. While there were less pixels on the iPhone screen, it had "higher resolution" in the form of higher DPI ;)
Depends on who you talk too. OS X presents resolution as just the vertical and horizontal pixel counts, without mention of the PPI. For example, looking at System Preferences > Displays will show resolutions in this format, w/o mention of display size and PPI. The iPhone 4 tech specs seems to do the same thing, where resolution is linked to the pixel count and the PPI is mentioned afterwords.
960-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi
However, other times, I've seen it resolution (in a computer context) linked to PPI as well. Its just depends on who your are talking to.
Depends on who you talk too. OS X presents resolution as just the vertical and horizontal pixel counts, without mention of the PPI. For example, looking at System Preferences > Displays will show resolutions in this format, w/o mention of display size and PPI. The iPhone 4 tech specs seems to do the same thing, where resolution is linked to the pixel count and the PPI is mentioned afterwords.
960-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi
However, other times, I've seen it resolution (in a computer context) linked to PPI as well. Its just depends on who your are talking to.
joost538
Aug 11, 09:26 AM
Makes no sense to put these in Macbook so soon. Macbook Pro, yes, but not the macbook. Apple have always differentiated the two lines, the fact that current Macbooks are comparable to the Pros is just plain luck and won't last long, IMO.
Spoony
Apr 18, 03:44 PM
If the iphones interface was "so obvious" why did my firm give me a Palm Treo for 3 years where I had this stick to push on icons with windows drop down menus?!?
I think people have short memories and forget how big of a change the original iphone was.
Also stop bringing up that ridiculous Prada phone. The only similarity is it had no plastic keys. The software on that phone was ridiculous. The iPhone worked b/c the best software company in the world built the underlying software.
Prada was just a fancy phone. The iphone was/is a small computer. That is why it was/is criticized as a phone so much. The phone part almost plays second fiddle.
I think people have short memories and forget how big of a change the original iphone was.
Also stop bringing up that ridiculous Prada phone. The only similarity is it had no plastic keys. The software on that phone was ridiculous. The iPhone worked b/c the best software company in the world built the underlying software.
Prada was just a fancy phone. The iphone was/is a small computer. That is why it was/is criticized as a phone so much. The phone part almost plays second fiddle.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 5, 11:28 PM
It sort of makes you think what it would be like if Apple took a hand at other industries. This theme is absolutely fugly. Toyota basically turned the iphone into a zone.
What if the tables were turned? If Toyota can make the iphone so unappealing, then how much better would the design of a Toyota be if Apple redesigned it?
What if the tables were turned? If Toyota can make the iphone so unappealing, then how much better would the design of a Toyota be if Apple redesigned it?
ARF900
Apr 25, 09:28 AM
They may be preparing but im not holding my breath on this. They havent even gotten retina displays for the iPad yet...
benpatient
Mar 29, 12:04 PM
Ownership of data is a concern. If I buy music through the cloud service does that affect my ownership of the music/data? Can I download the music to my hard drive and have unrestricted access to it after I cancel my cloud subscription?
You can log in to your cloud account at any time and download any music you've purchased from amazon.com.
If you have a paid account, and you use more than the 5GB of "free" data space, then you stop paying for it and your account reverts back to "free" mode, you can still download your data, but you can't add any new data to the account until you remove enough to get you back under the 5GB cap.
If you have stuff on the cloud that you don't already have stored on your own device somewhere, you're playing with fire to begin with.
You can log in to your cloud account at any time and download any music you've purchased from amazon.com.
If you have a paid account, and you use more than the 5GB of "free" data space, then you stop paying for it and your account reverts back to "free" mode, you can still download your data, but you can't add any new data to the account until you remove enough to get you back under the 5GB cap.
If you have stuff on the cloud that you don't already have stored on your own device somewhere, you're playing with fire to begin with.
No comments:
Post a Comment