rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| Re: Good for Apple but... I don't need a MP3 player, a camera (sucks anyway), a FM receiver, or the rest of that crap.
All I want is a dam phone that gets a strong signal and has 5-7 hrs of battery life.
If they had't added all that crap to my phone, I bet my battery life would be 3 times as good. | |
|
 |
 |
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | Re: Good for Apple but... Uhh, yeah it does use battery life. Camera's never turn off. | |
|
| | Promode
join:2001-10-05
Poland | Re: Good for Apple but... Ahhh, of course they do... | |
|
| | ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT | That was the dumbest thing I think Ive ever read | |
|
| 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| said by scavio  :Guess what, most people dont need 100mbit connections either. Yes they do. If you do anything that requires downloading of anything, which of course is everything, you need all the speed you can get. | |
|
| | 
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA | Re: Good for Apple but... Right because servers all have 100mbit upstream connections 
--
»web.mac.com/jwsmiths/iWeb | |
|
|
| Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL | Re: Good for Apple but... Who want a I-tunes store on there phone when that $0.99 song turns into a $5-$6 data bill. | |
|
| |
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA
| Re: Good for Apple but... The best idea I would think would be if you were to just load the songs from your computer to your phone or if Verizon or Cingular offered a monthly data subscription to the iTS such that you paid something like $4.99/mo. for the bandwidth and then paid Apple $0.99 for each song... that sort of thing works with text messages and existing music stores I don't see why iTunes would be any different.
--
»web.mac.com/jwsmiths/iWeb | |
|
|
|
|
