Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 05:13 AM
Bill, I would love to hear your explanation for the position of the male prostate.
I don't understand the question. Whatever it means, I wouldn't assume that having, say, genitals, means that I'm always morally free to have sex. If everyone with genitals were always morally free to do that, homosexually abusive pedophile priests would have been morally free to molest their victims.
IYou might say, "Bill, if the sex was consensual, maybe there nothing morally wrong with it." But people can coerce others into consenting.
A quick side note: Sexual tension is most often the cause for anger, jealousy and frustration. So, if everyone had at least one good orgasm every day, the world would be a much more relaxed and peaceful place and we wouldn't have the need for silly discussions such as these.
Most often? How many are jealous of others because the others are right, because they drive fancy cars, etc.?
Some may feel relaxed about something because they've deadened their consciences that rightly warned them against it.. In that case, a discussion such as this one may be needed, even if the participants don't feel any sexual tension.
I don't understand the question. Whatever it means, I wouldn't assume that having, say, genitals, means that I'm always morally free to have sex. If everyone with genitals were always morally free to do that, homosexually abusive pedophile priests would have been morally free to molest their victims.
IYou might say, "Bill, if the sex was consensual, maybe there nothing morally wrong with it." But people can coerce others into consenting.
A quick side note: Sexual tension is most often the cause for anger, jealousy and frustration. So, if everyone had at least one good orgasm every day, the world would be a much more relaxed and peaceful place and we wouldn't have the need for silly discussions such as these.
Most often? How many are jealous of others because the others are right, because they drive fancy cars, etc.?
Some may feel relaxed about something because they've deadened their consciences that rightly warned them against it.. In that case, a discussion such as this one may be needed, even if the participants don't feel any sexual tension.
cloudnine
Nov 28, 07:27 PM
"It would be a nice idea."
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
My thoughts exactly... "oh, well this ipod thing plays music and it's the best mp3 player out there... how can we get this to benefit us for absolutely no reason?"
asinine.
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
My thoughts exactly... "oh, well this ipod thing plays music and it's the best mp3 player out there... how can we get this to benefit us for absolutely no reason?"
asinine.
840quadra
Apr 25, 02:55 PM
I love how Media and most everyone was asleep about this known issue, until just recently, and now it is some kind of emergency.
I am not an Apple apologist by any means, but it is NOT their fault if people are not securely backing up, their personal and private data.
Apple's only fault (IMHO) is not encrypting the location logfile on the phone, or the system with regards to backups. Regardless, security of data is the end user's responsibility, not the manufacturer of their computer or software.
I am not an Apple apologist by any means, but it is NOT their fault if people are not securely backing up, their personal and private data.
Apple's only fault (IMHO) is not encrypting the location logfile on the phone, or the system with regards to backups. Regardless, security of data is the end user's responsibility, not the manufacturer of their computer or software.
samcraig
Apr 5, 05:48 PM
Nobody's using Blu-Ray, in my experience. It's just another way of sucking money out of home consumers. Everything's done online in terms of delivery...
A very ignorant post. Especially if you value quality. I hardly call providing the best quality video "sucking money out of home consumers"
Or are you one of those that want to insist that streaming "hd" video is just as good as blu-ray. Because if you are - you shouldn't have even weighed in here.
No need to school you on the difference here though unless you come back and tell me you still think there's no difference.
A very ignorant post. Especially if you value quality. I hardly call providing the best quality video "sucking money out of home consumers"
Or are you one of those that want to insist that streaming "hd" video is just as good as blu-ray. Because if you are - you shouldn't have even weighed in here.
No need to school you on the difference here though unless you come back and tell me you still think there's no difference.
bedifferent
Apr 10, 10:51 PM
Whether you think it's an issue or not is subjective. The guy I was replying to was implying that a different person worked on iMovie 08 and that same person was also behind the new Final Cut when in reality the lead architect has stayed the same throughout.
Oh I know, I was commenting on that, not you.
Oh I know, I was commenting on that, not you.
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 10:05 AM
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-19-at-8.37.05-PM.png
feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...
You're talking about the Trademark claims for the icons, which as I've pointed out in the other thread, Apple must pursue. I've never made any claims as far as the validity or lack thereof of this claim over the icons.
My point was about the trade dress claims about the device, specifically, the screen bevel, shape of the phone, position of buttons, "icon grid". Again, not all models of Galaxy S seem to be infringing on the iPhone and thus it is quite bizarre that Apple is including all them in their claims, and also quite handy that the Apple biased media is only using pictures showing the "similar" models.
The particular model I posted does not look anything like an iPhone.
Feel free to discuss the same things I am next time so that we can actually have a meaningful debate about it.
feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...
You're talking about the Trademark claims for the icons, which as I've pointed out in the other thread, Apple must pursue. I've never made any claims as far as the validity or lack thereof of this claim over the icons.
My point was about the trade dress claims about the device, specifically, the screen bevel, shape of the phone, position of buttons, "icon grid". Again, not all models of Galaxy S seem to be infringing on the iPhone and thus it is quite bizarre that Apple is including all them in their claims, and also quite handy that the Apple biased media is only using pictures showing the "similar" models.
The particular model I posted does not look anything like an iPhone.
Feel free to discuss the same things I am next time so that we can actually have a meaningful debate about it.
PetMac
Aug 27, 03:38 PM
Long live PBG5NT. It reminds us how great it is to have frequent updates and powerful portables again.
bearbear
Mar 31, 07:16 PM
Will wait to see what exactly results from this, as right now it seems like everyone is just jumping to their own (wild) conclusions.
Smith amp; Wesson#39;s 329PD .44
wesson 44 magnum revolver,
wesson 44 magnum revolver,
Looking to sell my Samp;W .44
wmmk
Aug 27, 12:16 AM
PowerBook G5 next tuesday?
that is so not funny at all any more:rolleyes:
that is so not funny at all any more:rolleyes:
MACMUSO
Aug 18, 08:26 AM
I do find it interested how agressive you are all being regarding G5vsIntel. Any serious mac professional would never run out and buy the first of a new machine expecially with a new chip and new software - complete lunacy - if you value your ability to get work done on a trusted set-up. The intel may be fast but for most professional musicians it's pointless until all of the software is compatible - Native instruments have a long way to go yet and most of us use their apps. And to conclude - having the fastest machine and bragging about it whie dissing the old machine don't make you any good at using it.
RIP.
RIP.
sjo
Aug 11, 03:55 PM
No, not EVERYONE. I own 4 cell phones. By your logic, I would be counted as 4 people.
Only if you have an active subscribtion on all of them. That's the number the graph behind the link shows.
BTW, DoCoMo has over 50m subscribers, almost as much as CDMA in the US. And they are much more keen to renew their mobiles in Japan so Apple might make a smart move by making the iPhone available for DoCoMo subscribers before CDMA subscribers.
Only if you have an active subscribtion on all of them. That's the number the graph behind the link shows.
BTW, DoCoMo has over 50m subscribers, almost as much as CDMA in the US. And they are much more keen to renew their mobiles in Japan so Apple might make a smart move by making the iPhone available for DoCoMo subscribers before CDMA subscribers.
mustangs
Sep 19, 12:00 AM
I purchased my 1.83GHz Mac Book with 1GHz of RAM on Sep 07, and apple sent me an email that it was going to be shipped on the 18th. Today I got this email from Apple "
Smith amp; Wesson Model 29
Wessonquot; and quot;.44 Magnumquot;
Smith amp; Wesson Model 29 .44
My Smith amp; Wesson 629 6 1/2quot;
Wesson 44 Magnum Revolver
6 shot double action .44 Mag.
It was made it Samp;W#39;s toolroom
rosalindavenue
Jul 28, 06:11 AM
I am waiting until the new MBP is released with merom. I don't care if it's now or in January.
My question is: What's the fastest way to get the new MBP into my hands? Is ordering it online after it's announcement the fastest, or going to an apple store?
I live within 3 stores. So I can play the call and place one on hold bit.
I'd think you would have a better chance to get one fast with the stores. I don't live near one and I ordered an ibook last August when it was upgraded-- even with expedited shipping it still took 10 days to arrive from China. (Apple refunded the expedited shipping fee).
My question is: What's the fastest way to get the new MBP into my hands? Is ordering it online after it's announcement the fastest, or going to an apple store?
I live within 3 stores. So I can play the call and place one on hold bit.
I'd think you would have a better chance to get one fast with the stores. I don't live near one and I ordered an ibook last August when it was upgraded-- even with expedited shipping it still took 10 days to arrive from China. (Apple refunded the expedited shipping fee).
njvan
Apr 6, 07:31 AM
I have been hoping for some time that Final Cut Server be integrated into Final Cut. Considering Lion Server is included with Lion, I'd say the chances are pretty high! Finally, some real asset management!
ergle2
Sep 13, 02:40 PM
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.
I believe you've got it backwards. Penryn is a derived arch (check the diagram) -- it's derived from Conroe/Merom, etc., ie it's based on them with "more" -- faster FSB, more cache, a die shrink (which is technically less... :) ) etc.
Unified just means the micro-arch itself the same rather than the entire CPU. This is already true of Core2, and is significantly cheaper in terms production costs. Merom/Conroe are literally the same core in a different package, specified for different voltage/clockspeeds. I'm not sure if Woodcrest is but it seems highly likely.
The one oddity I am aware of is Allendale isn't a Conroe with half the cache disabled, it's actually a specific die. The rest of the microarch itself is the same, however.
Nehalem, etc. aren't derived because they're a new microarch. (Interestingly, Nehalem was originally intended for launch early 2007).
CSI replacing FSB was originally planned for 2006 in older roadmaps. It now looks like a 2008 debut with Tukwila (Itanium, not x86), and will no doubt work its way down from there.
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.
I believe you've got it backwards. Penryn is a derived arch (check the diagram) -- it's derived from Conroe/Merom, etc., ie it's based on them with "more" -- faster FSB, more cache, a die shrink (which is technically less... :) ) etc.
Unified just means the micro-arch itself the same rather than the entire CPU. This is already true of Core2, and is significantly cheaper in terms production costs. Merom/Conroe are literally the same core in a different package, specified for different voltage/clockspeeds. I'm not sure if Woodcrest is but it seems highly likely.
The one oddity I am aware of is Allendale isn't a Conroe with half the cache disabled, it's actually a specific die. The rest of the microarch itself is the same, however.
Nehalem, etc. aren't derived because they're a new microarch. (Interestingly, Nehalem was originally intended for launch early 2007).
CSI replacing FSB was originally planned for 2006 in older roadmaps. It now looks like a 2008 debut with Tukwila (Itanium, not x86), and will no doubt work its way down from there.
iGary
Aug 25, 04:36 PM
Having to go through 5 Cinema Displays, two logic boards, a new processor set, a dented new PB, 12 Apple Store visits, and 16 hours on the phone with AppleCare pretty much sums up my satisfaction with Apple's support.
They are nice and courteous, but not given the power to do much in most situations. Pass the buck is their motto.
They are nice and courteous, but not given the power to do much in most situations. Pass the buck is their motto.
ergle2
Sep 14, 05:29 PM
I got this great response this morning from my IT snob:
"Where in that linked article does it say 64bit? I see 65 nm, but not 64 bit. Duct taping two 32 bit cores together may get you Mac 64 bit processing... great for drawing cool pictures."
Anyone have a link that shows that Clovertown is 64 bit? Please help me to defeat this PC IT ogre
Straight from the horse's mouth at Intel (http://idfemea.intel.com/moscow/download/moscow_final_ru_and%20_eng/SRV/SRVM01.pdf) (Clovertown supports EM64T), and again at Intel (http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/intthru.htm) (5100 series supports EM64T), and once more from Intel (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050926corp_a.htm) (Xeon is 64bit, mentions Woodcrest).
Took me about 10 seconds. Your "friend" is either a troll or supremely ignorant -- especially when you bear in mind this is the same hardware that Windows runs on. Apple pretty much supplies a nice case and the OS at this point.
Edit: too slow... I was busy with RL in the background... ah, well... :)
"Where in that linked article does it say 64bit? I see 65 nm, but not 64 bit. Duct taping two 32 bit cores together may get you Mac 64 bit processing... great for drawing cool pictures."
Anyone have a link that shows that Clovertown is 64 bit? Please help me to defeat this PC IT ogre
Straight from the horse's mouth at Intel (http://idfemea.intel.com/moscow/download/moscow_final_ru_and%20_eng/SRV/SRVM01.pdf) (Clovertown supports EM64T), and again at Intel (http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/intthru.htm) (5100 series supports EM64T), and once more from Intel (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050926corp_a.htm) (Xeon is 64bit, mentions Woodcrest).
Took me about 10 seconds. Your "friend" is either a troll or supremely ignorant -- especially when you bear in mind this is the same hardware that Windows runs on. Apple pretty much supplies a nice case and the OS at this point.
Edit: too slow... I was busy with RL in the background... ah, well... :)
VanMac
Aug 11, 10:26 AM
I say it everytime they talk about this..... I'll buy one.....just go ahead and release it already
chatin
Aug 20, 02:21 PM
Mac Pros will need 64bit Leopard to achieve their full multi-core potential. Expect all Core 2 based Macs to hold value well through the next release cycle of OSX Leopard.
Apple is still selling G5's on the website for $3299! Until
Adobe gets out - and optimizes - universal binaries, Quad G5 will sell for more than Quad Xeon Mac Pros!
:rolleyes:
Apple is still selling G5's on the website for $3299! Until
Adobe gets out - and optimizes - universal binaries, Quad G5 will sell for more than Quad Xeon Mac Pros!
:rolleyes:
KnightWRX
Mar 26, 07:58 AM
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
mikewilder23
Jun 21, 03:43 AM
well looking forward for its launching...:)
NightFox
Apr 19, 01:28 PM
I'm surprised to see iPhones have outsold iPod Touches by so much; I've never really considered the figures but just assumed that there would be way more iPod Touches around than iPhones.
ergle2
Sep 13, 02:40 PM
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.
I believe you've got it backwards. Penryn is a derived arch (check the diagram) -- it's derived from Conroe/Merom, etc., ie it's based on them with "more" -- faster FSB, more cache, a die shrink (which is technically less... :) ) etc.
Unified just means the micro-arch itself the same rather than the entire CPU. This is already true of Core2, and is significantly cheaper in terms production costs. Merom/Conroe are literally the same core in a different package, specified for different voltage/clockspeeds. I'm not sure if Woodcrest is but it seems highly likely.
The one oddity I am aware of is Allendale isn't a Conroe with half the cache disabled, it's actually a specific die. The rest of the microarch itself is the same, however.
Nehalem, etc. aren't derived because they're a new microarch. (Interestingly, Nehalem was originally intended for launch early 2007).
CSI replacing FSB was originally planned for 2006 in older roadmaps. It now looks like a 2008 debut with Tukwila (Itanium, not x86), and will no doubt work its way down from there.
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.
I believe you've got it backwards. Penryn is a derived arch (check the diagram) -- it's derived from Conroe/Merom, etc., ie it's based on them with "more" -- faster FSB, more cache, a die shrink (which is technically less... :) ) etc.
Unified just means the micro-arch itself the same rather than the entire CPU. This is already true of Core2, and is significantly cheaper in terms production costs. Merom/Conroe are literally the same core in a different package, specified for different voltage/clockspeeds. I'm not sure if Woodcrest is but it seems highly likely.
The one oddity I am aware of is Allendale isn't a Conroe with half the cache disabled, it's actually a specific die. The rest of the microarch itself is the same, however.
Nehalem, etc. aren't derived because they're a new microarch. (Interestingly, Nehalem was originally intended for launch early 2007).
CSI replacing FSB was originally planned for 2006 in older roadmaps. It now looks like a 2008 debut with Tukwila (Itanium, not x86), and will no doubt work its way down from there.
radiohead14
Mar 22, 04:12 PM
Samsung can say all they want about their products. There are the following glaring issues:
1. Has anyone realize how much less Samsung's profit margins will be on the Galaxy Tab versus the iPad2? (ie. Apple retains a high profitability based on inhouse product development rather than contracting to third parties like other hardware developers)
2. Given what I perceive to be an extremely small profit margin, I find it difficult from an investor standpoint to endorse Samsung's business model.
3. It is next to impossible from a longterm business perspective that Samsung can price match Apple in this respect. It's an unsustainable business practice.
i believe samsung manufactures a lot of their own hardware.. from the display panels to the chips. don't they provide apple with parts for the ipad too? i think this is how samsung is able to price match apple here
1. Has anyone realize how much less Samsung's profit margins will be on the Galaxy Tab versus the iPad2? (ie. Apple retains a high profitability based on inhouse product development rather than contracting to third parties like other hardware developers)
2. Given what I perceive to be an extremely small profit margin, I find it difficult from an investor standpoint to endorse Samsung's business model.
3. It is next to impossible from a longterm business perspective that Samsung can price match Apple in this respect. It's an unsustainable business practice.
i believe samsung manufactures a lot of their own hardware.. from the display panels to the chips. don't they provide apple with parts for the ipad too? i think this is how samsung is able to price match apple here