Coffee87
Jan 22, 04:01 PM
2006 Lexus GS300
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/2900/35140383.jpg
2010 Lexus RX450h and my Polaris 850XP
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/8712/dscn0800w.jpg
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/2900/35140383.jpg
2010 Lexus RX450h and my Polaris 850XP
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/8712/dscn0800w.jpg
oMc
Feb 28, 02:41 PM
@benjayman2 : very nice setup.
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
manhattanboy
Sep 14, 08:39 PM
This story gets buried in the blog and a story of ninja stars makes page one? No Apple bias here. :rolleyes:
That's the hottest avatar I've seen since the guy who had the moving butt picture of the jailbait girl. :D
That's the hottest avatar I've seen since the guy who had the moving butt picture of the jailbait girl. :D
arn
Sep 1, 11:50 AM
How reliable is MacOSXrumors?
In the past they haven't been particularly notable, but the Leopard reports seemed real, and so this one is given more credence. Obviously, we'll know more on Sept 12th. :)
arn
In the past they haven't been particularly notable, but the Leopard reports seemed real, and so this one is given more credence. Obviously, we'll know more on Sept 12th. :)
arn
unlinked
Apr 3, 07:56 AM
I don't have one, however I did like this ad.
Curious if the same marketing company that does the current ip4 commercials does this one; as many have stated opinions of how terrible it is.
This ad has class, the "if you don't have an iPhone", not so much.
I like it a lot more than the "if you don't have an iPhone" ads but it still leaves me a little confused. The only phone/tablet ads I have ever noticed pushing thinness where iPhone ads (maybe I have poor ad retention or they never aired outside of the US). Making things thinner seemed like an Apple fetish that never overly interested me. I'm glad they agree with me a little bit now.
Curious if the same marketing company that does the current ip4 commercials does this one; as many have stated opinions of how terrible it is.
This ad has class, the "if you don't have an iPhone", not so much.
I like it a lot more than the "if you don't have an iPhone" ads but it still leaves me a little confused. The only phone/tablet ads I have ever noticed pushing thinness where iPhone ads (maybe I have poor ad retention or they never aired outside of the US). Making things thinner seemed like an Apple fetish that never overly interested me. I'm glad they agree with me a little bit now.
MacHamster68
Apr 10, 12:32 AM
I definitely think driving a manual makes me a safer, more attentive driver.
I'm against crap that makes people lazy like adaptive cruise control, auto headlights and auto wipers and stuff like that, I suppose an automatic can fall in there too. That stuff makes drivers lazy and inattentive because they don't have to concentrate on the road.
hmm interesting as the same argument could come from the automatc driving fraction , as because you dont have to concentrate on all these gear changes , wipers headlights ...you could concentrate more on traffic
and after all you are using a Mac and OSX too or ? because it works automatic
I'm against crap that makes people lazy like adaptive cruise control, auto headlights and auto wipers and stuff like that, I suppose an automatic can fall in there too. That stuff makes drivers lazy and inattentive because they don't have to concentrate on the road.
hmm interesting as the same argument could come from the automatc driving fraction , as because you dont have to concentrate on all these gear changes , wipers headlights ...you could concentrate more on traffic
and after all you are using a Mac and OSX too or ? because it works automatic
Prom1
Nov 29, 10:05 PM
Imagine this if you will for a moment....
iPHONE in hand you snap a photo. take a video, update a contact or just want to send the video to your blog or .MAC Account.....
You do so with ONE click or 2 but no more than 3 for a FLICKR account.
BUT wait. Your .MAC account is integrated to your Mac so not only does your .MAC account have the video but so does your Mac! Now you get home and can use iMovie to edit that video. :D
Or better yet use a nice easy Menu system to "Remotely USE iMovie" to edit that movie you've just recorded, and uploaded to your .MAC or to your Mac (via iTV) or just show a preview to those at home - kinda like file sharing or say to other Macurmors.com members!!!
That would KILL ANYTHING out on the market!
iPHONE in hand you snap a photo. take a video, update a contact or just want to send the video to your blog or .MAC Account.....
You do so with ONE click or 2 but no more than 3 for a FLICKR account.
BUT wait. Your .MAC account is integrated to your Mac so not only does your .MAC account have the video but so does your Mac! Now you get home and can use iMovie to edit that video. :D
Or better yet use a nice easy Menu system to "Remotely USE iMovie" to edit that movie you've just recorded, and uploaded to your .MAC or to your Mac (via iTV) or just show a preview to those at home - kinda like file sharing or say to other Macurmors.com members!!!
That would KILL ANYTHING out on the market!
solvs
Aug 7, 06:04 PM
So, yeah... apparently no.
iJohnHenry
Mar 31, 05:41 PM
Didn't the Persian supply corridor factor into the soviets being able to hold off the Germans?
As did the supply ships making their way to Murmansk. Many merchant marines lost their lives on that run.
As did the supply ships making their way to Murmansk. Many merchant marines lost their lives on that run.
apb3
Aug 31, 10:12 AM
Blue sky on wireless? Think a device which works out presence of others, and can connect safely.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
jaikob
Apr 21, 11:37 AM
Does anyone else really just not care about this? I could care less. It's not like the info is going to end up in China.
amac4me
Jul 19, 05:12 PM
Great quarter for Apple!
The introduction of the MacBook during the quarter really helped to drive Macintosh sales. The dip in desktop sales can be explained by the PowerMac (G5 processors) Once Apple releases the Intel powered PowerMac, there will be a dramatic increase in Macintosh desktop sales.
Apple is doing very well right now and I expect Macintosh sales to really spike as we head into the holiday shopping season.
Can anyone say increased "Market Share"?
:D :D :D
The introduction of the MacBook during the quarter really helped to drive Macintosh sales. The dip in desktop sales can be explained by the PowerMac (G5 processors) Once Apple releases the Intel powered PowerMac, there will be a dramatic increase in Macintosh desktop sales.
Apple is doing very well right now and I expect Macintosh sales to really spike as we head into the holiday shopping season.
Can anyone say increased "Market Share"?
:D :D :D
ljocampo
Apr 20, 01:09 AM
I have an early 2008 iMac with it's Applecare up in July. It was the cheapest refurbished model I could get then, and Applecare was good to it in the years since I bought it. I love the machine. I'm looking forward to replacing it, even though it still works great, with an all out built to order iMac at the end of this year after Lion as come out and has stabilized its kinks.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 31, 03:28 PM
The American obsession with WWII simply isn't healthy.
Admittedly, the Brits aren't very good at letting it go either.
It's a fascinating subject, but also an unhealthy obsession for both nations. Also, the literature on the subject is bloated with bad research, crazed theories and revisionism.
Admittedly, the Brits aren't very good at letting it go either.
It's a fascinating subject, but also an unhealthy obsession for both nations. Also, the literature on the subject is bloated with bad research, crazed theories and revisionism.
robbieduncan
Apr 20, 01:59 PM
Or has never driven a Lotus.
;)
The Lotus had a pretty poor shift. Such long linkages back to the gearbox. The MX-5 (Miata) in the US has one of the best shifts in the world. I've never driven anything with a better shift feel than that. So direct (because the lever is directly connected to the gearbox).
;)
The Lotus had a pretty poor shift. Such long linkages back to the gearbox. The MX-5 (Miata) in the US has one of the best shifts in the world. I've never driven anything with a better shift feel than that. So direct (because the lever is directly connected to the gearbox).
takao
Mar 1, 03:52 PM
and VW with their darn PumpeD�se engines sure didn't help ... the PD concept was always good for saving fuel but those engines could have easily put into a tractor pulling contest
today IMHO the german carmaker diesels are leading the way only in fuel usage and torque ratings. In regards to emissions & noise/smooth running the french (PSA) and Fiat have very likely taken over
and yeah it has mostly has to do with trucks using the diesel engines.. because you know even her in europe those trucks are smelly and noisy ... even if yourself are driving in a diesel behind them ;)
today IMHO the german carmaker diesels are leading the way only in fuel usage and torque ratings. In regards to emissions & noise/smooth running the french (PSA) and Fiat have very likely taken over
and yeah it has mostly has to do with trucks using the diesel engines.. because you know even her in europe those trucks are smelly and noisy ... even if yourself are driving in a diesel behind them ;)
RayLancer
Oct 2, 10:43 AM
I also bought mine from ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160479649119
I bought one shipped from California on ebay. Maybe I just have horrible luck seeing that you and wolfboy had no issues. I already bought some silcone cases for protection for the 2 iPods I own, but I guess I can give this another shot...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160479649119
I bought one shipped from California on ebay. Maybe I just have horrible luck seeing that you and wolfboy had no issues. I already bought some silcone cases for protection for the 2 iPods I own, but I guess I can give this another shot...
Spanky Deluxe
Sep 6, 10:54 AM
Thank God I sold my mini three days ago. It was a Core Duo 1.66Ghz with 1GB RAM. Luckily the buyer's already payed and I'm on my way to the post office now. Phew!!
regtamac
May 2, 07:27 PM
Hello,
As was already mentioned this feature just deletes (and only apps from the Mac App Store it seems) not uninstalls an app along with its related files. To find out more or to ask any questions just visit my site below. All the best!
Reggie Ashworth
AppDelete Developer
www.reggieashworth.com (http://www.reggieashworth.com)
As was already mentioned this feature just deletes (and only apps from the Mac App Store it seems) not uninstalls an app along with its related files. To find out more or to ask any questions just visit my site below. All the best!
Reggie Ashworth
AppDelete Developer
www.reggieashworth.com (http://www.reggieashworth.com)
kevmbpro
Jul 18, 02:35 PM
Bring on the PORN!!!
bwahahahahaa!!!
:p
bwahahahahaa!!!
:p
*LTD*
Apr 12, 10:19 PM
No, I'm worried that FCP could be dumbed down too much to properly do the job at hand.
Lethal
You mean made easier to use?
Lethal
You mean made easier to use?
interslicer
Mar 1, 02:01 AM
mac pro, tripple monitors running off a 5770 :D
ingenious
Aug 20, 02:39 PM
As far as sharing in your range. Again a waste of battery to support this. I have what I wnat ton hear for the most part. I don't much care to drain my battery searching other users' libs (that will come and go as they wander around and in and out of range - oh great, I found a cool Streets video I don't have!! Oh wait he just left range!!!), it's short-lived enough already.
I think a better idea is just a listing of what others around you are listening to. You can choose (by using the (->) button like in iTunes) to look it up and either buy it or listen to a preview.
I think a better idea is just a listing of what others around you are listening to. You can choose (by using the (->) button like in iTunes) to look it up and either buy it or listen to a preview.
