Pictures of Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs make the rounds
0. phoneArena 12 May 2012, 22:42 posted on
The first pictures of actor Ashton Kutcher wearing the late Steve Jobs' traditional turtleneck, jeans and sneakers has been circulating, according to TMZ; Kutcher is playing the iconic co-founder of Apple in a low budget film allegedly titled Jobs: Get Inspired...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. JcHnd (Posts: 97; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
Yeah he's a nice choice, he looks a lot like jobs... i feel the movie will have the same stroyline as the facebook film... anyways i'm not really interested in watching it so nevermind...
2. x7black7x (Posts: 118; Member since: 19 Feb 2012)
steve jobs was just a commercial artist he just showed you the phone by saying its magical and you all people believed him
go on believing him now have to see what tim cook do present more of these magical things and i have to see that the new apple devices will be revolutionary or just resolutionary
11. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
You can believe all you want; however, Steve Jobs was adamant that consumer devices are both easy to use and aesthetically pleasing to the touch and the eyes.
Just look at some of the current android devices on the marketplace like Moto Razr (Maxx) or HTC One with nonreplaceable batteries -- the Steve Jobs approach is clearly at work.
19. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
nonreplacable batteries are not for ease of use.. they were for aesthetic choices and to force people to come to apple stores when they had a battery issue and hopefully spend more money while they were there. That is a very negative thing for the consumer as far as extra time spent and headache. Quickly flipping out the battery yourself is much more easy to use than driving to an apple store.. if one even exists near you.. or mailing it off if it doesnt.
Not everything steve did was for consumers or asthetics. There is a reason they made more money while he was around. All the hippy niceness aside, he was very good at figuring out ways to milk every penny from every customer.
23. APPLE_R0YALLY (banned) (Posts: 73; Member since: 08 May 2012)
WE SAY™ you Talk Wisely, And The Truth......!?
24. mrochester (unregistered)
The lack of the fixtures and fittings necessary to provide a removable battery allows manufacturers to built bigger batteries into their devices. They can also make the devices more structurally sound and better feeling in the hand be eliminating the need for flimsy removable covers. Just look at the iPhone, Lumia 800/900 and HTC One X as prime examples of how good this can be.
After 13 years of being in the world of mobile, there's only been 1 occassion where it's been necessary to buy a new replacement battery for a device, and that was my mum's Nokia 3310. I think non-removable batteries aren't an issue in the slightest, I'm sure Apple weighed up the pros and cons before deciding to seal the battery. The extra capacity you can get that way probably far outways any need to ever have the battery replaced.
And it seems Apple were onto something since we are now seeing more and more non-removable batteries. A bigger battery that benefits ALL users is infinitely more preferable to a smaller removable battery that benefits only a tiny few.
26. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
none of that rings true at all
the iphone is one of the easiest phones to break
NONE of those phones mentioned gets top scores on battery life.
Feeling in the hand has nothing to do with the battery and everything to do with demensions of the phones
The minuscule amount of space that is saved by making little notches and latches for a battery cover is hardly ever used to make a bigger battery.
Phones with fixed batteries come with a myriad of problems when the battery goes bad. When it goes bad, the battery expands. Without being able to remove it, the pressure builds up until it explodes. That is the very reason so many iphones have exploded over the years
The ONLY benefit of a non removable battery is the higher costs in repairs for the manufacturer. There is zero real world benefit to a non removable battery to the user other than a very minor aesthetic difference..
I dont know what you have been doing for 13 years in the industry but it doesnt take insider experience to know that.
32. gallitoking (Posts: 4720; Member since: 17 May 2011)
Yes remix not being to remove the battery is so bad that some Android manufacturers are also doing it... everything is being made for you not to mess with it.... thats why on newer cars.. you cant hardly do anything... but why am I talking about cars to a geek...sorry
31. gallitoking (Posts: 4720; Member since: 17 May 2011)
To remove the battery on Android devices is a must do to the random freezes more than anything... bottom line ... for Android is a must for Apple is a luxury.. dont need it.. the battery issues are minor. In iOS compare to Android
35. iami67 (Posts: 318; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
gallitoking you are so wrong. I work for verizon and the new androids compared to iphones we get atleast one or two people a day with a frozen iphone and the customer is lost because they dont know what to do since they cant remove the battery. And i cant even tell you how many customers have been upset once there batteries go and now need a new phone rather then just a new battery. Like remix says please learn what your talking about before you speak you sound silly.
37. jmoita2 (Posts: 930; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)
Minor??? last I heard, they caught fire and exploded every once in a while. That's not minor in my book.
39. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)
at least we can remove our battery and buy a new one. don't have to send it out to the manufactuere to replace the battery. plus we can extend the battery life
33. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
remix - you continue to say dumb things. Smart or educated people understand "ease of use" refers to the operating system as opposed the hardware. Even the average android user knows there are few toggles or switches on the iPhone: power button, home button, volume rocker, silence mode, etc...
36. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
aww look, its the iOS defence league to the rescue.
Of course, they dont actually say ANYTHING of substance related to the subject, just personal attacks, baseless fanboy statements, and trolling. The usual.
So, gallito, a geek cant talk cars too? you have to be ignorant to talk cars? Thats kind of insulting dont ya think? I talk cars all the time. They are filled with electronics, which puts them square into my electronics obsessions.
Ardent, that was just a ridiculous rebuttal that had nothing to do with anything. Ease of use applies to ANYTHING that has any kind of user interaction, hardware or software.
38. iami67 (Posts: 318; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Again every customer i have say androids are ease of use not iphones. The lack of buttons and choices on the iphone make them harder to use since you can only do what they want and no customization which means not easy to use
34. iami67 (Posts: 318; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Nevermind the fact that when an iphone freezes up which they do a lot. 9 out of 10 customers dont know what to do and think they broke there phone and drive hrs to a apple store just to be told to push two buttons. And if you call apple to ask they want a credit card before answering.
3. theBankRobber (Posts: 681; Member since: 22 Sep 2011)
He looks just like Steve jobs, to bad he plays EVERY ROLE as if he was still on tt 70's show. Completely killed Two and a Half Men.
12. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
He's getting $700,000 per episode. That's nothing to sneeze at!
14. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
i dont think there was anyone who could have filled the gap in men... its not fantastic but idk what would be better
18. tedkord (Posts: 11941; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Well, to be fair, Charlie was playing a boozing, drug addled, whoring, egomaniac who is only concerned with his own desires, and never worries about the consequences to others. So, he really wasn't acting.
6. tedkord (Posts: 11941; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Clooney? So he could bury Jobs the way he buried Barman?
21. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
as long as he doesnt have "Jobs Nipples" in this movie,..