Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 5, 2002, 10:46 AM   #1
peter2002
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Another one bites the dust

United's Stock Plunges; Trading Halted

CHICAGO (AP) - Trading in United Airlines' stock was halted after it plunged 59 percent Thursday, a day after the world's second-largest carrier lost its request for government loan backing it said was needed to keep it out of bankruptcy.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ted_airlines_9

_____________________________________________________

Looks like Osama is still winning. Oh well, there are still the train and the bus.

Peter
peter2002 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 12:05 PM   #2
Ifeelbloated
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: some God forsaken place
It's not really their fault. People are just scared to fly right now. If they are going to survive they better trim-down dramatically. Maybe adopt a Jet Blue business model.
__________________
No thanks, it gives me gas.
Ifeelbloated is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 12:17 PM   #3
alex_ant
Banned
 
alex_ant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: All up in your bidness
Quote:
Reuters, 10.25.02, 2:25 PM ET

CHICAGO (Reuters) - UAL Corp. Chief Executive Glenn Tilton received a $3 million signing bonus along with an annual salary of $950,000 and potential for 100 percent target bonus, according to a regulatory filing.

Tilton, a former oil executive named to the top post at United Airlines parent UAL, is also eligible for another 100 percent bonus based on "superior performance."

He also received an initial 10-year stock option grant to buy 500,000 shares of common stock under a year 2000 incentive plan and another 10-year option to buy 650,000 shares under the 2002 share incentive plan. The exercise price of the options is the average of the high and low sale prices on August 30, 2002 and September 3, 2002, according to the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Tilton also received 100,000 restricted shares and $4.5 million in a fully funded pension trust in return for surrendering his pension benefits at Chevron Texaco, where he was vice chairman, among other benefits.

Copyright 2002, Reuters News Service

Looks like the poor sod is going to lose his job. <Conservatives> We'd better give him more money so that more of it trickles down to the people who really need it!
alex_ant is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 05:19 PM   #4
idkew
macrumors 68020
 
idkew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
Send a message via AIM to idkew
Quote:
Originally posted by alex_ant

Looks like the poor sod is going to lose his job. <Conservatives> We'd better give him more money so that more of it trickles down to the people who really need it! [/B]
because we have better give our garbage men, mcdonalds workers and such huge bonuses since they spend so much time trying to improve their business and went through a ton of education.
idkew is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 08:37 PM   #5
alex_ant
Banned
 
alex_ant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: All up in your bidness
They should be paid more because they're the ones who deserve and need it. Low-level UAL employees should be paid more, and freeloaders like this guy should be paid less. $3 million plus salary to preside over the running of a company into the ground and the elimination thousands of jobs. All because he has an MBA?
alex_ant is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 09:37 PM   #6
lklarson
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: soCal
Send a message via AIM to lklarson
>>They should be paid more because they're the ones who deserve and need it.

Silly me. I thought I was supposed to EARN my pay.
lklarson is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 11:02 PM   #7
alex_ant
Banned
 
alex_ant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: All up in your bidness
You are. And this CEO isn't, and he's being paid a fortune for steering a sinking ship straight down to the bottom of the ocean.
alex_ant is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 01:32 AM   #8
Phil Of Mac
Banned
 
Phil Of Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington State University
Send a message via AIM to Phil Of Mac
Which is why he'll stop making money when his company collapses. United's going to die. United employees will get jobs with the other airlines that pick up United's slack, or elsewhere in the economy. Life goes on.

I'll rather miss United Airlines though...
Phil Of Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 10:58 AM   #9
sparkleytone
macrumors 68020
 
sparkleytone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Send a message via AIM to sparkleytone
Quote:
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Which is why he'll stop making money when his company collapses. United's going to die. United employees will get jobs with the other airlines that pick up United's slack, or elsewhere in the economy. Life goes on.
wow, thats rather optimistic. things like this don't just magically happen Phil. People are out of work for a long time, some people can't afford to take care of their families. Some families are torn apart. Etc Etc. Meanwhile, the CEO gets another high paying job somewhere else, because he has experience and the ability to sell himself while stepping on others. I'm not going to take a side here, but I am definitely pointing out that your logic is beyond flawed.
sparkleytone is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 01:15 PM   #10
Phil Of Mac
Banned
 
Phil Of Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington State University
Send a message via AIM to Phil Of Mac
Quote:
Originally posted by sparkleytone

wow, thats rather optimistic. things like this don't just magically happen Phil. People are out of work for a long time, some people can't afford to take care of their families. Some families are torn apart. Etc Etc. Meanwhile, the CEO gets another high paying job somewhere else, because he has experience and the ability to sell himself while stepping on others. I'm not going to take a side here, but I am definitely pointing out that your logic is beyond flawed.
The CEO gets another high paying job somewhere else? If you run a company into the ground, your CEO career is over. That's why many of them run for political office (President Bush and several Congressmen are ex-CEOs who have run their companies into the ground). In all fairness, the blame is not entirely on his shoulders, as the machinists refused to take a pay cut. A pay cut is still better than being unemployed. Stupid machinists. Whether or not a board of directors will overlook that is uncertain.

And yes, it will take time for all the unemployed United employees to find new jobs, and there will be difficulties for many of them. But the demand for air travel is not changed by United's collapse, and other airlines WILL meet that demand, perhaps even by purchasing United's assets. And at that point, they will need pilots, machinists, and flight attendants. They will employ as many people, with at least as good an amount of pay, as United left unemployed. Some former United employees will move into other careers, so the expansion of the other airlines will more than absorb the impact of United's collapse.
Phil Of Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 03:52 PM   #11
sparkleytone
macrumors 68020
 
sparkleytone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Send a message via AIM to sparkleytone
so whats better in your eyes? sacrificing what you believe in for a temporary bit of job security? or standing up for what you believe in and risk losing your job?

i choose the latter.
sparkleytone is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 04:44 PM   #12
Phil Of Mac
Banned
 
Phil Of Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington State University
Send a message via AIM to Phil Of Mac
What?? Not taking a pay cut, and thus causing the bankruptcy of your employer and thus your own unemployment, doesn't really reinforce any principle, unless stupidity is a principle.
Phil Of Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 04:48 PM   #13
alex_ant
Banned
 
alex_ant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: All up in your bidness
Quote:
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The CEO gets another high paying job somewhere else? If you run a company into the ground, your CEO career is over.

Yeah, right. Rick Belluzo, former SGI CEO: "Let's kill MIPS and IRIX and emphasize low-cost Windows NT workstations." He would have bankrupted SGI with this decision if he hadn't used his position as a complete and utter failure at SGI as a stepping stone to... get this... President of Microsoft.

On a CV, it's easy to embellish oneself. Ken Lay isn't going to say "19xx-2001: Presided over accounting scandal that collapsed a multibillion dollar corporation and lost thousands of people their jobs." He's going to say "Helped a troubled company land softly on its feet during trying economic times by gracefully overseeing market paradigm shifts and multilateral interdependency via revolutionary and unconventional accounting practices." You're a fool if you think his career is over.
Quote:
That's why many of them run for political office (President Bush and several Congressmen are ex-CEOs who have run their companies into the ground). In all fairness, the blame is not entirely on his shoulders, as the machinists refused to take a pay cut. A pay cut is still better than being unemployed. Stupid machinists. Whether or not a board of directors will overlook that is uncertain.

Why should any low-level employee take a pay cut when the people actually running the company are complete idiots who are getting paid exorbitant amounts simply for being the incompetent failures that they are and doing what they do best? How is it that the people who actually do their jobs are the ones who are killing United when their CEO is taking a $3 million signing bonus and an $800k/year salary without giving his company anything to show for it? This is a classic case of those in power giving themselves more money and power, and those who have no power being screwed.
Quote:
And yes, it will take time for all the unemployed United employees to find new jobs, and there will be difficulties for many of them. But the demand for air travel is not changed by United's collapse, and other airlines WILL meet that demand, perhaps even by purchasing United's assets. And at that point, they will need pilots, machinists, and flight attendants. They will employ as many people, with at least as good an amount of pay, as United left unemployed.

The whole reason United's future is so bleak is because the market for air travel has declined since Sept. 11, or whenever it was when United was formerly profitable. The airline industry is shrinking economically. United's competitors will individually grow slightly as a result of United's collapse, but not in total proportion to United's absence. Many of United's employees will be screwed. Even many of the ones who will be able to find a job at another airline will be forced to relocate, disrupting their social lives and their income streams and their families.
alex_ant is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 05:05 PM   #14
Phil Of Mac
Banned
 
Phil Of Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington State University
Send a message via AIM to Phil Of Mac
Quote:
Originally posted by alex_ant

Yeah, right. Rick Belluzo, former SGI CEO: "Let's kill MIPS and IRIX and emphasize low-cost Windows NT workstations." He would have bankrupted SGI with this decision if he hadn't used his position as a complete and utter failure at SGI as a stepping stone to... get this... President of Microsoft.

On a CV, it's easy to embellish oneself. Ken Lay isn't going to say "19xx-2001: Presided over accounting scandal that collapsed a multibillion dollar corporation and lost thousands of people their jobs." He's going to say "Helped a troubled company land softly on its feet during trying economic times by gracefully overseeing market paradigm shifts and multilateral interdependency via revolutionary and unconventional accounting practices." You're a fool if you think his career is over.
[/b]
Why should any low-level employee take a pay cut when the people actually running the company are complete idiots who are getting paid exorbitant amounts simply for being the incompetent failures that they are and doing what they do best? How is it that the people who actually do their jobs are the ones who are killing United when their CEO is taking a $3 million signing bonus and an $800k/year salary without giving his company anything to show for it? This is a classic case of those in power giving themselves more money and power, and those who have no power being screwed.
[/b]
The whole reason United's future is so bleak is because the market for air travel has declined since Sept. 11, or whenever it was when United was formerly profitable. The airline industry is shrinking economically. United's competitors will individually grow slightly as a result of United's collapse, but not in total proportion to United's absence. Many of United's employees will be screwed. Even many of the ones who will be able to find a job at another airline will be forced to relocate, disrupting their social lives and their income streams and their families. [/B]
So let me get this straight. Rick Belluzo becomes a Microsoft executive when he promotes Microsoft products at SGI? Hmm...maybe there's something going on there, huh?

I don't know if United would have ultimately survived had the machinists taken a pay cut. However, we all know that since they did NOT take the pay cut, United has no chance to survive make your time.

What degree of idiocy would inspire a group of people to refuse to take a pay cut when the company is going down in flames? The pilots and flight attendants took a pay cut, but the machinists decided, "Hell with it, we aren't taking a pay cut, even if we force our employer to collapse."

I don't think there's any disagreement that the collapse of United Airlines is a bad thing.

Oh, and I think you contradicted yourself. Is it the CEO's incompetence or the bad economic conditions causing United to collapse? (On another note, I'd like to say that no CEO would intentionally do this, because CEO's tend to make more money from profitable companies that last longer.)

And I think that if Ken Lay doesn't end up in prison (which he should), he's not going to get another job simply because we all know who Ken Lay is.
Phil Of Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 05:38 PM   #15
alex_ant
Banned
 
alex_ant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: All up in your bidness
Quote:
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
So let me get this straight. Rick Belluzo becomes a Microsoft executive when he promotes Microsoft products at SGI? Hmm...maybe there's something going on there, huh?

This isn't a question of buying Microsoft's good will. SGI is an inconsequential speck of dust to Microsoft. My point is that a CEO's job performance has little bearing on their future prospects. In my example, Rick Belluzo burned a company nearly to the ground, and then was able to strap on his golden parachute and sail straight into the Microsoft board unscathed. To connect this to the larger issue: Company executives are very frequently rewarded for strengthening their own power and increasing their own wealth at the expense of others.
Quote:
I don't know if United would have ultimately survived had the machinists taken a pay cut. However, we all know that since they did NOT take the pay cut, United has no chance to survive make your time.

I don't know if United would have survived had the stupid people in charge of buying their office supplies not insisted upon stockpiling so many damned paperclips - the ones that cost $1.09 a box instead of the cheaper ones that were just as good but cost $.79 a box. However, we all know that since these idiots did NOT buy the cheaper paperclips, United has no chance to survive.
Quote:
What degree of idiocy would inspire a group of people to refuse to take a pay cut when the company is going down in flames? The pilots and flight attendants took a pay cut, but the machinists decided, "Hell with it, we aren't taking a pay cut, even if we force our employer to collapse."

See the response two down.
Quote:
I don't think there's any disagreement that the collapse of United Airlines is a bad thing.

Bad for its low level employees and for its customers, yes. But mostly inconsequential for its execs. And that's the whole problem. The ones who are in control of United are the ones who have the power to put what is in their own self-interest above the interests of everyone else.
Quote:
Oh, and I think you contradicted yourself. Is it the CEO's incompetence or the bad economic conditions causing United to collapse?

It's obviously a combination of the two. Why are you are blaming the machinists for United's ills when it's the executives and high-level managers who are doing oh so much less for the company and making oh so much more money? Guess what - they're not exactly taking a pay cut either. The only sacrifices they'll be making have to do with maybe selling their yachts and living the hard life with a mere couple catamarans. Talk about having it rough.
Quote:
(On another note, I'd like to say that no CEO would intentionally do this, because CEO's tend to make more money from profitable companies that last longer.)

No, CEOs tend to make more money by giving themselves more money. There is no consideration for the long-term in their business decisions, and that's the whole problem. That's why they accept their six and seven-figure salaries. Because they know that if their companies fail, they'll just be able to take a private jet on over to their next job, and find some high-rent urban bungalow to live in. Or retire to their beach house in Bermuda. Whichever they happen to feel like at the moment.
Quote:
And I think that if Ken Lay doesn't end up in prison (which he should), he's not going to get another job simply because we all know who Ken Lay is.
And so do his fraternal business buddies. Which is part of how he'll be hired again to a position of similar prestige.
alex_ant is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 05:55 PM   #16
Phil Of Mac
Banned
 
Phil Of Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington State University
Send a message via AIM to Phil Of Mac
Quote:
Originally posted by alex_ant
No, CEOs tend to make more money by giving themselves more money. There is no consideration for the long-term in their business decisions, and that's the whole problem. That's why they accept their six and seven-figure salaries. Because they know that if their companies fail, they'll just be able to take a private jet on over to their next job, and find some high-rent urban bungalow to live in. Or retire to their beach house in Bermuda. Whichever they happen to feel like at the moment.
If this was true, then how come the vast majority of businesses are surviving? And which situation leaves you better off, making seven million a year for one year, or for ten years?

At this point, I would simply like to ask you if you would have done any better as CEO of United Airlines. If it was really that easy to run a large corporation, they wouldn't ever go out of business and CEO's wouldn't get the pay they do. It seems that you're probably just trying to make up for your own mediocrity by gloating at the failure of those attempting greater things than you can even begin to attempt.
Phil Of Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 06:16 PM   #17
alex_ant
Banned
 
alex_ant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: All up in your bidness
Quote:
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If this was true, then how come the vast majority of businesses are surviving?

Because the vast majority of businesses are doing well enough that this phenomenon does not affect them to a great enough degree to put them in United's position. But it still does hurt them, even if they do survive.
Quote:
And which situation leaves you better off, making seven million a year for one year, or for ten years?

I'd say I'd much rather make seven million a year for one year and then bail out and move to another job that pays me seven and a half million per year. It doesn't really matter though, because I'm set for life either way - after all, I make more in one year than four UAL mechanics will make in their entire combined lifetimes. Just for being an incompetent prick with an MBA. Sweet deal isn't it?
Quote:
At this point, I would simply like to ask you if you would have done any better as CEO of United Airlines.

I would have done just the same as whatever-his-name has, because I'm greedy and self-interested just like him. I would have pushed to give myself as much money as possible as fast as possible, just like he did. Because I'm human and self-interested by nature, just like him. And that's the problem, do you see? The body that is supposed to act as a check on executives' power - the stockholders - is for some reason not working the way it is supposed to, and this is creating an environment in the upper echelons of corporations in which megalomania is allowed to reign without restriction.
Quote:
If it was really that easy to run a large corporation, they wouldn't ever go out of business and CEO's wouldn't get the pay they do.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is not in the executives' best interest to keep their companies in business. It is in their best interest to make as much money as possible and amass as much power as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. In short, it is in their best interest to put themselves above their company.
Quote:
It seems that you're probably just trying to make up for your own mediocrity by gloating at the failure of those attempting greater things than you can even begin to attempt.
Let's get one thing clear: I'm not gloating. I think it's awful that UAL will likely be going out of business, because it will hurt a lot more people than it will help.

I'm not sure what leads you to arrive at the conclusion that the people in charge at UAL are "attempting greater things than I can even begin to attempt." What are they attempting besides preservation and enhancement of their own power and wealth? They sure as hell must not be attempting to run a lean & efficient airline on their six & seven-figure salaries.
alex_ant is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 06:20 PM   #18
Ifeelbloated
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: some God forsaken place
You know what. Right now I'm thinking that buying into the Subway sandwich shop franchise would be a good idea. Maybe open a pizzeria. The coming new year looks like a harsh one. It's the early nineties all over again. I hope everyone here has their butts covered. Maybe I can meet Jarod. I wonder how much they pay him for those commercial spots.
__________________
No thanks, it gives me gas.
Ifeelbloated is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 06:29 PM   #19
Phil Of Mac
Banned
 
Phil Of Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington State University
Send a message via AIM to Phil Of Mac
Running an organization of hundreds, possibly thousands of people and providing needed services to thousands daily is easy?

I don't quite get how you figure that you make more money if you drive a company into bankruptcy. You make more money by making a larger profit for your company, if you own part of the company. If not, making large profits will inspire boards of directors to give you a larger salary and big bonuses. And any board of directors is more likely to hire a CEO known for making huge profits than one known for causing bankruptcies. Why? Boards of directors own large amounts of stock, and are elected by stockholders. All acting in their own best interest.

Look at Steve Jobs. The board of directors gives him expensive gifts, like private jets, because Steve Jobs makes tremendous profits for Apple. Whereas they fired Gilbert Amelio, Michael Spindler, and John Sculley for almost driving the company into the ground.
Phil Of Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 07:22 PM   #20
alex_ant
Banned
 
alex_ant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: All up in your bidness
Quote:
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Running an organization of hundreds, possibly thousands of people and providing needed services to thousands daily is easy?

Of course it's not easy. I'm just saying that something is not quite right when a company fails, its employees are put out of work, and its CEO walks away with millions of dollars in the bank as a token of appreciation for his effort. What is this, the Special Olympics, where everyone who tries is a winner? If this guy really wanted his company to succeed so badly, he would have maybe allowed the company to keep a portion of those millions to help it pay off its massive debts, don't you think? If he pulls UAL out of its nosedive, he's a hero, and if he doesn't, he's still the person at the controls who allowed it to happen. The reason I say he allowed it to happen and not that it happened to him is because, obviously, he did not do everything he could to help save his company.
Quote:
I don't quite get how you figure that you make more money if you drive a company into bankruptcy.

I never said one makes more money by driving a company into bankruptcy. What I said is that an executive's career/salary path is not necessarily tied to their performance. One could make more, and one could make less. Career path has as much to do with power and connections as with performance.
Quote:
You make more money by making a larger profit for your company, if you own part of the company. If not, making large profits will inspire boards of directors to give you a larger salary and big bonuses.

That's how it would work in an ideal world. In the real world, profits are not the whole picture. They are still important, for the employees and the executives and the shareholders and everyone else. But the executives are much better equipped to deal with rough times than their employees, which means that when profits fall, it's not the end of the world for the execs. (Nevermind anyone else.) It's the little guy, not the fat cat, who gets hurt the most. Thank golly the machinists in this case are unionized, or they'd be making minimum wage and the execs would be making three times as much with nothing additional to show for it.
Quote:
And any board of directors is more likely to hire a CEO known for making huge profits than one known for causing bankruptcies. Why? Boards of directors own large amounts of stock, and are elected by stockholders. All acting in their own best interest.

And when you're on the board of directors, and your company is heading for disaster, and it will surely fail without a major overhaul, what do you do? You hire somebody fast that you think will be able to turn things around. And you pay him lots and lots of money - you have to, because he knows you need him badly. So this person hired to save the company either does his job and saves the company or helps - disproportionately to any machinist, thanks to what he's just been paid and thanks to his level of control - to kill it.
Quote:
Look at Steve Jobs. The board of directors gives him expensive gifts, like private jets, because Steve Jobs makes tremendous profits for Apple. Whereas they fired Gilbert Amelio, Michael Spindler, and John Sculley for almost driving the company into the ground.
Yes, Apple fired all those guys. And still paid them all millions before they were fired. If, for some reason, Apple starts bleeing money badly and is in danger of bankruptcy, who will you blame this on? The Taiwanese workers who make $3.50/hour and don't assemble their products fast enough? Or Steve Jobs, the one who is actually in control of the company and who has been endowed with lavish gifts and a king's salary, all of which could have been used to help weather the storm had the board not been such spendthrifts and had Jobs not been so warm to such imprudence? If you're on Apple's board and Apple is doing really well and the you want to pay Jobs a billion dollars, fine. Go for it. But when/if times get tough and all of a sudden you find that Apple is a billion dollars in the red, don't blame the "little people" you just pissed on (by not giving THEM bonuses instead). Blame Jobs and blame yourselves.
alex_ant is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Current Events

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Drug to stop mosquito bites moonman239 Community Discussion 29 Aug 6, 2013 12:49 PM
Another one bites the dust....reverting from ML to SL RedRaven571 OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion 34 May 1, 2013 08:46 AM
Another Gitzo tripod bites the dust. Phrasikleia Digital Photography 58 Jan 15, 2013 10:05 PM
And another one gone, and another one gone, another one bites the dust yg17 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 3 Nov 20, 2012 11:11 AM
Trying to Sell iPad 3 on CL and No Bites. Asking Too Much? PTVMan Buying Tips and Advice 14 Nov 18, 2012 11:02 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC