p0intblank
Aug 7, 08:32 PM
I thought the keynote was awesome! :D The Mac Pro definitely seems like one kick ass computer. $2499 isn't bad at all for what you are getting. Dual Xeon processors? I'll take one (if I had the money)!
Don't panic
May 4, 12:22 PM
We can spend our time insulting him until then. :)
we might as well get comfortable. do you have cards in your bag of tricks?
and don't even think about considering trying to hide something in your sleeve, or i'll chop the entire arm off.
maybe i should do it pre-emptively.
we might as well get comfortable. do you have cards in your bag of tricks?
and don't even think about considering trying to hide something in your sleeve, or i'll chop the entire arm off.
maybe i should do it pre-emptively.
thisisahughes
Mar 29, 09:25 AM
Dang... I feel like $80 a month is a LOT of money for 1TB of space. Especially when you can pay $70 ONCE and get your own 1TB drive.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822324041&cm_re=1tb-_-22-324-041-_-Product
Of course there are many benefits of having your data "in the cloud," but I think their prices are way too high.
I'm waiting for this. http://www.lacie.com/us/technologies/technology.htm?id=10039
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822324041&cm_re=1tb-_-22-324-041-_-Product
Of course there are many benefits of having your data "in the cloud," but I think their prices are way too high.
I'm waiting for this. http://www.lacie.com/us/technologies/technology.htm?id=10039
*LTD*
Apr 5, 07:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
I wonder why Apple gives a hoot? This couldn't be hurting them could it?:confused:
It makes no difference. For starters, Toyota is violating the User Agreement. That in itself is grounds for immediate rejection. Second, it sends the wrong message. You want to do business with Apple, it has to be above-board. This should be obvious.
I wonder why Apple gives a hoot? This couldn't be hurting them could it?:confused:
It makes no difference. For starters, Toyota is violating the User Agreement. That in itself is grounds for immediate rejection. Second, it sends the wrong message. You want to do business with Apple, it has to be above-board. This should be obvious.
apolloa
Apr 21, 06:53 PM
You know, you would have to say 'About friggin time APPLE!!'
Interesting idea for design though, tower case and rack mountable, can see that being very popular :)
Interesting idea for design though, tower case and rack mountable, can see that being very popular :)
ravenvii
May 3, 05:27 PM
[QUOTE=ravenvii;12507483]CURRENT KNOWN MAP:
http://web.me.com/ravenvii/map/known.png
map confusion - I'm assuming the yellow marks are three doors. but is our start position inside the mansion ?
Yes the marks are doors. And yes you start inside the mansion.
http://web.me.com/ravenvii/map/known.png
map confusion - I'm assuming the yellow marks are three doors. but is our start position inside the mansion ?
Yes the marks are doors. And yes you start inside the mansion.
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 12:09 PM
I do wish people would stop using the "marketing name" Retina displays.
Just say what screen resolution you would like.
Also, this story probably isn't about "retina" displays per say as people view them (4 times the pixel count) but more akin to new monitors that use DP 1.2's available bandwidth, finally breaking the 2560x1600 barrier we've had for the last few years.
This news item is probably mostly about new ACD resolutions/new iMac resolutions than it is about a whole revamp of the entire line-up to use the misused "Retina" monicker.
Apple knows what they meant by Retina, too bad most people around here fail to accept that meaning and go for the simpler "300 PPI screen".
Just say what screen resolution you would like.
Also, this story probably isn't about "retina" displays per say as people view them (4 times the pixel count) but more akin to new monitors that use DP 1.2's available bandwidth, finally breaking the 2560x1600 barrier we've had for the last few years.
This news item is probably mostly about new ACD resolutions/new iMac resolutions than it is about a whole revamp of the entire line-up to use the misused "Retina" monicker.
Apple knows what they meant by Retina, too bad most people around here fail to accept that meaning and go for the simpler "300 PPI screen".
LagunaSol
Apr 18, 03:34 PM
I'm surprised it's taken this long, to be honest: I've thought for a long time that Samsung's phones in particular are pretty much a blatant rip-off of Apple's industrial design and user interface.
Indeed, the haters will scream and rant about this lawsuit, but Samsung has a special knack for making their devices look exactly like Apple's equivalents.
Indeed, the haters will scream and rant about this lawsuit, but Samsung has a special knack for making their devices look exactly like Apple's equivalents.
iLunar
Apr 5, 02:38 PM
While I agree in a sense, it's commonly known that there's no way to plug every hole, so you're scooping out water from a sinking ship with a cup. Every iOS device has been jailbroken since release, many several times using several exploits. There will never be a day when a software company will be smarter than the hacking community... software companies can't afford to buy them all :-)
That's very true. But Apple (or any software, consumer electronics company) would be foolish to not close known security holes.
Yes, new holes will be found. And Apple will try to plug those up, as well. I can't see an argument for people complaining that Apple is patching security holes.
That's very true. But Apple (or any software, consumer electronics company) would be foolish to not close known security holes.
Yes, new holes will be found. And Apple will try to plug those up, as well. I can't see an argument for people complaining that Apple is patching security holes.
SandynJosh
Nov 23, 12:57 PM
In looking over all the ideas generated in this thread and all the trends going on in the world, I'm lead to wonder if a consumer iPhone makes as much sense as it would seem to at first blush. Sure, the numbers can be great, but the profit potential is nearly nil.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
clibinarius
Mar 29, 02:54 PM
The batteries of note are probably for the nano/shuffle, not the touch. Hence why the supply isn't a problem yet with the iphones.
Try to remember, people who post these things, there's several types of ipods.
Try to remember, people who post these things, there's several types of ipods.
steadysignal
Apr 20, 07:49 AM
Springing for just a faster processor. Dont't think thats gonna happen. I'll just stick with my iP4 until the following year...
seconded. i hold my cash until the update is more meaningful.
seconded. i hold my cash until the update is more meaningful.
GregA
Jul 30, 07:45 AM
Unfortunately, I'm pulled back into thinking, "What could Apple do with phones that hasn't already been done." Small, light, photos, video, internet, music, games, personal organization? Most of this is pretty well covered with the current offerings. So what is going to be the selling point here? Is it going to be expensive or affordable? Is it going to be full-featured or bare bones?
Very good questions.
- Apple could release a stylish simple phone with a simple interface, and the capability of an iPod shuffle built in. There would really be nothing special about such a phone - at most they might give it 3G data connections so someone with a MacBook could use it to get on the net.
- They could certainly be the first provider to make a phone that can ONLY be used handsfree (via the headphones).
- They could leverage their airport base stations to release a VoIP phone that works at home, work, and wireless hotspots.
- The obvious untapped area is integration of VoIP, 3G, & video - but all the big companies are looking at that. The other thing that most mobile companies are having trouble with is the killer app - so many phones have data connectivity, and people just don't know what to do with it. If Apple can make a compelling product there the phone companies will want to sell it.
ps. Apple might choose to make a phone with no music capability... just to delineate the product. That gives people something to understand... and then they can release the combo products.
Very good questions.
- Apple could release a stylish simple phone with a simple interface, and the capability of an iPod shuffle built in. There would really be nothing special about such a phone - at most they might give it 3G data connections so someone with a MacBook could use it to get on the net.
- They could certainly be the first provider to make a phone that can ONLY be used handsfree (via the headphones).
- They could leverage their airport base stations to release a VoIP phone that works at home, work, and wireless hotspots.
- The obvious untapped area is integration of VoIP, 3G, & video - but all the big companies are looking at that. The other thing that most mobile companies are having trouble with is the killer app - so many phones have data connectivity, and people just don't know what to do with it. If Apple can make a compelling product there the phone companies will want to sell it.
ps. Apple might choose to make a phone with no music capability... just to delineate the product. That gives people something to understand... and then they can release the combo products.
RalfTheDog
Apr 7, 01:23 PM
It's sad but it's starting to sound like that's exactly what anti-Apple people want. They're making it sound like Apple regularly colludes with suppliers. Maybe it does, but there's no proof, or at least Apple buying up the supply of touch panels certainly doesn't constitute proof.
Apple legitimately amassed a large cash reserve. Apple is using that massive hoard of cash to secure the best possible deals with component suppliers. If that's called anticompetitive, then I don't know what to say.
More importantly, Apple is supply constrained. The limiting factor as to how many units they can sell is how many screens they can get. The competition is consumer constrained. They can make all they need, but they can't find people to buy them.
Apple legitimately amassed a large cash reserve. Apple is using that massive hoard of cash to secure the best possible deals with component suppliers. If that's called anticompetitive, then I don't know what to say.
More importantly, Apple is supply constrained. The limiting factor as to how many units they can sell is how many screens they can get. The competition is consumer constrained. They can make all they need, but they can't find people to buy them.
ChipWinter
Sep 11, 12:03 AM
So ... would a Beatles announcement be the cause for a London feed? Or would that be too big of a thing for this one event?
RCGMac
Mar 29, 10:07 AM
Can't store my music on my work machines.
Similar issue here. I have been hooking my phone to my computer to listen to music while at work. Now I can dump all my music into the cloud and listen.
Similar issue here. I have been hooking my phone to my computer to listen to music while at work. Now I can dump all my music into the cloud and listen.
ender land
Apr 14, 11:08 AM
So we have websites that allow us to track where a dollar goes, how about letting us see where all the money the government spends is going
You mean like
http://www.federalbudget.com/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
http://www.usaspending.gov/
or any other websites easily found via google?
You mean like
http://www.federalbudget.com/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
http://www.usaspending.gov/
or any other websites easily found via google?
ergle2
Sep 16, 05:15 AM
At most it would have the yet to be released Mobility X1700 or currently available Geforce GO7600.
There is simply not enough room for either a Mobility X1800 or Geforce GO7700 chip in this 1" thick notebook. Stay in fairyland . . . why can't people be a bit realistic?
Thanks for the condescending tone in response to an off-the-cuff "would be nice" comment -- it makes you look such a man.
Of course, given the Go 7700 is effectively an 80nm 7600 -- and therefore should use less power -- I'd say it was realistic to suggest it be used.
Well done.
There is simply not enough room for either a Mobility X1800 or Geforce GO7700 chip in this 1" thick notebook. Stay in fairyland . . . why can't people be a bit realistic?
Thanks for the condescending tone in response to an off-the-cuff "would be nice" comment -- it makes you look such a man.
Of course, given the Go 7700 is effectively an 80nm 7600 -- and therefore should use less power -- I'd say it was realistic to suggest it be used.
Well done.
bastienvans
Mar 30, 06:00 PM
Will this work on the 2011 mbp's?
leetlamer
May 6, 08:05 AM
Lmfao. There is absolutely no way they are going to put ARM chips in desktop or laptop computers in the near future.
Its not gonna happen. You can't beat Intel in performance.
ARM is good because its low power. Thats great for phones and tablets, but for freaking desktops you need performance.
Its not gonna happen. You can't beat Intel in performance.
ARM is good because its low power. Thats great for phones and tablets, but for freaking desktops you need performance.
weckart
Apr 23, 04:33 PM
That colour scheme for the Lion background artwork is hideous.
navguy
Dec 13, 10:29 AM
[QUOTE=EDH667;8950245]Thank you for your feedback relating to this issue. We hope to have this issue resolved with a future update to the TomTom application."QUOTE]
that's curious ... it's an 'application' problem?? i would have thought it was a typical bluetooth h/w issue ... wonder if the other navigation apps have similar issue w/ TomTom car kit?
thanks for sharing
that's curious ... it's an 'application' problem?? i would have thought it was a typical bluetooth h/w issue ... wonder if the other navigation apps have similar issue w/ TomTom car kit?
thanks for sharing
n00bst3r
Sep 11, 03:25 AM
n00bst3r predicts:
1. Movie Store
1. Movie Store
caspersoong
Apr 8, 07:05 AM
The idea here is that NO ONE else was even considering making a tablet until Apple, and the iPad. They didn't want to be left behind like they were with the iPhone, so now everyone's jumping on board. It's RIM'S fault for not coming to market sooner with a tablet. You can thank Apple for creating the current modern day tablet. Everyone says apple needs competition to keep them from getting stagnant as a company, but they didn't need it when producing the iPod, or the iPhone, and they certainly didn't need it for the iPad. No ones fault but their own that they aren't smart enough to innovate like Apple.
There were many tablets before the iPad. Just that they all sucked and mostly tried to use PC chips, leading to extremely short battery life, being slow, and hundreds of other factors causing them to sell in very small amounts. But it is true that Apple did the right thing in their innovation.
There were many tablets before the iPad. Just that they all sucked and mostly tried to use PC chips, leading to extremely short battery life, being slow, and hundreds of other factors causing them to sell in very small amounts. But it is true that Apple did the right thing in their innovation.
