marksman
Apr 22, 11:24 AM
Translation: Apple's new iPhone, code named Anorexia, couldn't possibly hold 2 chips! We aim to make a phone so thin, a postage stamp would add bulk.
Yeah while Apple realizes people want their mobile smartphone to be small and portable as that is a key part of the puzzle the rest of the industry is trying to duplicate this:
http://i54.tinypic.com/2r5q079.jpg
with a touch screen.
Yeah while Apple realizes people want their mobile smartphone to be small and portable as that is a key part of the puzzle the rest of the industry is trying to duplicate this:
http://i54.tinypic.com/2r5q079.jpg
with a touch screen.
NT1440
May 2, 12:00 AM
A source? I'm sure we will find out all of the top secret information in a few minutes.
I meant a source for your ideas of how those involved in Al-Qaeda branded cells viewed Osama as invincible.
How could that be when it is well known the man has messed up kidneys and needed ongoing medical care as well as dialysis?
It sounded more to me like you think that is how members view him.
I meant a source for your ideas of how those involved in Al-Qaeda branded cells viewed Osama as invincible.
How could that be when it is well known the man has messed up kidneys and needed ongoing medical care as well as dialysis?
It sounded more to me like you think that is how members view him.
pilotError
May 3, 08:23 AM
4-6 weeks for an SSD upgrade?!?!
Steve jobs: "umad?"
Looks like another month of waiting for me!
Is it easy for us to install an SSD by ourselves? (I'm not a geek)
I've been waiting for the new 27" to replace my 2006 iMac, but I don't really have a pressing need believe it or not. I already put a core2duo in it and a 2gb 7200 rpm HD in it...
In response to the other 2 posters, I'm waiting for the iFixit teardown to see how bad the upgrade would be, just to see which SSD's they are going to use, and how hard it would be to do the upgrade on my own. Another $600 on the 27" w/ i7 pushes the price to nearly 3000, a bit expensive these days for a desktop, even if it is an Apple.
Steve jobs: "umad?"
Looks like another month of waiting for me!
Is it easy for us to install an SSD by ourselves? (I'm not a geek)
I've been waiting for the new 27" to replace my 2006 iMac, but I don't really have a pressing need believe it or not. I already put a core2duo in it and a 2gb 7200 rpm HD in it...
In response to the other 2 posters, I'm waiting for the iFixit teardown to see how bad the upgrade would be, just to see which SSD's they are going to use, and how hard it would be to do the upgrade on my own. Another $600 on the 27" w/ i7 pushes the price to nearly 3000, a bit expensive these days for a desktop, even if it is an Apple.
grahamnp
Apr 1, 01:55 AM
That is butt ugly. I should just retain the unified window appearance and make all the modifications inside the window instead.
Dont Hurt Me
Oct 18, 08:00 PM
Those numbers are sweet but I would like to see a breakdown of each model. Also the market worldwide if im not mistaken is growing at what 10% a year yet Apples desk tops grew at 4%? If so why?
irishv
Apr 26, 12:44 PM
I would happily pay the current fee for MobileMe if Apple offered some better options for hosting a website. Right now I pay for web hosting for a family blog and a flickr pro account. If I could host my wordpress blog on my idisk space with my own domain name, I would sign up right now.
rcandre2
Apr 29, 12:25 AM
Mine is definitely thicker than my black one. One of them (bought two today) is actually crooked.... when I lay it down on a flat surface it doesn't lay down completely... there is a "wobble" to it.. wonder if the case is warped.
gnasher729
Oct 24, 05:09 AM
Ummmm ... The Oct 18 Update in that link says exactly what we've been saying here: you can't legally run Vista Home editions in a VM. Period.
I would be careful. Macintosh users are probably a bit unusual in that they want to run Vista in a virtual machine _only_, and not as the real operating system. Most PC users would want to run Vista _both_ as their operating system and on a virtual machine; that would be two copies, whereas Macintosh users only want to run one copy. (Of course, most Mac users actually want to run zero copies of Vista...) So anybody issuing any clarification might not have given the Macintosh situation any thought.
And it doesn't say anywhere that the "dedicated machine" couldn't be a virtual machine in the first place.
I would be careful. Macintosh users are probably a bit unusual in that they want to run Vista in a virtual machine _only_, and not as the real operating system. Most PC users would want to run Vista _both_ as their operating system and on a virtual machine; that would be two copies, whereas Macintosh users only want to run one copy. (Of course, most Mac users actually want to run zero copies of Vista...) So anybody issuing any clarification might not have given the Macintosh situation any thought.
And it doesn't say anywhere that the "dedicated machine" couldn't be a virtual machine in the first place.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 24, 04:38 PM
Thanks for the anecdote.
The iPhone sets the bar. Google has to flood the market with a lot of junk to achieve higher share. That's hardly impressive. Google is the MS of mobile. Hardly a compliment. License out your beta OS to anyone that can slam together a box, give it away, and away you go.
The iPhone is still the #1 selling handset. Where are the iPhone killers? There aren't any. Because the competition doesn't know how to make one. Because Apple approaches tech from a totally different place.
The iOS platform still dominates, and given the iPad's success, it'll be that way for the foreseeable future.
Android enjoys highest smartphone market share. Yet the OS is pretty brutal and their ecosystem is a mess. So why do they have greater share? Not because they make a superior product, but because the only alternative to an iPhone was an Android-based device, and Eric T. Mole got to work licensing it out to everyone with no regard for design or User Experience. If you flood the market with what, 70+ (probably a lot more) devices and let everyone and their dog make the devices you'll eventually enjoy force of numbers.
Android is given away free to anyone to manufacture, to make as many POS devices as they wish, to sell for peanuts, in massive volume.
That's all it is. Market flooding at every price point and you get some sort of touchscreen and some sort of app store. And given Google's Microsoftian horizontal business model, that's all it'll ever be.
For instance, THIS is the kind of total junk that Google puts their name to:
http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_racer-reviews-3423.php
And guess what: Dell went ahead and copied it. The DELL XCD28. Same junk. But Android market share just went up!
Here's another amazing Android device:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars
Anything to be proud of? But hey, they're dirt cheap. And uh . . . "open" or whatever.
If Google actually *cared* about what they put the Android name to, if they actually gave a damn about the USER, would they allow this? Ask yourself that. That's the difference. There are some things Apple *will not* allow to exist - namely: garbage.
Yes, highest market share. Until you go hunting for the REASON.
Its only in opinions which OS is better. I know Windows is better for me because it allows me to build my own hardware. Not all android phones are dirt cheap. The top selling ones are not the dirt cheap ones it is the ones that compete directly with the iPhone in the high end smart phone. There are a lot of phones out there that top the iPhone. The Atrix, the G2X, Evo and multiple other ones are all better phones then the iPhone 4. The iPhone is a good phone, But is far from the best. It will never turn into a one horse game. There will never be an "iPhone Killer", And android is here to stay.
The iPhone can not meet everyones needs some people need a physical keyboard, Larger screen, SD slot, Smaller screen, HDMI, High end camaras, various things that end the end the Single model of the iPhone will not work for them
The iPhone sets the bar. Google has to flood the market with a lot of junk to achieve higher share. That's hardly impressive. Google is the MS of mobile. Hardly a compliment. License out your beta OS to anyone that can slam together a box, give it away, and away you go.
The iPhone is still the #1 selling handset. Where are the iPhone killers? There aren't any. Because the competition doesn't know how to make one. Because Apple approaches tech from a totally different place.
The iOS platform still dominates, and given the iPad's success, it'll be that way for the foreseeable future.
Android enjoys highest smartphone market share. Yet the OS is pretty brutal and their ecosystem is a mess. So why do they have greater share? Not because they make a superior product, but because the only alternative to an iPhone was an Android-based device, and Eric T. Mole got to work licensing it out to everyone with no regard for design or User Experience. If you flood the market with what, 70+ (probably a lot more) devices and let everyone and their dog make the devices you'll eventually enjoy force of numbers.
Android is given away free to anyone to manufacture, to make as many POS devices as they wish, to sell for peanuts, in massive volume.
That's all it is. Market flooding at every price point and you get some sort of touchscreen and some sort of app store. And given Google's Microsoftian horizontal business model, that's all it'll ever be.
For instance, THIS is the kind of total junk that Google puts their name to:
http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_racer-reviews-3423.php
And guess what: Dell went ahead and copied it. The DELL XCD28. Same junk. But Android market share just went up!
Here's another amazing Android device:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars
Anything to be proud of? But hey, they're dirt cheap. And uh . . . "open" or whatever.
If Google actually *cared* about what they put the Android name to, if they actually gave a damn about the USER, would they allow this? Ask yourself that. That's the difference. There are some things Apple *will not* allow to exist - namely: garbage.
Yes, highest market share. Until you go hunting for the REASON.
Its only in opinions which OS is better. I know Windows is better for me because it allows me to build my own hardware. Not all android phones are dirt cheap. The top selling ones are not the dirt cheap ones it is the ones that compete directly with the iPhone in the high end smart phone. There are a lot of phones out there that top the iPhone. The Atrix, the G2X, Evo and multiple other ones are all better phones then the iPhone 4. The iPhone is a good phone, But is far from the best. It will never turn into a one horse game. There will never be an "iPhone Killer", And android is here to stay.
The iPhone can not meet everyones needs some people need a physical keyboard, Larger screen, SD slot, Smaller screen, HDMI, High end camaras, various things that end the end the Single model of the iPhone will not work for them
ECUpirate44
Apr 13, 02:52 PM
Great. A 4K magical TV.
playaj82
Jul 26, 02:33 PM
When this is released you'll be touching it like a sick middle-aged bastard drooling over on screen images of kiddieporn.
I never said I wasn't going to buy/drool over this mystery product.
I'm just not going to be impressed.
I never said I wasn't going to buy/drool over this mystery product.
I'm just not going to be impressed.
bpaluzzi
May 3, 08:06 AM
I hope I'm not the only one disappointed that you see an i7 in 3 out of the 4 MBPs, but i7 is only available for an extra $180 in the iMac.
The i5 2400 costs $150 @ MicroCenter, and that's the processor they use in the $2000 iMac!!! This is why people say Macs are overpriced (and they most certainly are). That having been said, I'll be buying an MBA or MBP 13 soon enough.
One thing to consider -- the iMac slots into the "midrange" position for the Apple desktop family (above Mini, below Pro), while the MBP is in the "high end" position for the laptop family.
Not going to go into the spec-chasing / validating. People have feelings one way or the other, and discussing / arguing online isn't likely to change either side's opinion :-)
The i5 2400 costs $150 @ MicroCenter, and that's the processor they use in the $2000 iMac!!! This is why people say Macs are overpriced (and they most certainly are). That having been said, I'll be buying an MBA or MBP 13 soon enough.
One thing to consider -- the iMac slots into the "midrange" position for the Apple desktop family (above Mini, below Pro), while the MBP is in the "high end" position for the laptop family.
Not going to go into the spec-chasing / validating. People have feelings one way or the other, and discussing / arguing online isn't likely to change either side's opinion :-)
Razeus
Apr 12, 10:26 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5104/5601899804_afb7c61a91_z.jpg
Worldofwarben
Apr 26, 04:47 PM
I really hope they come out! These with the addition of the new app store is going to be amazing! Can you imagine Angry birds on this new setup!?
Also cant wait to try Cata WoW on one of these! <3
Also cant wait to try Cata WoW on one of these! <3
louis Fashion
Apr 13, 08:14 PM
one call makes you taller
one call makes you small
But the phone that mother gives you
won't do anything at all
just go ask ATT when it drops your calllll
one call makes you small
But the phone that mother gives you
won't do anything at all
just go ask ATT when it drops your calllll
julianbc
Jan 30, 01:01 PM
Open your eyes to the world and wake up - do some research beyond Fox News!
Save your liberal banter, chicken little.
Save your liberal banter, chicken little.
xUKHCx
May 3, 08:50 AM
The biggest question I have is whether the dual Thunderbolt will support 2 external monitors.
Imagine a triple 27 inch setup! (Brain explodes at thought)
http://www.apple.com/imac/performance.html
And don�t worry about a single drive or peripheral tying up the Thunderbolt port: You can daisy-chain as many as six devices plus a display. The 27-inch iMac includes a second Thunderbolt port for even more expansion possibilities. Connect up to six more devices or a display or two.
Imagine a triple 27 inch setup! (Brain explodes at thought)
http://www.apple.com/imac/performance.html
And don�t worry about a single drive or peripheral tying up the Thunderbolt port: You can daisy-chain as many as six devices plus a display. The 27-inch iMac includes a second Thunderbolt port for even more expansion possibilities. Connect up to six more devices or a display or two.
mc68k
Oct 29, 10:59 PM
i was running -8, should i be running -16?
spotlight shouldnt have been an issue-- it had been on for hours and theres no user accounts on it. raid wasnt on yet.
not stressing too much about it. it's nice to replace a bunch of random machines (especially imacs) with one big producer that actually has a big fan and is designed to get rid of heat fast. those imacs get so hot i get scared for the components. we've had several go out recently. the fan hole on the back is so small its almost comical. apple can't have a fan on the back thats bigger than the logo! it can't have a hard drive light or a cd eject! that would ruin the aesthetics! can't replace the harddrive without suction cups!! needless to say i hate imacs.
spotlight shouldnt have been an issue-- it had been on for hours and theres no user accounts on it. raid wasnt on yet.
not stressing too much about it. it's nice to replace a bunch of random machines (especially imacs) with one big producer that actually has a big fan and is designed to get rid of heat fast. those imacs get so hot i get scared for the components. we've had several go out recently. the fan hole on the back is so small its almost comical. apple can't have a fan on the back thats bigger than the logo! it can't have a hard drive light or a cd eject! that would ruin the aesthetics! can't replace the harddrive without suction cups!! needless to say i hate imacs.
Michael383
Apr 14, 03:50 AM
"iX" = "Ix", which is the nickname for the character Ford Prefect in the book "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
Obviously, the new Apple device is either a digital watch or a towel.
I would think an iWatch would be a great seller for Apple.
Obviously, the new Apple device is either a digital watch or a towel.
I would think an iWatch would be a great seller for Apple.
chrono1081
Apr 28, 10:10 AM
So the iPhone went from being pummeled by Android to now just being badly beaten.
That is Awesome.
No even if Android marketshare is bigger iPhone is STILL the winner. Two handsets verses 90+ Android handsets and Apple still holds its own. That should tell you something but I'm sure it doesn't.
Why I reply to you I'll never know since everyone knows what you are.
That is Awesome.
No even if Android marketshare is bigger iPhone is STILL the winner. Two handsets verses 90+ Android handsets and Apple still holds its own. That should tell you something but I'm sure it doesn't.
Why I reply to you I'll never know since everyone knows what you are.
Don Kosak
May 3, 07:54 AM
Update looks great, especially the new graphic card options.
I am disappointed that the SSD prices are the same as last year. US$600 for a 256GB SSD option. I was hoping for a big price reduction. (or at least a little price reduction...)
I am disappointed that the SSD prices are the same as last year. US$600 for a 256GB SSD option. I was hoping for a big price reduction. (or at least a little price reduction...)
FloatingBones
Nov 20, 08:58 PM
Whom am I trying to convince?
It doesn't matter. You're not convincing anybody. Calling a CEO a communist because their product doesn't do what you think it ought to do is pretty goofy.
Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason.
You're not listening. I gave four very good -- and rational -- reasons why Flash is a bad idea for iOS. You haven't countered that reasoning. You give us things like a "communist" rant that has no business in this kind of discussion. You are the one acting in an irrational fashion here.
No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option.
If Apple did that, then they would be staking the security of iOS Safari to Adobe. And Adobe has proven to be thoroughly incompetent in securing their products. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm): "The expectation is, among the security community, that Adobe this year, in is going to surpass Microsoft as the number one target for attacks due to the continuing problems."
Adobe still thinks that quarterly updates is good enough for their software. Clueless. As security expert Steve Gibson notes: So how is that quarterly update going for you? (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-237.txt)
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF
Please explain how you can possibly ensure that not a single iOS user will not lose anything the next time there's a zero day Adobe bug (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-237.txt). You can't.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion.
See above. My arguments are rational. OTOH, you are the one who labeled Steve Jobs as a "communist dictator" in message #45 of this discussion.
That argument is purely based on emotion, it is purely nonsensical, and it is entirely wrong.
You owe the community an apology for your "communist" rant. It has no business in any rational discussion here.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on.
This is not a problem for the owners of the 120M+ iOS devices. Nobody forced them to buy an Apple iOS product. Many of them are quite happy that they never have to deal with Flash at all. If there's something they need to do, they can look in the App Store for an app to do that.
Note: despite asking you multiple times, you have yet to tell us of a SINGLE FLASH APP that doesn't have a reasonable alternative in the app store.
Millions of users on Macs AND Windows AND Linux also don't give a rat's ass about a single Flash app. They have installed click-to-flash blockers on their computers to muzzle flash.
Apple doesn't even ship Flash on their newest computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1034486&highlight=macbook+air+adobe). It's a safe bet that Apple won't ship Flash at all with 10.7 version of the OS.
Even Adobe has seen the handwriting on the wal (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999&highlight=adobe+html5)l. They are now offering code that generates HTML5 instead -- for those hundreds of millions of computers that don't offer Flash. Websites will probably cut over to that completely, because they can never tell who has muzzled their Flash apps with click-to-flash on laptops and desktop computers.
Other than a small number of legacy programmers, nobody cares about flash any more.
Those flash hangers-on have been resorting to bizarre emotional arguments -- they claim that Steve Jobs is a communist dictator (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11453056&postcount=45). That is a truly bankrupt argument -- the last gasp from those defending a dying platform.
It doesn't matter. You're not convincing anybody. Calling a CEO a communist because their product doesn't do what you think it ought to do is pretty goofy.
Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason.
You're not listening. I gave four very good -- and rational -- reasons why Flash is a bad idea for iOS. You haven't countered that reasoning. You give us things like a "communist" rant that has no business in this kind of discussion. You are the one acting in an irrational fashion here.
No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option.
If Apple did that, then they would be staking the security of iOS Safari to Adobe. And Adobe has proven to be thoroughly incompetent in securing their products. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm): "The expectation is, among the security community, that Adobe this year, in is going to surpass Microsoft as the number one target for attacks due to the continuing problems."
Adobe still thinks that quarterly updates is good enough for their software. Clueless. As security expert Steve Gibson notes: So how is that quarterly update going for you? (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-237.txt)
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF
Please explain how you can possibly ensure that not a single iOS user will not lose anything the next time there's a zero day Adobe bug (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-237.txt). You can't.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion.
See above. My arguments are rational. OTOH, you are the one who labeled Steve Jobs as a "communist dictator" in message #45 of this discussion.
That argument is purely based on emotion, it is purely nonsensical, and it is entirely wrong.
You owe the community an apology for your "communist" rant. It has no business in any rational discussion here.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on.
This is not a problem for the owners of the 120M+ iOS devices. Nobody forced them to buy an Apple iOS product. Many of them are quite happy that they never have to deal with Flash at all. If there's something they need to do, they can look in the App Store for an app to do that.
Note: despite asking you multiple times, you have yet to tell us of a SINGLE FLASH APP that doesn't have a reasonable alternative in the app store.
Millions of users on Macs AND Windows AND Linux also don't give a rat's ass about a single Flash app. They have installed click-to-flash blockers on their computers to muzzle flash.
Apple doesn't even ship Flash on their newest computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1034486&highlight=macbook+air+adobe). It's a safe bet that Apple won't ship Flash at all with 10.7 version of the OS.
Even Adobe has seen the handwriting on the wal (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999&highlight=adobe+html5)l. They are now offering code that generates HTML5 instead -- for those hundreds of millions of computers that don't offer Flash. Websites will probably cut over to that completely, because they can never tell who has muzzled their Flash apps with click-to-flash on laptops and desktop computers.
Other than a small number of legacy programmers, nobody cares about flash any more.
Those flash hangers-on have been resorting to bizarre emotional arguments -- they claim that Steve Jobs is a communist dictator (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11453056&postcount=45). That is a truly bankrupt argument -- the last gasp from those defending a dying platform.
rasmasyean
May 1, 10:26 PM
I'm kind of surprised that he was still alive.
Apparently he had long term kidney disease... I thought he would have died in a cave years ago and no-one had found his body (we haven't seen him in the media for years).
Props to the US forces.
It's certainly good news... but might not mean very much. Al Qaeda was always more of a movement or 'franchise' than a hierarchical organisation with command and control.
I still think he died a long time ago (like 10 years) and the CIA hid his body to deny martydom and ease the occuapation of Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean, how "convienient" that they "have his body" now.
Like you indicate, it doesn't mean much now, martydom or not. But if I was the CIA, hmmm...maybe it's time to shift focus to Iran in some way rather than "hunt al queda". This has also got to be good news for arms dealers.
Apparently he had long term kidney disease... I thought he would have died in a cave years ago and no-one had found his body (we haven't seen him in the media for years).
Props to the US forces.
It's certainly good news... but might not mean very much. Al Qaeda was always more of a movement or 'franchise' than a hierarchical organisation with command and control.
I still think he died a long time ago (like 10 years) and the CIA hid his body to deny martydom and ease the occuapation of Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean, how "convienient" that they "have his body" now.
Like you indicate, it doesn't mean much now, martydom or not. But if I was the CIA, hmmm...maybe it's time to shift focus to Iran in some way rather than "hunt al queda". This has also got to be good news for arms dealers.
netdog
Jul 12, 03:34 AM
I think that some of us may be overestimating the coolness of the player as the factor. While that worked in the early days, it may not now.
Apple has in their favor the fact that many people now have ripped CDs and bought protected music in Apple formats. If that base is solid enough, Urge won't fly, and hence there won't be a large installed base of protected WMA files in search of a player. If a significant number of Vista users are just starting their collection, or building on existing MP3s, there is a very strong chance that they will do the easiest thing and buy protected WMA files from Urge. This could spell disaster for Apple, particularly if Microsoft is willing to replace any protected AAC files in people's collections free of charge.
Finally, while in the early days of online music sales, it was the players and not the music downloads that drove the market, we are inevitably going to find that the players become the razor and the downloadable music the blades. Microsoft will probably price their player based on that model.
Apple has in their favor the fact that many people now have ripped CDs and bought protected music in Apple formats. If that base is solid enough, Urge won't fly, and hence there won't be a large installed base of protected WMA files in search of a player. If a significant number of Vista users are just starting their collection, or building on existing MP3s, there is a very strong chance that they will do the easiest thing and buy protected WMA files from Urge. This could spell disaster for Apple, particularly if Microsoft is willing to replace any protected AAC files in people's collections free of charge.
Finally, while in the early days of online music sales, it was the players and not the music downloads that drove the market, we are inevitably going to find that the players become the razor and the downloadable music the blades. Microsoft will probably price their player based on that model.
No comments:
Post a Comment