Manic Mouse
Sep 11, 08:51 AM
I really think they should have a seperate app for the movies/tv shows, or rename and overhaul iTunes. Making things too complicated and hard to use is something Apple strives against and by incorperating too much functionality into a MUSIC player will make it hard to use and confusing for customers. iTunes, strangely, should be for "tunes". It makes no sense, at least from the name, to think that there would be movies/tv shows in there.
Why not take the DVD-player app in OSX and turn that into the new TV show/Movie player (as well as DVDs) while iTunes plays MP3/CDs. That makes much more sense. You should also be able to rip DVD's though this new app as you would CDs in iTunes.
Why not take the DVD-player app in OSX and turn that into the new TV show/Movie player (as well as DVDs) while iTunes plays MP3/CDs. That makes much more sense. You should also be able to rip DVD's though this new app as you would CDs in iTunes.
trrosen
May 7, 11:48 AM
Free services are worth every cent you pay.
For those that whine about the price just try to get a legitimate IMAP email service for under $100 a year. Gmail and hotmail don't count, as by legitimate I mean that your address doesn't automatically make people think of SPAM. Free email equals source of SPAM.
Added all up and mix in its integration with Mac, Iphone and iApps Mobile me is a steal at less than $6 a month.
Oh and a two letter email address is priceless.
Now if they just made syncing and find my iPhone free with the full service as an paid upgrade. sort of a freemium model. that could work.
For those that whine about the price just try to get a legitimate IMAP email service for under $100 a year. Gmail and hotmail don't count, as by legitimate I mean that your address doesn't automatically make people think of SPAM. Free email equals source of SPAM.
Added all up and mix in its integration with Mac, Iphone and iApps Mobile me is a steal at less than $6 a month.
Oh and a two letter email address is priceless.
Now if they just made syncing and find my iPhone free with the full service as an paid upgrade. sort of a freemium model. that could work.
ericinboston
Mar 28, 10:58 AM
Not cool. Coming from an iPhone 3GS, I seriously don't want to wait.
Same here...I don't need it Day 1 but I don't want to wait till 2012 when my contract expires in Sept...I can go month-to-month but was really looking forward to a phone with more storage and better video/camera. By Sept/Oct there will be a lot of Androids to try...ditto for 2012.
I also want to see sometime this year a new iPod Classic and maybe a new Mini. iMac would be nice but they are still too pricey for my blood since 90% of the stuff I/we use our computers for are web-driven tasks (email, bills, web surfing, photo sharing, family blogs/website, etc).
Same here...I don't need it Day 1 but I don't want to wait till 2012 when my contract expires in Sept...I can go month-to-month but was really looking forward to a phone with more storage and better video/camera. By Sept/Oct there will be a lot of Androids to try...ditto for 2012.
I also want to see sometime this year a new iPod Classic and maybe a new Mini. iMac would be nice but they are still too pricey for my blood since 90% of the stuff I/we use our computers for are web-driven tasks (email, bills, web surfing, photo sharing, family blogs/website, etc).
mcrain
Apr 15, 09:02 AM
Do you think there are any negative consequences to this? If I were starting a business and seeking investors, it would sure be a lot harder to get investors when the capital gains rate is 35% rather than 15%. That business would never materialize. Nobody's going to complain about it though because no one can see what could have been.
No.
Capital gains do NOT stand in the way of investment in business. Why? Because capital gains ONLY apply to the gains realized upon the SALE of the shares or ownership interest in the company. That sale has ZERO effect on the business' profit, capitalization, available resources, etc... That sale ONLY might have an effect on the value of the shares of the company in the hands of other investors. That's what is called the secondary market.
What you are talking about is the initial offering of the shares by the company in which the company is looking to exchange ownership, and everything that goes with it, for capital investment.
One of the things that goes with ownership, and one of the two primary reasons people invest, is a share of profits. If a potential business has a good business plan, a good product and will make money, people will invest in it. When it makes money, that income is taxed as ordinary income when distributed, or if kept without re-investment, as business income. This money is NOT taxed as capital gain!
The second profit motive for investment is the idea that the success of the business will generate demand for ownership, thus increasing the value of ownership on the secondary market. This could lead to capital gains if you choose to sell your ownership interest.
Higher taxes result in businesses that choose to reinvest and increase their operations rather than distributing money to its owners. This causes increases in value, increases in operations, increases in hiring, increases in economic impact, etc...
Higher taxes result in investors choosing businesses that are increasing in value, generating higher income rates, operating in riskier, but higher yield, fields, etc...
Capital gains don't prevent investment, they merely affect how much tax is paid on the sale of an investment you have held for over one year.
No.
Capital gains do NOT stand in the way of investment in business. Why? Because capital gains ONLY apply to the gains realized upon the SALE of the shares or ownership interest in the company. That sale has ZERO effect on the business' profit, capitalization, available resources, etc... That sale ONLY might have an effect on the value of the shares of the company in the hands of other investors. That's what is called the secondary market.
What you are talking about is the initial offering of the shares by the company in which the company is looking to exchange ownership, and everything that goes with it, for capital investment.
One of the things that goes with ownership, and one of the two primary reasons people invest, is a share of profits. If a potential business has a good business plan, a good product and will make money, people will invest in it. When it makes money, that income is taxed as ordinary income when distributed, or if kept without re-investment, as business income. This money is NOT taxed as capital gain!
The second profit motive for investment is the idea that the success of the business will generate demand for ownership, thus increasing the value of ownership on the secondary market. This could lead to capital gains if you choose to sell your ownership interest.
Higher taxes result in businesses that choose to reinvest and increase their operations rather than distributing money to its owners. This causes increases in value, increases in operations, increases in hiring, increases in economic impact, etc...
Higher taxes result in investors choosing businesses that are increasing in value, generating higher income rates, operating in riskier, but higher yield, fields, etc...
Capital gains don't prevent investment, they merely affect how much tax is paid on the sale of an investment you have held for over one year.
jonharris200
Jul 21, 02:28 PM
At this rate, I'll never buy another Mac for fear it'll be out of date tomorrow! :eek:
iphone3gss
May 6, 12:14 AM
I can't think of a worse idea!
Grimace
Aug 3, 10:52 PM
I think the negative votes were from those who wanted Steve to announce Merom in updated Macs on Monday and not wait until September...
J E D
Mar 29, 10:43 AM
This sounds like dropbox basically, although it has more space, but no ios intigration.
I can't reccommend dropbox enough - I can't believe I only signed up a few months ago. iphone app is great.
http://db.tt/W6sK2Xj
If you haven't checked it out then do so!
I can't reccommend dropbox enough - I can't believe I only signed up a few months ago. iphone app is great.
http://db.tt/W6sK2Xj
If you haven't checked it out then do so!
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
StyxMaker
Apr 20, 11:44 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
the iOS rly needs a revamp, its getting really boring and dated after owning 3 generations. where r the damn widgets still and what use does lockscreen have if u cant add anything (jailbreak excluded)
oh and get rid of that glass back ... what fool thought its a good idea. mine is sooo scratched but at least not yet shattered like so many others ik
next phone might be a android after all
What are you people doing to scratch your phones so much? I don't use a case with my iPhone 4, carry it in my pocket (sometimes with my car keys) and there's not a noticeable scratch on the front or back.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
the iOS rly needs a revamp, its getting really boring and dated after owning 3 generations. where r the damn widgets still and what use does lockscreen have if u cant add anything (jailbreak excluded)
oh and get rid of that glass back ... what fool thought its a good idea. mine is sooo scratched but at least not yet shattered like so many others ik
next phone might be a android after all
What are you people doing to scratch your phones so much? I don't use a case with my iPhone 4, carry it in my pocket (sometimes with my car keys) and there's not a noticeable scratch on the front or back.
RestlessDeviant
Apr 26, 04:41 PM
I've been sitting on a **** windows mobile phone for about 2 years & decided to upgrade about 3 months ago & decided to wait for iphone5.
I buy macbooks & I'm not a mid / late cycle buyer & don't mind waiting for something good.
However Apple lost my custom today. All these stories about putting the release date back and rumors about a 'small' update.....
I ain't hanging around to find out. Just ordered a Galaxy S II
Android here i come.
I buy macbooks & I'm not a mid / late cycle buyer & don't mind waiting for something good.
However Apple lost my custom today. All these stories about putting the release date back and rumors about a 'small' update.....
I ain't hanging around to find out. Just ordered a Galaxy S II
Android here i come.
Riemann Zeta
Mar 27, 11:40 AM
Yay let us all surrender our privacy to the cloud... Sometimes I feel like the only one that understands the long term implications cloud based computer has when we allow our content and log files on others' servers. Thankfully I know I'm not the only one though.
Nope, not the only one. Boo to the cloud and everything related to it. I'd rather not have all of my data on a massive public server, available to Apple, advertisers and any government agency at all times. Those claiming that "it's encrypted" are not fully appreciating the security implications of not having control over the implementation of said encryption. For example, SSL/HTTPS is "encrypted" as well, but since Certificate Authorities give signed master-key certificates to all government intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it isn't technically 100% secure (despite mathematically unbreakable encryption).
Taking off the tin-foil hat and simply thinking about economics: I still don't understand how cloud computing is actually going to become a dominant market force. There are now only 3 wireless providers in the US, forming a tight oligopoly, and all of them are incredibly stingy with data caps and limitations. Moreover, there are only a handful of unique internet providers in the US and all are cutting client bandwidth, raising prices and instituting throttling or monthly data caps. So it would seem that big software companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google are pushing the idea of streaming everything; but internet providers only want to supply bandwidth for their own cable TV services. Something just doesn't add up. How is one supposed to have no local storage and just stream music and video when their wireless connection only allows for 2GB/month and their home ISP throttles everything other than its own cable TV service?
Nope, not the only one. Boo to the cloud and everything related to it. I'd rather not have all of my data on a massive public server, available to Apple, advertisers and any government agency at all times. Those claiming that "it's encrypted" are not fully appreciating the security implications of not having control over the implementation of said encryption. For example, SSL/HTTPS is "encrypted" as well, but since Certificate Authorities give signed master-key certificates to all government intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it isn't technically 100% secure (despite mathematically unbreakable encryption).
Taking off the tin-foil hat and simply thinking about economics: I still don't understand how cloud computing is actually going to become a dominant market force. There are now only 3 wireless providers in the US, forming a tight oligopoly, and all of them are incredibly stingy with data caps and limitations. Moreover, there are only a handful of unique internet providers in the US and all are cutting client bandwidth, raising prices and instituting throttling or monthly data caps. So it would seem that big software companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google are pushing the idea of streaming everything; but internet providers only want to supply bandwidth for their own cable TV services. Something just doesn't add up. How is one supposed to have no local storage and just stream music and video when their wireless connection only allows for 2GB/month and their home ISP throttles everything other than its own cable TV service?
snberk103
May 6, 11:27 AM
I can understand the intuitive justification of this argument, but I'd like to see something more rigorous before I accept it. My own intuitive sense is that learning measurement systems, while important to early child development, don't, in of themselves (i.e., imperial or metric), have a causal relationship with math and science success (or failure) in school. I think there are other much stronger factors to success in math and engineering. One example: "male malaise" in the UK and the USA (a general problem in elementary and secondary schools); also, public school math programs are not rigorous and set the bar relatively low.
Tell you what ..... you go and find 20 kids in grade 3 or 4. Teach 10 of them how to multiply 3 13/16" by 3, and then teach the other 10 how to multiply 96.8 by 3. Then see how many from each group decide to take up social work, or teaching history, becoming a ski instructor as a profession :D.
Tell you what ..... you go and find 20 kids in grade 3 or 4. Teach 10 of them how to multiply 3 13/16" by 3, and then teach the other 10 how to multiply 96.8 by 3. Then see how many from each group decide to take up social work, or teaching history, becoming a ski instructor as a profession :D.
Truffy
Jan 12, 09:45 AM
There is no reason to put anti-virus software on your Mac!
It will not protect you from anything that is out there.
Sophos may be a reputable company or it may not be but you do not need this and it can only harm your system and promote a business that feeds on fear.
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
This is quite ignorant on a number of levels:
1. Trojans do exist for OSX, although unless you're logged in as admin (and who routinely operates their Mac like that? :rolleyes:) the request to install should alert you to something wrong.
2. Security through obscurity is no security at all, especially as OSX and iOS become more mainstream.
3. If you send files to friends, relations, or business colleagues with a less fortunate computing experience it would be playing nice not to pass on nasties to them.
Even Apple seems to think so, or is ClamXav no longer installed by default on OSX (server)?
It will not protect you from anything that is out there.
Sophos may be a reputable company or it may not be but you do not need this and it can only harm your system and promote a business that feeds on fear.
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
This is quite ignorant on a number of levels:
1. Trojans do exist for OSX, although unless you're logged in as admin (and who routinely operates their Mac like that? :rolleyes:) the request to install should alert you to something wrong.
2. Security through obscurity is no security at all, especially as OSX and iOS become more mainstream.
3. If you send files to friends, relations, or business colleagues with a less fortunate computing experience it would be playing nice not to pass on nasties to them.
Even Apple seems to think so, or is ClamXav no longer installed by default on OSX (server)?
poppe
Aug 4, 12:04 AM
Please apple what ever you do. Don't leave me stuck with a Merom MBP at 2.16... we need the 2.33!!
strausd
Mar 31, 09:59 AM
Hey Devs, any info on TRIM support for Lion?
Ya I am wondering this too, especially for non-Apple SSDs.
Ya I am wondering this too, especially for non-Apple SSDs.
deputy_doofy
Jul 21, 03:36 PM
Maybe I'm out in right field with this suggestion, but how about a further separation between the black Macbook and the white, other than color?
Macbooks (white) - Yonah and integrated graphics (960?)
Macbook (black) - Merom and the new integrated graphics (965???)
That would certainly justify the black's higher cost and would give it more of a punch to be that PB 12" replacement.
Macbooks (white) - Yonah and integrated graphics (960?)
Macbook (black) - Merom and the new integrated graphics (965???)
That would certainly justify the black's higher cost and would give it more of a punch to be that PB 12" replacement.
archipellago
Apr 26, 04:41 PM
What's that got to do with anything?
it s called
'Straw Clutching'
in simple terms the Android 'deal' offers much more for less outlay (in some cases 50%+ less outlay)
both from a hardware and software point of view.
..and the new ASUS transformer tablet will show the real reasons Jobs didn't want flash to succeed!
it s called
'Straw Clutching'
in simple terms the Android 'deal' offers much more for less outlay (in some cases 50%+ less outlay)
both from a hardware and software point of view.
..and the new ASUS transformer tablet will show the real reasons Jobs didn't want flash to succeed!
-aggie-
May 4, 12:15 PM
so now we have to wait until mscriv tells you his intentions?
this could take a while. he's probably busy torturing flies or sommthing ;)
We can spend our time insulting him until then. :)
this could take a while. he's probably busy torturing flies or sommthing ;)
We can spend our time insulting him until then. :)
Full of Win
Apr 20, 12:49 AM
I wonder if AT&T will bump up the upgrade window? Mine is in Jan 2012, which would be ~4 months shy of the release date for the phone.
SpaceKitty
Nov 19, 01:00 AM
Hi SpaceKitty
We are currently working on getting additional screenshots for it. When they are ready, I will post them in the Official Magellan Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=823017) Thank you!
Excellent! Thanks for the reply.
We are currently working on getting additional screenshots for it. When they are ready, I will post them in the Official Magellan Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=823017) Thank you!
Excellent! Thanks for the reply.
AaronEdwards
Apr 26, 04:03 PM
Right and what is your point?
If they weren't making money they would be sold off or shut down. They are high end cars sold to the rich. But let me guess you are stupid to buy an over priced Apple or iProduct right? Just like anyone that buys a BMW, Ferrari or Porsche is dumb. What is dumb is thinking one product is better than another. What is better, the iPhone, Android or a Star Tec? I guess if the only thing I want to do is make phone calls my old Star Tec is the best if it still works. My point is it depends on what your needs are.
About that guess. I didn't argue that it's dumb to buy an Apple product. Nor that it's dumb to buy a Ferrari or Porsche. Nice try.
My point was that they are now owned or mergining with other companies. Porsche had a �9 billion debt. They weren't making enough money. I bet they were worrying about the future though.
If they weren't making money they would be sold off or shut down. They are high end cars sold to the rich. But let me guess you are stupid to buy an over priced Apple or iProduct right? Just like anyone that buys a BMW, Ferrari or Porsche is dumb. What is dumb is thinking one product is better than another. What is better, the iPhone, Android or a Star Tec? I guess if the only thing I want to do is make phone calls my old Star Tec is the best if it still works. My point is it depends on what your needs are.
About that guess. I didn't argue that it's dumb to buy an Apple product. Nor that it's dumb to buy a Ferrari or Porsche. Nice try.
My point was that they are now owned or mergining with other companies. Porsche had a �9 billion debt. They weren't making enough money. I bet they were worrying about the future though.
Popeye206
Apr 18, 03:12 PM
I love the negative comments... you don't even know the details of the lawsuit and what IP Apple is trying to protect. You do know, that is the whole point of patenting things is so you can protect it.
Obviously, there are companies out there that are patent trolls, but a company trying to protect IP is different and valid if they have a valid claim.
It's good to see Apple doing it so soon. Some companies like the recent Kodak lawsuit against Apple and others, looks valid, but they waited years until their were millions of devices out there using their IP. That is low.
If Apple gets damages based on Tab sales, they'll probably see $20 from the suit! :p
Obviously, there are companies out there that are patent trolls, but a company trying to protect IP is different and valid if they have a valid claim.
It's good to see Apple doing it so soon. Some companies like the recent Kodak lawsuit against Apple and others, looks valid, but they waited years until their were millions of devices out there using their IP. That is low.
If Apple gets damages based on Tab sales, they'll probably see $20 from the suit! :p
Nuvi
May 7, 01:47 PM
Most people don't understand the fundamental differences between iDisk and Drop Box. If Apple was to build a front end to iDisk that stored the file locally and then sync'd over WebDAV in the background they'd be able to offer the same performance.
Hope this helps.
Eh... iDisk is stored locally then synced in the background. When you work on your iDisk files you edit the local file on HD which is then synced to the cloud. Sorry mate but I guess you fall into category of people who don't understand the fundamental difference between iDisk and Drop Box. iDisk file transfer speed is dead slow and Drop Box is fast...
Hope this helps.
Eh... iDisk is stored locally then synced in the background. When you work on your iDisk files you edit the local file on HD which is then synced to the cloud. Sorry mate but I guess you fall into category of people who don't understand the fundamental difference between iDisk and Drop Box. iDisk file transfer speed is dead slow and Drop Box is fast...
