TheManOfSilver
Sep 4, 07:12 PM
Apple's entry into the living room is way overdue (the mini only barely counts since it doesn't have real media center/pvr capabilities). I've been waiting for 2 years for them to do with the living room what they have done with the MP3 player.
I can't think of a better combo than a 23" iMac in my office wirelessly linked to a media-box in my living room that will allow me to record and watch TV, stream downloaded movies from my PC to my TV, stream my iTunes library to my stereo, and show my iPhotos without a second computer.
I can't think of a better combo than a 23" iMac in my office wirelessly linked to a media-box in my living room that will allow me to record and watch TV, stream downloaded movies from my PC to my TV, stream my iTunes library to my stereo, and show my iPhotos without a second computer.
CANEHDN
Aug 23, 05:28 PM
Creative's stock up 30% in after-hours trading. The $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Apple, but it will certainly help Creative...
Which is probably why they sued. Knowing they are running out of cash, they figured "Let's jump on the bandwagon and sue someone".
Which is probably why they sued. Knowing they are running out of cash, they figured "Let's jump on the bandwagon and sue someone".
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 14, 07:00 PM
Well, it would surprise me. USB3.0 and Thunderbolt will come included in Intel''s Ivy Bridge. Apple would have to add more hardware and disable USB 3.0 to make it 2.0 only. Makes zero cents.
They wouldn't have to add more hardware. USB3.0 is backwards compatible with 2.0. They would only have to disable 3.0 protocols somehow. Given they need a driver to make the hardware work this wouldn't be at all difficult, IMO; they have shipped iPhones with 802.11N hardware and limited it to G protocol/speeds so they already have a history of doing such things so I wouldn't put it past them. I KNOW if they got Blu-Ray drives somehow included with their hardware (i.e. only thing available), they would STILL not support it except in DVD/CD mode. Apple will do what they think is best for them NO MATTER WHAT. They don't give a flying rat's hind end about what the consumer wants. Steve thinks he knows better than anyone and he has a whole army of groupies telling him he's right so how on earth could he ever imagine otherwise?
They wouldn't have to add more hardware. USB3.0 is backwards compatible with 2.0. They would only have to disable 3.0 protocols somehow. Given they need a driver to make the hardware work this wouldn't be at all difficult, IMO; they have shipped iPhones with 802.11N hardware and limited it to G protocol/speeds so they already have a history of doing such things so I wouldn't put it past them. I KNOW if they got Blu-Ray drives somehow included with their hardware (i.e. only thing available), they would STILL not support it except in DVD/CD mode. Apple will do what they think is best for them NO MATTER WHAT. They don't give a flying rat's hind end about what the consumer wants. Steve thinks he knows better than anyone and he has a whole army of groupies telling him he's right so how on earth could he ever imagine otherwise?
bdkennedy1
Sep 14, 06:51 AM
Whatever. Why would Apple base its phone technology on the first generation Nano that scratched too much? The headline should have read, "Apple Phone Concept Revealed".
KnightWRX
Apr 19, 06:55 AM
The phone's look is indeed very similar.
Of course, Samsung's Android phone has many additional items such as their pulldown notification shade with built-in radio and orientation lock controls... which many people would love for Apple to copy.
The tablet is a different matter, and doesn't have the same look.
But that's the thing, this simply can't be about "look and feel" since the precedents on that are firmly established by Apple vs Microsoft where Apple lost the whole "look and feel" part of the suit.
Like you asked in the other thread, someone with access to PACER could list the infringing patents Apple is claiming so we can get some insight into what exactly Samsung is infringing upon ?
The screenshot showing the App Drawer on the Samsung phone is quite disingenuous, and makes it look like TouchWiz is a rip off of the iOS Home screen, but the home screen isn't anything like that. That's a pull up menu of apps you have installed, how else would they represent it seeing how the icon grid has been standard for years before the iPhone came along and is standard also in other Android based devices ?
Also, I doubt Apple has a patent on icon grids.
Until we have more details on this lawsuit and until Samsung responds with something more than veiled threats in the media from "unidentified officials", I don't think this is quite worth making a temptest and throwing hate around, to either player (calling Samsung's Galaxy phone, the best selling Android device, KIRF and calling Apple sue-happy and scared).
Of course, Samsung's Android phone has many additional items such as their pulldown notification shade with built-in radio and orientation lock controls... which many people would love for Apple to copy.
The tablet is a different matter, and doesn't have the same look.
But that's the thing, this simply can't be about "look and feel" since the precedents on that are firmly established by Apple vs Microsoft where Apple lost the whole "look and feel" part of the suit.
Like you asked in the other thread, someone with access to PACER could list the infringing patents Apple is claiming so we can get some insight into what exactly Samsung is infringing upon ?
The screenshot showing the App Drawer on the Samsung phone is quite disingenuous, and makes it look like TouchWiz is a rip off of the iOS Home screen, but the home screen isn't anything like that. That's a pull up menu of apps you have installed, how else would they represent it seeing how the icon grid has been standard for years before the iPhone came along and is standard also in other Android based devices ?
Also, I doubt Apple has a patent on icon grids.
Until we have more details on this lawsuit and until Samsung responds with something more than veiled threats in the media from "unidentified officials", I don't think this is quite worth making a temptest and throwing hate around, to either player (calling Samsung's Galaxy phone, the best selling Android device, KIRF and calling Apple sue-happy and scared).
Hodapp
Sep 26, 04:10 PM
Why Cingular?
They do not alow you to unlock their phones - even after their contract has expired. They think there is usa and nothing else. If you travel - you are screwed - roam on our network (or go to hell)! They are useless for anyone who travels beyond canada or hawaii(ok - thats only 15% of americans)
I have had Five different Cingular phones since Cellular One became Cingular and they switched their network to GSM. I've been given the unlock code for every one of my devices from little more than a phone call to customer service.
A little kindness goes a long way when dealing with a customer support agent who has spent all day dealing with the retards who are posting in this thread about how hard Cingular has "screwed them over" in the past. I think people just like playing the victim role when it comes to telco conglomerates because it's chic to be in the circle-jerk complainers crew on the blogosphere.
They do not alow you to unlock their phones - even after their contract has expired. They think there is usa and nothing else. If you travel - you are screwed - roam on our network (or go to hell)! They are useless for anyone who travels beyond canada or hawaii(ok - thats only 15% of americans)
I have had Five different Cingular phones since Cellular One became Cingular and they switched their network to GSM. I've been given the unlock code for every one of my devices from little more than a phone call to customer service.
A little kindness goes a long way when dealing with a customer support agent who has spent all day dealing with the retards who are posting in this thread about how hard Cingular has "screwed them over" in the past. I think people just like playing the victim role when it comes to telco conglomerates because it's chic to be in the circle-jerk complainers crew on the blogosphere.
AngryCorgi
Mar 29, 11:25 AM
Here were their illuminating predictions in Jan 2010. :rolleyes:
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS22176610
Key findings from a new IDC market outlook include the following:
%IMG_DESC_8%
%IMG_DESC_9%
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS22176610
Key findings from a new IDC market outlook include the following:
Papajohn56
Mar 23, 04:47 PM
Chuck Schumer is one of the worst senators we have.
Avalontor
Apr 28, 07:27 PM
<snip>
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
Kingsly
Aug 31, 06:42 PM
iPod for sale by Kingsly. :p :D
No, really. Im selling mine in anticipation of this event.
No, really. Im selling mine in anticipation of this event.
roland.g
Sep 13, 11:48 PM
the iPhone will be cool.
But until then this is the best slider phone.
Nokia 8801
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=57461
But until then this is the best slider phone.
Nokia 8801
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=57461
bassfingers
Apr 17, 01:06 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
OR we can take away every incentive to be productive (France) and have a GDP smaller than the interest payments on the national debt (France in 2020)
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over.?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
No kidding right?
My buddy and I went boarding 2 days ago and he dislocated his finger (looked bad as it was all bent funny)
Anyways, took him to the clinic and was charged 1300 bucks to put it back into place and he doesnt have health insurance
Heaven forbid one needs surgery or broke a leg or anything more than dislocating a finger....would need a few million stashed away
Or perhaps a steady job mingled in with some tort reform, or a private charity willing to foot the bill if he were unemployed.
However, I don't know if boarding is the best option when you're unemployed
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Ridiculous? Not quite, from the parent's perspective.
In Canada we have 12 months maternity leave, which can be taken by either spouse, or split, 6 months/6 months.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
Or maybe in that transaction I'll get to use the government as a middle man via taxes, and I'll end up spending %30 more in order to maintain its inefficiency
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
OR we can take away every incentive to be productive (France) and have a GDP smaller than the interest payments on the national debt (France in 2020)
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over.?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
No kidding right?
My buddy and I went boarding 2 days ago and he dislocated his finger (looked bad as it was all bent funny)
Anyways, took him to the clinic and was charged 1300 bucks to put it back into place and he doesnt have health insurance
Heaven forbid one needs surgery or broke a leg or anything more than dislocating a finger....would need a few million stashed away
Or perhaps a steady job mingled in with some tort reform, or a private charity willing to foot the bill if he were unemployed.
However, I don't know if boarding is the best option when you're unemployed
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Ridiculous? Not quite, from the parent's perspective.
In Canada we have 12 months maternity leave, which can be taken by either spouse, or split, 6 months/6 months.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
Or maybe in that transaction I'll get to use the government as a middle man via taxes, and I'll end up spending %30 more in order to maintain its inefficiency
darthcarto
Mar 29, 12:34 PM
As someone who used a Samsung Focus for 5 long, painful months, only to switch back to my old 3GS this past weekend, I say: "Umm... NO!" I don't see that happening.
Huntn
Apr 25, 09:22 AM
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
There is vision and there is execution. Our democratic system of zigging and zagging every 4 to 8 years is hurting us. And no one involved in running government even when conservatives with the stated intent of dismantling government seems to be able to remove the inefficiencies.
I see 3 paths:
1. Anarchy- no government
2. Minimalist government- handles very basics of infrastructure and laws and enforcement. When it comes to social economic issues, every person for them selves.
3. Caretaker government- takes care of everything for us.
I think we should be somewhere between #2 and 3, however this is based on an efficient government which can be argued is an oxymoron. ;) When people in economic power display morals, then less regulation is needed, otherwise you need to regulate the hell out of them. For the last 30 years we have been sliding into the realm of pure unadulterated greed. If you don't have a people oriented government acting as the referee, then you'll find yourself right back in the 1800s with the little people holding up the barrons and Captains of Industry upon their shoulders. That is not equitable imo.
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
There is vision and there is execution. Our democratic system of zigging and zagging every 4 to 8 years is hurting us. And no one involved in running government even when conservatives with the stated intent of dismantling government seems to be able to remove the inefficiencies.
I see 3 paths:
1. Anarchy- no government
2. Minimalist government- handles very basics of infrastructure and laws and enforcement. When it comes to social economic issues, every person for them selves.
3. Caretaker government- takes care of everything for us.
I think we should be somewhere between #2 and 3, however this is based on an efficient government which can be argued is an oxymoron. ;) When people in economic power display morals, then less regulation is needed, otherwise you need to regulate the hell out of them. For the last 30 years we have been sliding into the realm of pure unadulterated greed. If you don't have a people oriented government acting as the referee, then you'll find yourself right back in the 1800s with the little people holding up the barrons and Captains of Industry upon their shoulders. That is not equitable imo.
holycat
Sep 12, 03:10 PM
a liTTLe bit disappointed...:mad: :mad:
i wiLL still buy this 80Gb iPod with the iMac 24`:p :p
my 1st iPod and 1st Mac machine
i wiLL still buy this 80Gb iPod with the iMac 24`:p :p
my 1st iPod and 1st Mac machine
NeroAZ
Apr 4, 12:42 PM
I was born and raised in San Diego, and yes I've been to Chula Vista (Chula Juana), and National City (Nasty City), scummy areas near the Tijuana border. I'm NOT at all surprised by this.
I'm sure some locals of those scummy areas may chime in.
That being said, it really doesn't specify in the article, but a lot of the Apple stores I've been to have off duty cops standing by the doors during business hours, not sure about before they open.
I'm sure some locals of those scummy areas may chime in.
That being said, it really doesn't specify in the article, but a lot of the Apple stores I've been to have off duty cops standing by the doors during business hours, not sure about before they open.
Farthen
May 3, 12:23 PM
I'm chasing the 32GB RAM option (http://blog.saers.com/archives/2011/05/03/new-mid-2011-imacs-and-32gb-ram/) for the 27" iMac
Be careful! Those RAM modules from Amazon are full size DIMM modules. The iMac needs the smaller SO-DIMM modules though - they won't fit.
Be careful! Those RAM modules from Amazon are full size DIMM modules. The iMac needs the smaller SO-DIMM modules though - they won't fit.
Slix
Apr 28, 08:40 PM
Go Apple! :D
Prof.
Mar 23, 04:59 PM
And nothing could make me care as I remember the old saying "sticks and stones..." unlike our oversensitive posters. I am in no way in favor of irresponsible behavior or drunk driving, but making tasteless jokes is neither and harms nobody.
That's not the point, it's about having respect for those who are no longer with us.
That's not the point, it's about having respect for those who are no longer with us.
CheeseFrog
Mar 23, 05:53 PM
I actually agree. Pull 'em. It may be censorship, but it's dangerous not to.
I strongly disagree. I often have to transport my infant during the evening hours on weekends and rely on a similar app to plot the safest route to my destination. I WANT to know which streets have been "sanitized" of drunk drivers just so I can take them. My cargo is too precious to risk otherwise. This app is for our SAFETY.
I strongly disagree. I often have to transport my infant during the evening hours on weekends and rely on a similar app to plot the safest route to my destination. I WANT to know which streets have been "sanitized" of drunk drivers just so I can take them. My cargo is too precious to risk otherwise. This app is for our SAFETY.
kiljoy616
Apr 11, 02:39 AM
Care to actually show me what app that will actually do what I was talking about? :rolleyes:
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
So for some unknown reason you want to send airplay from your phone to your ipad? Or have well lets see apple tv netflix send the movie to your iphone right is this it is this what your so wanting?
Maybe Android has just what your looking for? :p
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
So for some unknown reason you want to send airplay from your phone to your ipad? Or have well lets see apple tv netflix send the movie to your iphone right is this it is this what your so wanting?
Maybe Android has just what your looking for? :p
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 12:02 PM
The resolution stayed the same on the 13" Pro. The 13" Air has a higher resolution, but perhaps that's to preserve a selling point. I don't think the Sandy Bridge IGP would have any difficulty driving the 1440x900 display.
You don't think ? Seriously people, we had 1440x900 displays 10 years ago, on GPUs that had about 1% the graphics processing power of today and about a tenth of the RAM.
Heck, the 9400M could power external 30" monitors at their native resolution of 2560x1600 at the same time it powered in the laptop's internal display of 1280x800 without breaking a sweet.
What's so hard to grasp that the MBP's resolution staying at 1280x800 has nothing to do with the GPU in SB ? :confused:
Have you guys never used computers 10 years ago ? CRT monitors at 1600x1200 ring a bell to anyone but me here ?
You don't think ? Seriously people, we had 1440x900 displays 10 years ago, on GPUs that had about 1% the graphics processing power of today and about a tenth of the RAM.
Heck, the 9400M could power external 30" monitors at their native resolution of 2560x1600 at the same time it powered in the laptop's internal display of 1280x800 without breaking a sweet.
What's so hard to grasp that the MBP's resolution staying at 1280x800 has nothing to do with the GPU in SB ? :confused:
Have you guys never used computers 10 years ago ? CRT monitors at 1600x1200 ring a bell to anyone but me here ?
skunk
Apr 11, 01:15 PM
Because its **** as it doesn't have straightforward unit conversions and because everyone else in the world other than the US (and for a small number of things the UK) uses metric.I use metric feet.
apfhex
Nov 13, 03:22 PM
In a sense, yes. The rules for iPhone development are different than for Mac OS X.
Except in this case, they still didn't break the rules. Nothing in the SDK prohibits what they did. (Gruber's reply (http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation) to Jeff LaMarche sums it up very nicely — I know it's already been linked to be I think it needs repeating)
YES, Apple can reject an app for any reason they see fit. But this is getting ridiculous. I haven't cared about any of the apps made by developers that have so far jumped ship, but one of these days it is going to be one of the ones I care about, and I'm not looking forward to it.
Except in this case, they still didn't break the rules. Nothing in the SDK prohibits what they did. (Gruber's reply (http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation) to Jeff LaMarche sums it up very nicely — I know it's already been linked to be I think it needs repeating)
YES, Apple can reject an app for any reason they see fit. But this is getting ridiculous. I haven't cared about any of the apps made by developers that have so far jumped ship, but one of these days it is going to be one of the ones I care about, and I'm not looking forward to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment