tsugaru
Mar 22, 03:15 PM
Ha ha ha ha! GTX 560 ti! Youre a funny guy! Apple always fails on it's GPU choices. :(
Hey. A boy can dream, right?
Remember when Apple put the latest and greatest GPUs in their computers? /looks back to the blue and white G3 keynote
Hey. A boy can dream, right?
Remember when Apple put the latest and greatest GPUs in their computers? /looks back to the blue and white G3 keynote
cvaldes
Mar 29, 11:19 AM
I predict that in 2015, iOS handset users will still have the highest customer satisfaction and that Apple will be walking away with the lion's share of the smartphone industry's profits.
Meaning there will be more grumpy non-iPhone users and more grumpy HTC/Nokia/Samsung/Motorola/LG shareholders.
Meaning there will be more grumpy non-iPhone users and more grumpy HTC/Nokia/Samsung/Motorola/LG shareholders.
Frisco
Oct 12, 01:33 PM
Who cares what color an iPod is. Shouldn't really matter. Color does not affect funtionality. What matters is what is on the inside.
iPod Political correctness :cool:
iPod Political correctness :cool:
twostep665
Apr 4, 12:06 PM
Was It really necessary to kill him?
No
Actually, yes it was necessary. He was trying to protect his own life.
No
Actually, yes it was necessary. He was trying to protect his own life.
noservice2001
Oct 12, 03:26 PM
i started singing "sunday, bloody sunday" in class today.... really random as i dont really listen to U2...
and who is oprey? u mean oprah?
and who is oprey? u mean oprah?
PeterKG
Apr 4, 12:52 PM
Very sad. Someone lost their life over something so trivial. And sad that the guard has to live with knowing he took a life. :(
It is amazing just how many times this same stupid comment has been made in this thread. Why do people have to regurgitate the same thing over and over?
Why is is sad a criminal dies while firing at a guard. Why is it sad a person who knows the consequences of carrying a weapon while attempting to rob a store? You play with fire and get burned. Nothing sad about it.
Kudos for the guard for protecting himself. He can sleep at night knowing he is not instead DEAD.
It is amazing just how many times this same stupid comment has been made in this thread. Why do people have to regurgitate the same thing over and over?
Why is is sad a criminal dies while firing at a guard. Why is it sad a person who knows the consequences of carrying a weapon while attempting to rob a store? You play with fire and get burned. Nothing sad about it.
Kudos for the guard for protecting himself. He can sleep at night knowing he is not instead DEAD.
longofest
Apr 4, 11:59 AM
OMG.. I'm with Felt. "Security Guards" shouldn't carry guns, and if they do there should be training and good sense that goes into using it. Shooting the suspects in the head is criminal.
I've dealt with armed security guards before. The ones that I dealt with do in fact have a couple days of mandatory training per year.
That being said, if the security guard's life was being threatened (for sake of argument, lets say it was, as we do know the robbers were armed), why would it be "criminal" to shoot them in the head?
I've dealt with armed security guards before. The ones that I dealt with do in fact have a couple days of mandatory training per year.
That being said, if the security guard's life was being threatened (for sake of argument, lets say it was, as we do know the robbers were armed), why would it be "criminal" to shoot them in the head?
SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:34 AM
Man, stop it with the cloud service already. :rolleyes: You can't rely on the internet availability for listening to music. It's unreliable. Plus, the streaming will probably be low resolution, drain battery life, eat into data caps, not display lyrics, and generally be a crappy experience. If I wanted to stream, I can do it from my home computer where my music already resides with one of the 100 apps already available and not have to fight through all the bandwidth issues that are probably gonna result from Apple's side. What's the point? I can do this now.
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
Good points made. Like I complained about, cellular data connectivity when out and about isn't very reliable and then there is data caps.
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
Good points made. Like I complained about, cellular data connectivity when out and about isn't very reliable and then there is data caps.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:34 PM
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
carmenodie
Apr 19, 07:04 AM
this to me is soooo damn stupid.
Apple buys 5.3 billion in parts from Sammy then sue them for copying(allegedly) their design. Whatever man.
Apple buys 5.3 billion in parts from Sammy then sue them for copying(allegedly) their design. Whatever man.
gnasher729
Mar 29, 12:10 PM
IDC seems to assume that anyone who would have walked into a store and bought a Nokia smartphone (with Symbian) will now walk into the store and still buy a Nokia smartphone (with WP7 this time).
"Smartphones" covers a huge range of different phones. iOS and Android cover the higher end, Symbian covered the lower end. In the future, building the hardware for a "smartphone" instead of a dumb phone will become cheaper; as a result, many people not interested in the capabilities of a smartphone at all will buy one by default; that will make the smartphone market grow. That is also what makes Apple's iPhone market share shrink: Apple's sales are growing, the market share among _all_ phones is growing, but because the percentage of smart phones among all phones is growing from say 20% to 90%, the market share among smart phones is going down.
But why would a former Nokia customer buy WP7? IDC assumes this will happen by default; they bought Nokia before, they bought Nokia again. But Nokia doesn't have the same product anymore. If the customer can't get something similar to what they had before, they are free to look _anywhere_. And WP7 can't beat Android on price (because of the license fees fees Nokia has to pay to Microsoft), and WP7 can't beat iOS on quality. I can't see any former Nokia customer deciding that a Nokia WP7 phone will be the best they can get for their money.
Seems believable...all those people that bought Nokia phones obviously did not care that Symbian was outdated. Why will they not buy Nokia with a much modern OS under the hood?
At some point Nokia had the best phones; then they messed it all up. People kept buying Nokia phones in shrinking numbers because they remembered Nokia's good reputation. That reputation is now gone. And there is still a bit of desert ahead of Nokia until they have WP7 phones for sale; that isn't going to help.
"Smartphones" covers a huge range of different phones. iOS and Android cover the higher end, Symbian covered the lower end. In the future, building the hardware for a "smartphone" instead of a dumb phone will become cheaper; as a result, many people not interested in the capabilities of a smartphone at all will buy one by default; that will make the smartphone market grow. That is also what makes Apple's iPhone market share shrink: Apple's sales are growing, the market share among _all_ phones is growing, but because the percentage of smart phones among all phones is growing from say 20% to 90%, the market share among smart phones is going down.
But why would a former Nokia customer buy WP7? IDC assumes this will happen by default; they bought Nokia before, they bought Nokia again. But Nokia doesn't have the same product anymore. If the customer can't get something similar to what they had before, they are free to look _anywhere_. And WP7 can't beat Android on price (because of the license fees fees Nokia has to pay to Microsoft), and WP7 can't beat iOS on quality. I can't see any former Nokia customer deciding that a Nokia WP7 phone will be the best they can get for their money.
Seems believable...all those people that bought Nokia phones obviously did not care that Symbian was outdated. Why will they not buy Nokia with a much modern OS under the hood?
At some point Nokia had the best phones; then they messed it all up. People kept buying Nokia phones in shrinking numbers because they remembered Nokia's good reputation. That reputation is now gone. And there is still a bit of desert ahead of Nokia until they have WP7 phones for sale; that isn't going to help.
tpavur
Apr 4, 12:09 PM
"So Live and Let Die!"
You shoot their leg, they shoot you in the head.
Anyone who points a gun at another person is asking for trouble, even if he/she doesn't fire it.
If guns didn't exist, things like this wouldn't be happening.
If guns did not exist it would be happening with whatever does. swords, rocks, fists... in which case the mall cop would have probably been killed in this situation and lost the "good fight". It becomes a game of numbers when guns do not exist... all guns do is put everybody on a level playing field regarldess of numbers (be realistic) or physical strength.
You shoot their leg, they shoot you in the head.
Anyone who points a gun at another person is asking for trouble, even if he/she doesn't fire it.
If guns didn't exist, things like this wouldn't be happening.
If guns did not exist it would be happening with whatever does. swords, rocks, fists... in which case the mall cop would have probably been killed in this situation and lost the "good fight". It becomes a game of numbers when guns do not exist... all guns do is put everybody on a level playing field regarldess of numbers (be realistic) or physical strength.
duncan989
Sep 26, 12:07 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)
T-mobile are far and away the best carrier in the US. They dont have the most up to date phones - but they let you un lock after 90 days - and if you speak nicely to them ,(I told em I was going on business trip to Brazil) they do it earlier.
I asked a cingular rep if they had the unlock code for my cell. She said "No, but we have Blue-TEETH" I kid you not. They are as bad as At&T. They are only interested in screwing the customer!
If Apple go CIngular - I wont buy one - if they open it up to tmobile, I will.
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)
T-mobile are far and away the best carrier in the US. They dont have the most up to date phones - but they let you un lock after 90 days - and if you speak nicely to them ,(I told em I was going on business trip to Brazil) they do it earlier.
I asked a cingular rep if they had the unlock code for my cell. She said "No, but we have Blue-TEETH" I kid you not. They are as bad as At&T. They are only interested in screwing the customer!
If Apple go CIngular - I wont buy one - if they open it up to tmobile, I will.
OllyW
Apr 19, 01:31 PM
Wow. That does look like an early Galaxy S (dark chrome bezel to boot!). Interesting find.
Apple copied the front facing camera 3 years later. :D
Apple copied the front facing camera 3 years later. :D
BlizzardBomb
Sep 12, 02:14 PM
Exactly what I'm hoping.. I bought my 5G like 3 weeks ago, the only real difference is the software, I don't use videos enough to notice the brighter screen.
Pretty sure new iPod is still classed as 5G.
iPod games are compatible with fifth generation iPods only
Pretty sure new iPod is still classed as 5G.
iPod games are compatible with fifth generation iPods only
milbournosphere
Apr 20, 12:53 PM
The data is stored on YOUR phone and YOUR laptop ... Apple does not have a centralized database with that data - it is all on your devices.
Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction...after reading some more, you are correct. Gotta RTFA next time.:o
Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction...after reading some more, you are correct. Gotta RTFA next time.:o
cube
Mar 30, 01:26 PM
It looks descriptive to you because there is an App Store for your Mac and there is an App Store for the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. If Apple hadn't invented the term "App Store" and used it for its super successful site, you would never have heard the term, and you wouldn't know what it means.
Yes, you know what an "app store" means if you know what an "app" means.
Does an "app" mean an Apple program?
As others have pointed out (repeatedly), Windows does actually refer to what you call 'Programs' as applications. For example, right click on a 'program' shortcut. On the short-cut, what does it say for the "target type?"
Since you seem to have trouble reading so-far, I'll give you a hint: it says "Application."
It's been this way since <at least> Windows XP.
It's doesn't matter what MS calls it. There's a class of programs everywhere called "applications". There's no other name for it.
Applications are a strict subset of programs.
Yes, you know what an "app store" means if you know what an "app" means.
Does an "app" mean an Apple program?
As others have pointed out (repeatedly), Windows does actually refer to what you call 'Programs' as applications. For example, right click on a 'program' shortcut. On the short-cut, what does it say for the "target type?"
Since you seem to have trouble reading so-far, I'll give you a hint: it says "Application."
It's been this way since <at least> Windows XP.
It's doesn't matter what MS calls it. There's a class of programs everywhere called "applications". There's no other name for it.
Applications are a strict subset of programs.
prady16
Sep 5, 07:44 AM
No, no, no! The iPod is for mobile entertainment. The media device is for the living room. Nothing mutually exclusive about these at all.
The possibilities are just too many.... iPhone, MediaCenter, touch-screen 10" ipod..... I guess we just have to wait for 12th September!
Any idea if we can watch live streaming of the event on the Internet?
The possibilities are just too many.... iPhone, MediaCenter, touch-screen 10" ipod..... I guess we just have to wait for 12th September!
Any idea if we can watch live streaming of the event on the Internet?
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 14, 09:26 AM
There is no way in hell that they will introduce laptops at this event.
Period.
I have repeated that a couple of times already...doesnt help.
Period.
I have repeated that a couple of times already...doesnt help.
n-abounds
Sep 8, 09:00 AM
Because I don't know much about computers- can Leopard run on just Core Duo processors or does it need to be Core 2 Duo?
Leopard will even run on PowerPC macs.
Leopard will even run on PowerPC macs.
winmacguy
Aug 23, 11:56 PM
A little-known company, and that was to create it's product. If apple buys one of their largest competitors, that will raise a few eyebrows.
Philips Electronics of Holland was one of the companies that turned down the offer to develop the predecessor of the iPod from its creator.
Philips Electronics of Holland was one of the companies that turned down the offer to develop the predecessor of the iPod from its creator.
JMP
Apr 30, 07:06 PM
I love internet tough guys.
That makes two of us.
That makes two of us.
PhatBoyG
May 3, 11:54 AM
Surely I'm not the only one who's noticed that the i7 is slower than the i5, and that the Radeon HD 6970M is slower than the 6750M.
Whaaaaa? :confused:
The baselines are different when you click the different models. The 6970M is most definitely faster than the 6750M.
Whaaaaa? :confused:
The baselines are different when you click the different models. The 6970M is most definitely faster than the 6750M.
Benjy91
Apr 19, 07:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
You'd buy their products just because they opposed Apple? I buy products because I like them, hence a Samsung HDTV, Xbox 360, Sony Vaio Laptop, iPhone 4 and iPad.
One of my friends will not buy a piece of clothing if its cheaper than $50. (except underwear obviously) He could spot a shirt he liked, run over, and see it was $40, and he'd say "It's too cheap"
Where I would go, "Hey that shirt looks good"
4% doesn't sound like financial suicide to me. Though I do believe that Samsung would probably try to avoid losing that 4%.
Apple would probably find someone else for parts, but the question is if the quality/price would be the same. If I was a parts manufacturer, I would take advantage of this, knowing Apple is in desperate need of new parts. Cha-ching!!!!
Losing out on $142 billion in 1 deal, just to spite someone makes sense, if the CEO is 12.
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
You'd buy their products just because they opposed Apple? I buy products because I like them, hence a Samsung HDTV, Xbox 360, Sony Vaio Laptop, iPhone 4 and iPad.
One of my friends will not buy a piece of clothing if its cheaper than $50. (except underwear obviously) He could spot a shirt he liked, run over, and see it was $40, and he'd say "It's too cheap"
Where I would go, "Hey that shirt looks good"
4% doesn't sound like financial suicide to me. Though I do believe that Samsung would probably try to avoid losing that 4%.
Apple would probably find someone else for parts, but the question is if the quality/price would be the same. If I was a parts manufacturer, I would take advantage of this, knowing Apple is in desperate need of new parts. Cha-ching!!!!
Losing out on $142 billion in 1 deal, just to spite someone makes sense, if the CEO is 12.
No comments:
Post a Comment