Squonk
Nov 14, 09:40 AM
so then... maybe...
flyPod?
... just a thought.
I like that! :cool:
flyPod?
... just a thought.
I like that! :cool:
monaarts
Apr 5, 08:39 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
The area around the home button looks unusual.
I agree that it's likely a fake.
That's because it is capacitive, meaning it is a surface that senses the ouch, not an actual button.
The area around the home button looks unusual.
I agree that it's likely a fake.
That's because it is capacitive, meaning it is a surface that senses the ouch, not an actual button.
joegolo
Apr 1, 01:06 PM
After cutting my cable TV 3 months ago I've been using Netflix and haven't looked back! I considered getting Hulu Plus, but didn't see the value in it. I barely even watch Hulu free anymore (all my free episodes are expiring to Plus now). Occasionally I can't find anything "good" to watch, but it's great for watching older TV shows in HD. Been burning through Arrested Development :D
bloodycape
Sep 25, 11:20 PM
Kind of reminds me of how Monster Cable went after everything that had the word monster in it, like the movie Monsters INC., Monster.com and others.
more...
IntelliUser
May 2, 12:42 PM
Martyr.
BC2009
Mar 25, 11:07 AM
Exactly, for those folks who think Kodak was just a film company you're totally off base. They had the diversity but not the vision to adjust to the transition and ended up wholesale auctioning their future. Kinda what we're doing as a country right now.
Kodak believed that their "customers" were the drug stores that did the film developing -- and those drug stores hated the idea of digital photography. So instead of focusing on the their real customers (i.e.: those who used their camera and film) they played to the whims of the drug stores and the entire digital revolution passed them by.
Funny though, one of the best cameras we ever had for producing decent photos was the one that used their magnetic film and showed you what the picture you just took looked like on a little LCD screen. If you did not like the picture you could mark it for "do not develop" and then take another. You saved money on developing bad photos this way and you were still using film (albeit a new kind of film). I can still remember the commercial for that camera with the young couple visiting in Italy trying to get different locals to take photos of them in a specific spot so they could make it look just like an old photo they had of one of their parents in the same spot from decades earlier. Each photo that turned out wrong was marked to not be developed and then they would try again until they got the perfect shot. Funny how they did not see that digital photography accomplished the same thing but in a better way. They really missed the boat.
Kodak believed that their "customers" were the drug stores that did the film developing -- and those drug stores hated the idea of digital photography. So instead of focusing on the their real customers (i.e.: those who used their camera and film) they played to the whims of the drug stores and the entire digital revolution passed them by.
Funny though, one of the best cameras we ever had for producing decent photos was the one that used their magnetic film and showed you what the picture you just took looked like on a little LCD screen. If you did not like the picture you could mark it for "do not develop" and then take another. You saved money on developing bad photos this way and you were still using film (albeit a new kind of film). I can still remember the commercial for that camera with the young couple visiting in Italy trying to get different locals to take photos of them in a specific spot so they could make it look just like an old photo they had of one of their parents in the same spot from decades earlier. Each photo that turned out wrong was marked to not be developed and then they would try again until they got the perfect shot. Funny how they did not see that digital photography accomplished the same thing but in a better way. They really missed the boat.
more...
hayesk
Mar 28, 09:37 AM
From that price, you can better buy a Mac and watch it in QuikTime... :)
I could also buy groceries for three months, but I don't see what that has to do with this being a Developer conference. Seriously people, this is a developer conference, not a consumer product showcase.
I could also buy groceries for three months, but I don't see what that has to do with this being a Developer conference. Seriously people, this is a developer conference, not a consumer product showcase.
Nomadski
Jan 6, 04:51 PM
Apart from the streaming fail, Garmin are way too late to the party. Even when everyone was criticising TomTom, I went and bought it and it (for me) is the ultimate GPS navigator. Free map and service updates, no streaming involved, full multitasking support, been flawless in its navigation, accurate in its info (time of arrival is almost always spot on) and there's traffic when I want it for longer journeys, albeit not free.
The mapping display also doesn't look like a Scooby Doo 'toon unlike the Garmin app, judging from these screenshots...
The mapping display also doesn't look like a Scooby Doo 'toon unlike the Garmin app, judging from these screenshots...
more...
gwangung
Mar 25, 09:47 AM
Only thing worse than patent lawyers are people dissing the area, given that they know neither a) the law, nor b) the specific patent being dicussed.
Talk about being aggresively ignorant...
Talk about being aggresively ignorant...
itcheroni
Apr 10, 04:56 AM
All right, let me rephrase that: government funds plenty of things, like libraries and parks, that aren't "necessary" but wanted. If you want to keep the argument on the federal level, substitute your own examples, including national parks. (Remember Bush trying to push them towards privatization?)
If you have a balanced budget, and you suddenly unbalance it with tax cuts, the difference between revenue loss and spending is pretty much a matter of semantics. You had the money, and now you don't. At least when you spend it on a service, you expect to get something for it.
Maybe one of the problems with House Republicans is that they don't think of tax cuts that they can't afford as spending.
I was wondering when the rich were screaming about parks. Never mind, it's not important.
I believe the crucial difference is that you believe when government taxes and spends the money on a service, it's better than not taxing at all. Do you believe in any exceptions to this rule?
If you have a balanced budget, and you suddenly unbalance it with tax cuts, the difference between revenue loss and spending is pretty much a matter of semantics. You had the money, and now you don't. At least when you spend it on a service, you expect to get something for it.
Maybe one of the problems with House Republicans is that they don't think of tax cuts that they can't afford as spending.
I was wondering when the rich were screaming about parks. Never mind, it's not important.
I believe the crucial difference is that you believe when government taxes and spends the money on a service, it's better than not taxing at all. Do you believe in any exceptions to this rule?
more...
harley3k
Mar 23, 03:06 PM
This would greatly improve the usability of airplay, in my opinion.
Imagine you had your TV on some random channel, while surfing the internet on your iPad. If your TV supported AirPlay, then you could just click the Airplay button on your iPad, and the random channel would be changed to the Airplay content. You wouldn't have to change the tuners over to Apple TV. Much more convenient.
Exactly.
Fumbling for a different remote to change the input-channel on the TV is currently a minor barrier to using it. Especially when you just want to show a photo or something quickly.
This also falls in line with Steve Jobs' own comments about AppleTV when he said "No one wants another box".
Imagine you had your TV on some random channel, while surfing the internet on your iPad. If your TV supported AirPlay, then you could just click the Airplay button on your iPad, and the random channel would be changed to the Airplay content. You wouldn't have to change the tuners over to Apple TV. Much more convenient.
Exactly.
Fumbling for a different remote to change the input-channel on the TV is currently a minor barrier to using it. Especially when you just want to show a photo or something quickly.
This also falls in line with Steve Jobs' own comments about AppleTV when he said "No one wants another box".
gauchogolfer
Sep 26, 12:35 PM
Personally, I can't see how Apple could be seen to be the good guys in this case, given they're sending cease-and-desist letters to people using 'pod' (not "iPod") in their product names.
I'm actually reversing myself here, now that I've gotten a chance to read it. This isn't a true C&D letter, in fact, they're only opening up a dialog. Also, the pod reference is specific to content loaded onto portable media players, not 'pod' in general. Seems reasonable to me.
I'm actually reversing myself here, now that I've gotten a chance to read it. This isn't a true C&D letter, in fact, they're only opening up a dialog. Also, the pod reference is specific to content loaded onto portable media players, not 'pod' in general. Seems reasonable to me.
more...
Alisstar
Mar 13, 04:35 PM
iPhone 4 here with iOS 4.3 installed. No issues to report with the clock.
nicroma
Mar 26, 06:55 PM
Who honestly cares? Lame. I saw a black guy and a mexican guy chatting outside a bookstore yesterday. Let's focus on that.
I wonder if the mexican was getting info to write his "ese"? :p
I wonder if the mexican was getting info to write his "ese"? :p
more...
Mac-Addict
Oct 26, 08:59 AM
Anybody there now? Any crowds?
I am here right now the place is packed no queue yet. Will keep you guys updated, OMG Leopard rules
EDIT: Time machine is ddisabled on all machines sorry for spelling mistakes I really am to busy to worry xD And this MBPs keyboard kinda sucks
I am here right now the place is packed no queue yet. Will keep you guys updated, OMG Leopard rules
EDIT: Time machine is ddisabled on all machines sorry for spelling mistakes I really am to busy to worry xD And this MBPs keyboard kinda sucks
j_maddison
Jan 4, 12:28 PM
I was really looking forward to this, but not having the maps on the device is a no go for me. I ditched tom tom in favour of a stand alone Garmin years ago and haven't looked back since. I'm currently using navigon on the iPhone as my Garmin unit is a bit flakey these days.
Sort it out Garmin please! Hopefully this will be rectified before the app is available in the Uk store..... I hope anyway
Sort it out Garmin please! Hopefully this will be rectified before the app is available in the Uk store..... I hope anyway
more...
nylonsteel
Apr 5, 09:27 AM
ah - good ol woz - the funny aapl family uncle
macduke
Dec 28, 09:16 AM
Haha, I can already see the next Verizon ad! This is pathetic. Surely Apple has worked out a deal with another carrier for 2010? At least AT&T doesn't completely suck where I work and play. Well, except my mother-in-laws house, which really sucks because what else am I supposed to do there? They don't even have wifi. I should have bought them a router for Christmas.
wrxguy
Sep 18, 09:18 PM
Is this a joke or what? Are people that work in retail different to the rest of us? Am I missing something here?
its like hes wondering if they speak a different language lol...
its like hes wondering if they speak a different language lol...
TheMacBookPro
Apr 25, 08:20 AM
Thunderbolt will solve this. TB to Gigabit Ethernet adapter will definitely deliver 1Gb/s (800Mb/s due to 8/10b encoding).
Still, my point stands- you need to purchase another adapter, carry it around, and have it dangle off your computer when a simple internal ethernet port would solve the problem.
They should, at the very least, bundle it with a 1k+ computer (like they used to).
Still, my point stands- you need to purchase another adapter, carry it around, and have it dangle off your computer when a simple internal ethernet port would solve the problem.
They should, at the very least, bundle it with a 1k+ computer (like they used to).
theheadguy
Mar 23, 04:23 PM
The military and the Army has had a "dialogue" with Apple for years... pretty much every project involving a piece of field equipment has gone to another manufacturer because of durability concerns.
This is absolutely correct.
Hmmm... increasing their fashion sense in case Don't Ask Don't Tell is repealed?
I guess that puts you in the same category as those you are making fun of.
This is absolutely correct.
Hmmm... increasing their fashion sense in case Don't Ask Don't Tell is repealed?
I guess that puts you in the same category as those you are making fun of.
jeremiah256
Apr 28, 02:17 PM
wtf? :confused:
Creepy.
Sorry, it should have been 'pretty face'. See post #6. Didn't mean to freak you out!
Creepy.
Sorry, it should have been 'pretty face'. See post #6. Didn't mean to freak you out!
shecky
Oct 17, 09:45 AM
* snip *
i actually think apple will probably come up with something that takes existing features/wants/needs of current smartphones/3G phones/etc. and defines/redefines the category somehow, much the way the iPod, while still doing things other players did when it was released, defined all HD based players after it.
maybe it will be the Home on iPod thing, maybe it will be some kind of remote access to your .mac iCals, or maybe it will just be form factor, (or any number of things, those are just off the top of my head) but i would be willing to bet it is NOT just an iPod that makes calls, or a phone that plays music.
not sure what, but something.
i actually think apple will probably come up with something that takes existing features/wants/needs of current smartphones/3G phones/etc. and defines/redefines the category somehow, much the way the iPod, while still doing things other players did when it was released, defined all HD based players after it.
maybe it will be the Home on iPod thing, maybe it will be some kind of remote access to your .mac iCals, or maybe it will just be form factor, (or any number of things, those are just off the top of my head) but i would be willing to bet it is NOT just an iPod that makes calls, or a phone that plays music.
not sure what, but something.
rdowns
Apr 8, 10:17 AM
How selfish and arrogant of Obama to say he'll veto any further extensions. The House already passed a 1 week extension yesterday. And now we're facing a shutdown because Obama wants to stamp his feet like a whiny child.
These greedy left-wingers refusing to cut the fat out of the budget are going to force financial hardship on hundreds of thousands of people if there's a shut-down. They need to put their arrogance aside for a moment, and realize that the budget has to be fixed. now. $Trillions in debt? And they want to spend more on bull #$%& social programs? Talk about clueless. When you're this far in debt, you can't afford to flush more money down the toilet on controversial programs like NPR, Planned Parenthood, etc.
The paltry few cuts they've agreed to so far, is as if I made $50k a year, spent $90k a year, had $1 million in credit card debt and thought I could fix everything by no longer going out to dinner a few times a month. What a joke. :rolleyes:
Your rant would be pretty good if it contained any truth.
What controversial about women health issues? No federal money is used for abortions; that's been the law of the land for quite some time. Why do the Republicans keep bringing it up? This isn't about the budget, it's about ideology.
Both sides are disingenuous but the Republicans are much worse.
These greedy left-wingers refusing to cut the fat out of the budget are going to force financial hardship on hundreds of thousands of people if there's a shut-down. They need to put their arrogance aside for a moment, and realize that the budget has to be fixed. now. $Trillions in debt? And they want to spend more on bull #$%& social programs? Talk about clueless. When you're this far in debt, you can't afford to flush more money down the toilet on controversial programs like NPR, Planned Parenthood, etc.
The paltry few cuts they've agreed to so far, is as if I made $50k a year, spent $90k a year, had $1 million in credit card debt and thought I could fix everything by no longer going out to dinner a few times a month. What a joke. :rolleyes:
Your rant would be pretty good if it contained any truth.
What controversial about women health issues? No federal money is used for abortions; that's been the law of the land for quite some time. Why do the Republicans keep bringing it up? This isn't about the budget, it's about ideology.
Both sides are disingenuous but the Republicans are much worse.
0 comments:
Post a Comment