DCJ001
May 6, 07:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
I was about to say, "What?! And lose the Windows compatibility they bragged on so much with the Intel transition? You're kidding me!", then I remembered that Windows 8 is also rumored (confirmed?) to run on ARM.
Yes, Windows 8 will have ARM support (http://windows8news.com/2011/01/05/windows-8-arm-press-release-microsoft/).
I don't buy this rumor, though. It's too crazy.
And Apple would never do anything crazy?
Think different.
I was about to say, "What?! And lose the Windows compatibility they bragged on so much with the Intel transition? You're kidding me!", then I remembered that Windows 8 is also rumored (confirmed?) to run on ARM.
Yes, Windows 8 will have ARM support (http://windows8news.com/2011/01/05/windows-8-arm-press-release-microsoft/).
I don't buy this rumor, though. It's too crazy.
And Apple would never do anything crazy?
Think different.
ECUpirate44
Apr 9, 07:38 PM
Because there is no operand between the 2 and the (9+3).
And I agree, this is the most nonsensical thread in some time.
God bless diversions. :D
lol but still, order of operations tells you that the parentheses is done first. Wanna bet how many pages this gets up to until it dies? lol
And I agree, this is the most nonsensical thread in some time.
God bless diversions. :D
lol but still, order of operations tells you that the parentheses is done first. Wanna bet how many pages this gets up to until it dies? lol
0815
Apr 5, 02:51 PM
You seriously see this as a feature? Apple only is able to do this by signing agreements with a carrier, and being on a 1-product line. Why do you think you get that release so quickly on your AT&T iPhone? Because they don't offer a T-Mobile iPhone, nor does T-Mobile or anyone else support it (until Verizon agreed to Apple's terms)... An android device is available on any carrier, and in this country we have multiple technologies (CDMA, IDEN, GSM 1700, GSM 2100, LTE, WiMax, etc etc)... if you're comparing the iPhone which has been offered on ONE network with ONE technology (which isn't even the latest as of 2010), that's a bad comparison. Furthermore, it's not difficult to release an all-device software update when "all devices" consist of ONE device.
If you're going to make a comparison, at least make it legit.
Please recheck your math and research on how many carriers the iPhone is available WORLDWIDE - you know, the world is bigger than just the US - and all those carriers worldwide are not allowed to put any crap on it or modify it in a way that makes maintaining updates too expensive. Every iPhone User worldwide can update the same day.
Guess you don't mind waiting for a fix for a security flaw for a couple of month (even though it is already fixed in the 'open' source)
If you're going to make a comparison, at least make it legit.
Please recheck your math and research on how many carriers the iPhone is available WORLDWIDE - you know, the world is bigger than just the US - and all those carriers worldwide are not allowed to put any crap on it or modify it in a way that makes maintaining updates too expensive. Every iPhone User worldwide can update the same day.
Guess you don't mind waiting for a fix for a security flaw for a couple of month (even though it is already fixed in the 'open' source)
spiralstairs
Mar 30, 09:14 PM
iCal has been visually overhauled to look like the iPad version
Just clarifying, iCal for iPad looks like paper sitting on top of a cardboard/cork texture. This is a leather book... so maybe we'll see an iPad UI update as well?
Just clarifying, iCal for iPad looks like paper sitting on top of a cardboard/cork texture. This is a leather book... so maybe we'll see an iPad UI update as well?
anonalidall
May 7, 12:11 PM
Eric Schmidt's comments about privacy are disconcerting to me
This is after the whole Google Buzz fiasco. There's money in trying to convince people to be open. Facebook and Google data mine consumer behavior to make money and consumers need to act like they got a good education and understand where they are being used.
The assumption that those that want privacy are doing something illegal is asinine.
Zuckerberg (Facebook) on privacy (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php)
Privacy is a lot like Laws. You give it up it's hard to get back.
Hey it's not a choice for everyone. I'm just at a point in my life where $6 and some change is going to put me out especially when my online data is not being mined for profit. I've been happier than I though I would with my MobileMe account. I'm on the west coast so i'm assuming my data center is in Cali and performance has been fine.
In the interest of winding this down (and allowing this thread to get back on track :-) I'll concede that Google has made more concerning statements about privacy than Apple (and as you note, information is much more directly related to their bottom line than it is to Apple's). However, I think these are only our perceptions about the situation. I think the reality is that regardless of whether you go with Google's for-pay or Apple's for-pay cloud services you're putting yourself in another companies hands. And I think the differences between how these large companies treat their users vs. how that relates to their income is extremely small. I think it's splitting hairs to differentiate between the privacy of their Cloud offerings (Facebook being an exception).
If you want real privacy there are better ways to obtain it. I use GnuPG when I want more privacy and less convenience, otherwise anything that's unencrypted that I send out or store on the Internet I treat (somewhat) as out of my hands. Obviously I have different expectations for Gmail vs my Tweets, but I still understand the hazards of storing any unencrypted information with any company, Google or Apple.
http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/70000/4000/100/74150/74150.strip.gif
This is after the whole Google Buzz fiasco. There's money in trying to convince people to be open. Facebook and Google data mine consumer behavior to make money and consumers need to act like they got a good education and understand where they are being used.
The assumption that those that want privacy are doing something illegal is asinine.
Zuckerberg (Facebook) on privacy (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php)
Privacy is a lot like Laws. You give it up it's hard to get back.
Hey it's not a choice for everyone. I'm just at a point in my life where $6 and some change is going to put me out especially when my online data is not being mined for profit. I've been happier than I though I would with my MobileMe account. I'm on the west coast so i'm assuming my data center is in Cali and performance has been fine.
In the interest of winding this down (and allowing this thread to get back on track :-) I'll concede that Google has made more concerning statements about privacy than Apple (and as you note, information is much more directly related to their bottom line than it is to Apple's). However, I think these are only our perceptions about the situation. I think the reality is that regardless of whether you go with Google's for-pay or Apple's for-pay cloud services you're putting yourself in another companies hands. And I think the differences between how these large companies treat their users vs. how that relates to their income is extremely small. I think it's splitting hairs to differentiate between the privacy of their Cloud offerings (Facebook being an exception).
If you want real privacy there are better ways to obtain it. I use GnuPG when I want more privacy and less convenience, otherwise anything that's unencrypted that I send out or store on the Internet I treat (somewhat) as out of my hands. Obviously I have different expectations for Gmail vs my Tweets, but I still understand the hazards of storing any unencrypted information with any company, Google or Apple.
http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/70000/4000/100/74150/74150.strip.gif
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
TheBobcat
Nov 27, 08:37 AM
I just really haven't seen a compelling reason to spend the money for a tablet PC/Mac.
"You can write on it! And Take Notes!" Yeah...and? I can also spend 50 cents on a notebook and write on that too! Besides, I can type faster than I can write.
"Home automation!" Maybe, if I made over $300,000 a year and could afford the smugness of turning my lights on and off with a computer as opposed to a light switch.
I feel that a tablet to most people is just a giant PDA, and I really don't see myself using it for any other reason than that. I know there are business reasons to have tablets, like for nurses, or production people, etc., but for the average person, what's the revolution? Too much money for too little IMO.
An Apple PDA with a mobile OSX? Now we're talkin'.
"You can write on it! And Take Notes!" Yeah...and? I can also spend 50 cents on a notebook and write on that too! Besides, I can type faster than I can write.
"Home automation!" Maybe, if I made over $300,000 a year and could afford the smugness of turning my lights on and off with a computer as opposed to a light switch.
I feel that a tablet to most people is just a giant PDA, and I really don't see myself using it for any other reason than that. I know there are business reasons to have tablets, like for nurses, or production people, etc., but for the average person, what's the revolution? Too much money for too little IMO.
An Apple PDA with a mobile OSX? Now we're talkin'.
WillEH
May 2, 11:13 PM
Yes please, love things like it :)
sockdoggy
Apr 7, 06:25 PM
I don't know if I buy this whole shortage thing.
If there is such a big shortage, why aren't people/businesses creating more production plants and capitalizing on the demand (which is only getting started from the looks of it). Where there is serious demand there is serious $$$ to be made!
It seems like basic economics to me but I've been wrong before...
If there is such a big shortage, why aren't people/businesses creating more production plants and capitalizing on the demand (which is only getting started from the looks of it). Where there is serious demand there is serious $$$ to be made!
It seems like basic economics to me but I've been wrong before...
Jelite
Mar 29, 11:50 AM
Why not just use an app that lets you stream from your computer at home? why pay for online storage when you already have it?
Cobrien
Jul 30, 11:39 AM
I cant believe the problems which I have seen with phone companies in America. I have never had a dropped call in my life, my signal is almost always full and in Britain, almost every phone is available on all networks and sim free except for some phones on the 3 network.
Anyway I do hope that this phone comes out, my ROKR is shockingly bad and freezes every time I miss a call.
I also hope it will have 3G. The new RAZR has 3G which shows it doesnt have to be very bulky to use.
Anyway I do hope that this phone comes out, my ROKR is shockingly bad and freezes every time I miss a call.
I also hope it will have 3G. The new RAZR has 3G which shows it doesnt have to be very bulky to use.
kiljoy616
May 6, 02:19 AM
Very true. Listen to the man.
There's many analysts that believe ARM will supersede Intel.
Very well said, considering that right now the Cortex-A9 can do 4 core there is nothing to say that in a couple of years if not sooner they will double that.
I am not sure I can see the Pro running Arm but everything else even maybe iMac running arm of 4 or more core would make some sense. Still it a rummor and we really don't know what Intel will pull out of their bag in the next 2 years which is a long time in the tech sector.
But still possible to see Apple move completely into something not only they have control over but will make their machines so thin we will think it was magic:p
There's many analysts that believe ARM will supersede Intel.
Very well said, considering that right now the Cortex-A9 can do 4 core there is nothing to say that in a couple of years if not sooner they will double that.
I am not sure I can see the Pro running Arm but everything else even maybe iMac running arm of 4 or more core would make some sense. Still it a rummor and we really don't know what Intel will pull out of their bag in the next 2 years which is a long time in the tech sector.
But still possible to see Apple move completely into something not only they have control over but will make their machines so thin we will think it was magic:p
Yaboze
Apr 25, 09:28 AM
Steve needs to provide a better answer because this one makes him look like a liar.
Ok, so there's a DB on your phone and the computer it syncs to. How do we know it's not being used in some nefarious way? Why isn't it regularly wiped?
I ran the app on my Macbook and it showed where I was since I had the phone....it was scary...:eek:
Ok, so there's a DB on your phone and the computer it syncs to. How do we know it's not being used in some nefarious way? Why isn't it regularly wiped?
I ran the app on my Macbook and it showed where I was since I had the phone....it was scary...:eek:
tuna
Mar 29, 08:56 AM
Dang... I feel like $80 a month is a LOT of money for 1TB of space. Especially when you can pay $70 ONCE and get your own 1TB drive.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822324041&cm_re=1tb-_-22-324-041-_-Product
Of course there are many benefits of having your data "in the cloud," but I think their prices are way too high.
The price is actually amazing. MobileMe is $100/year for 20GB. Amazon is $20/year for the same storage plus Amazon is running a promotion through the end of the year where if you buy a digital album from Amazon, you get 1 free year of 20GB of storage.
Dropbox is $100/year for 50GB or $200/year for 100GB. Amazon is now offering storage for half those prices. This is going to be devastating for Dropbox since they actually run their entire system off of Amazon Web Services.
Cloud storage isn't comparable to buying a hard drive. Cloud storage includes redundancy, bandwidth, and syncing tools that add a lot of value. Plus of course the electricity and servers processing power necessary to access the hard drives.
I hope that Amazon either copies Dropbox's syncing technology or otherwise buys them out and integrates it. Dropbox is already amazing. At half the price its even better.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822324041&cm_re=1tb-_-22-324-041-_-Product
Of course there are many benefits of having your data "in the cloud," but I think their prices are way too high.
The price is actually amazing. MobileMe is $100/year for 20GB. Amazon is $20/year for the same storage plus Amazon is running a promotion through the end of the year where if you buy a digital album from Amazon, you get 1 free year of 20GB of storage.
Dropbox is $100/year for 50GB or $200/year for 100GB. Amazon is now offering storage for half those prices. This is going to be devastating for Dropbox since they actually run their entire system off of Amazon Web Services.
Cloud storage isn't comparable to buying a hard drive. Cloud storage includes redundancy, bandwidth, and syncing tools that add a lot of value. Plus of course the electricity and servers processing power necessary to access the hard drives.
I hope that Amazon either copies Dropbox's syncing technology or otherwise buys them out and integrates it. Dropbox is already amazing. At half the price its even better.
hexor
Apr 26, 03:06 PM
Let's not forget, Apple iOS encompasses more then just iPhones. If you included the iPad and iPod Touch which both run Apple iOS then Apple's market share is still ahead of Android.
digitalfx
Mar 30, 07:31 PM
I can confirm that Preview 2 works w/ the 2011 MBPs.
is TRIM working w 2011 mbp's?
is TRIM working w 2011 mbp's?
BWhaler
Sep 15, 07:59 PM
I thought I could wait out the move to Intel for some time since my PowerBook is less than a year old.
But it's just not going to happen. The speed jump is simply too great.
I'm waiting at this point for the update. Painfully waiting.
I don't really care about the C2D processor, since most reviews are it is a bland chip without the Santa Rosa chip set. Better, sure enough, but not enough to care about.
But, what I really need is:
1. 160gig drive
2. Much better GPU
3. Apple to fix the quality and heat issues.
Everything else is just a nice to have in my book.
But it's just not going to happen. The speed jump is simply too great.
I'm waiting at this point for the update. Painfully waiting.
I don't really care about the C2D processor, since most reviews are it is a bland chip without the Santa Rosa chip set. Better, sure enough, but not enough to care about.
But, what I really need is:
1. 160gig drive
2. Much better GPU
3. Apple to fix the quality and heat issues.
Everything else is just a nice to have in my book.
Seryph
Mar 31, 06:24 AM
Sounds just like some bloke from Apple. Snow Leopard's the last of the true desktop OS's. Lion is the bridge, and whatever follows will either be primarily iOS, or so close it's of little consequence. I'm so glad I hung onto my 2010 MBP.
Let's not forget it was the iPod that saved Apple and marked it's beginning as a gadget & entertaiment company. I had a nasty feeling then it would mark the decline of Apples great computers & here we are. How ironic it is that most people are unaware that a Brit actually invented the iPod and like so many other things, Apple stole the thing and ran with it. True "innovators" at Apple, yeah right.
Please educate me - I am apparently one of the ironically unaware people. Who invented the iPod? Are you talking about MP3 players in general, or specifically the iPod with scroll wheel, white design etc? Or are you just talking about Jonny Ive? I am intrigued by this fact that you are aware of but most other people aren't.
I would also argue that Apple aren't necessarily innovators, but what they do better than anyone else is spot the Next Big Thing and then manage to make it look so good and work so well that it becomes incredibly popular. This was the case with the MP3 player, the smartphone, touchscreens, tablets... and those are just the primary examples.
Let's not forget it was the iPod that saved Apple and marked it's beginning as a gadget & entertaiment company. I had a nasty feeling then it would mark the decline of Apples great computers & here we are. How ironic it is that most people are unaware that a Brit actually invented the iPod and like so many other things, Apple stole the thing and ran with it. True "innovators" at Apple, yeah right.
Please educate me - I am apparently one of the ironically unaware people. Who invented the iPod? Are you talking about MP3 players in general, or specifically the iPod with scroll wheel, white design etc? Or are you just talking about Jonny Ive? I am intrigued by this fact that you are aware of but most other people aren't.
I would also argue that Apple aren't necessarily innovators, but what they do better than anyone else is spot the Next Big Thing and then manage to make it look so good and work so well that it becomes incredibly popular. This was the case with the MP3 player, the smartphone, touchscreens, tablets... and those are just the primary examples.
genetechnics
Jul 30, 06:14 AM
Without even getting into new things, they could just do it well. Cell phones have interfaces like goats. Every single one of them.
David:cool:
So we need cell computers.
http://geocities.com/gene_technics
David:cool:
So we need cell computers.
http://geocities.com/gene_technics
rtharper
Sep 11, 09:19 AM
It won't be updated tomorrow. But it will probably be updated as soon as later this week. Boo freaking hoo already, is it really that big a deal to wait a few days. And here's the big question: IS DELL EVEN SHIPPING MEROM LAPTOPS YET?
No, but they're not playing games with my rather fragile heart =(
No, but they're not playing games with my rather fragile heart =(
Mister Snitch
Apr 5, 02:47 PM
Hey, Toyota HAD to pull the plug. Rumor has it that Apple was going to counter with a 'hijack a Toyota' campaign!
kiljoy616
Apr 20, 12:42 AM
So this is more of the Snow Leopard like refresh not much changed but what a difference it made ;) I for one will be upgrading to a much faster dual core :D better video and of course an antenna that does not have the grip of death thingy.
I am sure someone will vice grip the iPhone 4S (5) to death even if they fix the problem out of obsession. :)
I am sure someone will vice grip the iPhone 4S (5) to death even if they fix the problem out of obsession. :)
JoeG4
Apr 5, 08:51 PM
Sarcasm online is fun. But you do realize this is correct for software or other media, and not true for hardware. Right?
You own the piece of hardware, but you only have a license that gives you the right to use the software that is required to operate the hardware.
The catch, is unlike computers - the hardware in many new devices (phones, routers, TVs, etc), is highly proprietary and the manufacturers of the chips refuse to release any white papers/information sheets on how to program for the chip.
In other words, you couldn't port Linux to the iPhone if you wanted to. Apple could pull a page out of Motorola's book and make a chip that bricks itself in the face of unsigned, 3rd party hardware.
Look at the depths Sony is going to in order to keep people from Linux on the PS3 now.
In a sense, you really DON'T own the hardware in these situations. Frankly, I'm surprised Apple even bothers to sell iPhones, they should just put them out on 2 year leases and then claim the phone back at the end.
You own the piece of hardware, but you only have a license that gives you the right to use the software that is required to operate the hardware.
The catch, is unlike computers - the hardware in many new devices (phones, routers, TVs, etc), is highly proprietary and the manufacturers of the chips refuse to release any white papers/information sheets on how to program for the chip.
In other words, you couldn't port Linux to the iPhone if you wanted to. Apple could pull a page out of Motorola's book and make a chip that bricks itself in the face of unsigned, 3rd party hardware.
Look at the depths Sony is going to in order to keep people from Linux on the PS3 now.
In a sense, you really DON'T own the hardware in these situations. Frankly, I'm surprised Apple even bothers to sell iPhones, they should just put them out on 2 year leases and then claim the phone back at the end.
k2k koos
Nov 23, 07:05 PM
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/6825/2003902622332125549_rs.jpg
Is this the phone that all telemarketing firms are going to use, calling you up at random trying to sell you something you don't want? Say a Palm treo?
Is this the phone that all telemarketing firms are going to use, calling you up at random trying to sell you something you don't want? Say a Palm treo?
0 comments:
Post a Comment