thelookingglass
Mar 30, 09:15 AM
I like the competition, and the cloud concept is definitely promising, but I don't think this is a solution I want. Call me pessimistic, but I don't want to rely on another entity for access to my own information. I don't want to store all my music and movies "in the cloud" and hope there is no complications. Rather, what I want is to be able to access my home computer via the cloud, but if all else fails, it's still saved on my home computer, not some remote server I can't access
The ironic thing is your data is probably safer in the cloud (where there is adequate redundancy in multiple geographic locations) than just simply sitting on your home computer.
The ironic thing is your data is probably safer in the cloud (where there is adequate redundancy in multiple geographic locations) than just simply sitting on your home computer.
alvindarkness
Apr 10, 11:40 AM
In my opinion-
48/2(9+3) = 288
48/(2(9+3)) = 2
To make it clear you could write it with ( ... )^-1 like a real man! :D
Agreed.
48/2(9+3) = 288
48/(2(9+3)) = 2
To make it clear you could write it with ( ... )^-1 like a real man! :D
Agreed.
powers74
Apr 5, 01:09 PM
Wow, didn't see that one coming.
wovel
Apr 25, 10:55 AM
So Steve is saying there is no database of locations? Thats just an outright lie.
Steve did not actually say anything. Someone said he did, MR decided it must be fact. The ease with which these headers can be faked or even fake mails can be be put ion gmail boxes was shown conclusively last year.
These stories should have a much more pronounced disclaimer.
Steve did not actually say anything. Someone said he did, MR decided it must be fact. The ease with which these headers can be faked or even fake mails can be be put ion gmail boxes was shown conclusively last year.
These stories should have a much more pronounced disclaimer.
lazyrighteye
Apr 21, 03:44 PM
Mac Pro rumors still strike me as odd any more.
How far are we from that line fading into the sunset?
My how times have changed... ;)
How far are we from that line fading into the sunset?
My how times have changed... ;)
tipdrill407
Aug 7, 10:03 PM
Uh, that's the point: you shouldn't have to 'pay more' - it should be standard, and shouldn't raise the price-point, if other manufacturers can do it.
I don't get the apologists who defend every questionable component from Apple by saying 'well, I don't want to pay extra in the base price' (for a reasonable amount of RAM or for a decent videocard) - demand more from Apple.
Ask why you can't have a $2500 flagship desktop with a graphics card that didn't cost Apple $40, why Apple can't eat the extra $45 to offer their consumer items with a usable amount of RAM standard.
The base model offers more than enough features for a pro to work blazingly fast. The graphics card is adequate for A LOT of things, except maybe hardcore gaming. But again Apple never intended the Mac Pro to be used for shooting ppl.
I don't get the apologists who defend every questionable component from Apple by saying 'well, I don't want to pay extra in the base price' (for a reasonable amount of RAM or for a decent videocard) - demand more from Apple.
Ask why you can't have a $2500 flagship desktop with a graphics card that didn't cost Apple $40, why Apple can't eat the extra $45 to offer their consumer items with a usable amount of RAM standard.
The base model offers more than enough features for a pro to work blazingly fast. The graphics card is adequate for A LOT of things, except maybe hardcore gaming. But again Apple never intended the Mac Pro to be used for shooting ppl.
cyberone
Nov 22, 11:20 PM
colligan:
I went through 8 - eight - treo 650, because the hardware quality was so poor, not to mention the constant resets.
now, imagine, i have a phone without a reset button. no, its not a palm device.
and i bet the iphone wont have a reset button.
your phones were decent - compared to the competition - three years ago with the announcement of the 650.
others have long overtaken you. and you have no answer.
I bet you cant wait to see that iphone and realize what you've all missed.
I went through 8 - eight - treo 650, because the hardware quality was so poor, not to mention the constant resets.
now, imagine, i have a phone without a reset button. no, its not a palm device.
and i bet the iphone wont have a reset button.
your phones were decent - compared to the competition - three years ago with the announcement of the 650.
others have long overtaken you. and you have no answer.
I bet you cant wait to see that iphone and realize what you've all missed.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 08:30 AM
Believe it or not about 1/2 of iPhone 4 owners believe they have a 4g phone.
And half of the android users believe they have an iphone.
And half of the android users believe they have an iphone.
citizenzen
Apr 15, 08:23 PM
Your inability and insecurity to come within even the same area code of your own prior rhetorical question - choosing the greener pastures of everything-unrelated-to-something-you-started-but-can't-finish - says everything.
I guess you just can't relate to us creative types.
What are you, an accountant?
Next time, I'll try to say in numbers so you can understand.
I guess you just can't relate to us creative types.
What are you, an accountant?
Next time, I'll try to say in numbers so you can understand.
Stella
Apr 7, 10:11 AM
I'd rather have Apple ( or ANY company for that matter ) compete rather than having it throttle its competition.
Do you really want Apple to have no competition? Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if this starts affecting a lot of Apple's competitors, for a prolonged period of time - various countries would start to look at Apple regarding its competition laws.
Do you really want Apple to have no competition? Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if this starts affecting a lot of Apple's competitors, for a prolonged period of time - various countries would start to look at Apple regarding its competition laws.
slu
Aug 7, 01:55 PM
Perhaps for a PowerBook G5?
As far as I am concerned, it is the same sort of thing really.
As far as I am concerned, it is the same sort of thing really.
Shivetya
May 4, 05:13 PM
Just as long as they don't make it the preferred method for others to distribute software or it to become the only way. They can distribute their software how they like
The day I can only get apps via the App store is the last day I use my Mac
The day I can only get apps via the App store is the last day I use my Mac
beebler
Apr 20, 12:55 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Apple is also gunning for the iPad 3 to be released alongside it but I doubt it'll end UO that way.
Apple is also gunning for the iPad 3 to be released alongside it but I doubt it'll end UO that way.
gnasher729
Apr 7, 11:55 AM
And just how could Apple be found to be absuing its position by buying what it needs to supply its customers whith product? Maybe if the iPad wasn't selling all that well but Apple can't keep up with demand as it is. Arguments like yours don't even make sense and I'll bet you some serious money that no one can produce a single instance of a company "found to be abusing its position" by buying what its needs to produce and sell its products. It would appear people like you are just angry that Apple is successful and want to take it down somehow. Stupid, just stupid.
The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.
The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.
realitymonkey
Mar 31, 08:14 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053152/Apple-admit-Briton-DID-invent-iPod-hes-getting-money.html
Ah yes can we have a decent source please not that ridiculous piece of ill conceived drivel that is the Daily Mail.
Ah yes can we have a decent source please not that ridiculous piece of ill conceived drivel that is the Daily Mail.
Xtremehkr
Apr 7, 09:35 AM
RIM was the smartphone market for a brief period of time, they really should be doing better than what they are right now.
RIM didn't have any vision, though, and were eclipsed by Apple and Google.
I owned a BB Storm and it was a piece of junk, the Torch fell flat and now the Playbook has been delayed.
I wonder who is going to buy RIM out, they are in desperate need of a hit product. RIM needs a halo product as badly as Apple did before the iPod came out.
RIM didn't have any vision, though, and were eclipsed by Apple and Google.
I owned a BB Storm and it was a piece of junk, the Torch fell flat and now the Playbook has been delayed.
I wonder who is going to buy RIM out, they are in desperate need of a hit product. RIM needs a halo product as badly as Apple did before the iPod came out.
aswitcher
Jul 30, 07:14 AM
i dont think this will be a dream feature phone but it will work wonderfully with iSync and .Mac, iTunes, iPhoto, Frontrow (BT controller), Mail, iCal, AddressBook etc
I hope it has a 2 megapixel camera and at least half a gig of ram.
I hope it has a 2 megapixel camera and at least half a gig of ram.
cgc
Aug 4, 09:12 PM
although the Merom is average faster than Yohan 10%~20%:cool:
Even accounting for the 8% increase in clock speed that's an nice performance boost.
Even accounting for the 8% increase in clock speed that's an nice performance boost.
marksman
Apr 18, 04:18 PM
I think they are all adults, and they keep these things very separate. If someone said to their colleagues in another department "don't buy screens from Samsung, we are involved in a lawsuit" or "don't sell screens to Apple, we are involved in a lawsuit", the answer would be "are you mad? They are our best supplier, I don't care about any lawsuit" or "are you mad? They are our best customer, I don't care about any lawsuit".
I guarantee you that the division that sells screens to apple is pissed about this, and that Apple tried to work on this internally with Samsung before filing suit.
I know how different divisions of large corporations interact, and I guarantee you the divison making smartphones and tablets are at odds with the screen supplying over this and whatever else.
People that run large divisions often don't care about the other divisions and are only worried about themselves, even if it screws other parts of the company over.
The customer has the leverage in this situation and pissing them off is just a really bad idea.
Believing that Apple wouldn't change suppliers is just ignorant. This is the kind of thing that gives them motivation to start pushing harder with other companies to create screens for them, because Samsung has become an unreliable partner. Instead of just being happy with their relationship, Samsung has jeopardized it and given Apple motivation to look for other partners.
It has put the long term business of selling that many screens to Apple in jeopardy.
I guarantee you that the division that sells screens to apple is pissed about this, and that Apple tried to work on this internally with Samsung before filing suit.
I know how different divisions of large corporations interact, and I guarantee you the divison making smartphones and tablets are at odds with the screen supplying over this and whatever else.
People that run large divisions often don't care about the other divisions and are only worried about themselves, even if it screws other parts of the company over.
The customer has the leverage in this situation and pissing them off is just a really bad idea.
Believing that Apple wouldn't change suppliers is just ignorant. This is the kind of thing that gives them motivation to start pushing harder with other companies to create screens for them, because Samsung has become an unreliable partner. Instead of just being happy with their relationship, Samsung has jeopardized it and given Apple motivation to look for other partners.
It has put the long term business of selling that many screens to Apple in jeopardy.
Jason Beck
May 6, 07:03 AM
AMD is currently a bang for buck chip maker, I doubt you'll see them CPUs in Apple products. Plus until Fusion develops some more the thermal envelope isn't too good.
Yep. That's the truth :(
Yep. That's the truth :(
DTphonehome
Jul 29, 09:20 PM
Of course Verizon will wait two years before they decide to adopt it into their lineup.
Ha! Verizon will NEVER carry it.
Anyway I'm on verizon and its been nothing but problems with them for the past year or so. Their 'can you hear me now' network has turned into the 'what? hello? HELLO? *click*' network. I'll be happy to switch if the new phone is not on verizon.
I'm pretty happy with VZW service. Their phones are lousy and crippled, but after trying every other provider, VZW was the only one who had almost perfect service in NYC, and I need reliable service more than I need a shiny phone.
Ha! Verizon will NEVER carry it.
Anyway I'm on verizon and its been nothing but problems with them for the past year or so. Their 'can you hear me now' network has turned into the 'what? hello? HELLO? *click*' network. I'll be happy to switch if the new phone is not on verizon.
I'm pretty happy with VZW service. Their phones are lousy and crippled, but after trying every other provider, VZW was the only one who had almost perfect service in NYC, and I need reliable service more than I need a shiny phone.
DeathChill
Apr 23, 06:36 PM
Piggie, you're my favourite!
You were quite concerned about how far behind Tegra 2 the iPad 2's specs were going to be and then when the tables turn in Apple's favour for specs it's, "but why, who needs this?"
Are you trying to say that having a higher resolution wouldn't be beneficial? Especially in light of your comment about the iPad's resolution.
You were quite concerned about how far behind Tegra 2 the iPad 2's specs were going to be and then when the tables turn in Apple's favour for specs it's, "but why, who needs this?"
Are you trying to say that having a higher resolution wouldn't be beneficial? Especially in light of your comment about the iPad's resolution.
PlipPlop
May 6, 06:19 AM
Unless ARM suddenly make a really great range of desktop cpus within a year I cant see it happening. The switch from PPC was bad enough. Classic environment was terrible.
bradc
Jul 21, 02:04 PM
^^^^No kidding eh? Intel is on the move this year! Releasing products left/right¢re!
This WWDC will either be amazing or a total letdown?
This WWDC will either be amazing or a total letdown?
No comments:
Post a Comment