ericinboston
Apr 26, 12:51 PM
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Amazon is not a generic term. It is, however, the name of a single river on planet Earth...among a few other names/uses ("the Amazon", "Amazon basin", "Amazon Women").
Where else have you seen/heard the term Amazon in a generic sense? Some examples of a generic term are (at least have been generic over the past 75+ years):
light bulb
door
wood
lock
Amazon is not a generic term. It is, however, the name of a single river on planet Earth...among a few other names/uses ("the Amazon", "Amazon basin", "Amazon Women").
Where else have you seen/heard the term Amazon in a generic sense? Some examples of a generic term are (at least have been generic over the past 75+ years):
light bulb
door
wood
lock
NebulaClash
Sep 14, 12:44 PM
For me, the antenna issue was WORSE than people had reported.
I don't see how. I saw it being reported on the national evening newscasts and on the front pages of newspapers. How much more reporting could there possibly have been?
I don't see how. I saw it being reported on the national evening newscasts and on the front pages of newspapers. How much more reporting could there possibly have been?
Weaselboy
Mar 31, 10:18 AM
Can someone post screenshots of iCal. Thanks.
There is one in post #33 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12297742&postcount=33) of this thread.
There is one in post #33 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12297742&postcount=33) of this thread.
hunkaburningluv
Mar 27, 03:01 PM
>modern warfare 2
>hardcore gamer
OH WOW
dude, it's where the money is - granted the franchise is getting run into the ground with yearly releases, but that's activision's call.
Oh yay! These forums attract the angry Microsoft supporters, Android yahoos and now the rabid gamers are feeling insecure. We should all petition Apple to stop making compelling devices!
There is a difference between being realistic about devices and having your head in the clouds. I LOVE my apple gear and can't wait to get an ipad, but I am realistic in it's capability - it certainly isn't going to replace anything as a main device for gamers.
The iPad isn't the Jesus device that will be the be all and end all of tech....
>hardcore gamer
OH WOW
dude, it's where the money is - granted the franchise is getting run into the ground with yearly releases, but that's activision's call.
Oh yay! These forums attract the angry Microsoft supporters, Android yahoos and now the rabid gamers are feeling insecure. We should all petition Apple to stop making compelling devices!
There is a difference between being realistic about devices and having your head in the clouds. I LOVE my apple gear and can't wait to get an ipad, but I am realistic in it's capability - it certainly isn't going to replace anything as a main device for gamers.
The iPad isn't the Jesus device that will be the be all and end all of tech....
63dot
Jan 6, 10:13 AM
If properly maintained, mileage holds no bounds! BMW's will go to 250k easy.
Any car will go 250K miles if properly maintained, yet some cars would need more proper maintenance.
There is nothing better looking on the inside and out as the new BMWs, and if I could have a company car for 5 years, it would be a BMW. But today's BMW (engine longevity wise) is not the same company in any way as the one who put together the very rugged 2002 model. There may not have been the same attention to looks and style, but what counted was that the engine was made to last forever. You wouldn't believe how many of those rusted out and ripped up 2002s there are out there, but they keep on going. Kids get them from their parents and soon grandkids will have them from their grandparents.
That being said, today's automobile safety standards are far more strict. If I got hit, or crashed, I would want to be in a new BMW with airbags vs. an old BMW 2002. And I am sure the new BMW could simply kill the 2002 on a slalom course. And as far as chick magnets (or what some guys use as an accessory), the new BMWs have all the looks going for it.
The maintenance on indestructible cars like the BMW 2002 series, and cars like my 70s/80s Volvo DL-GL series amounts to making sure the upholstery is not too ripped up and the rust is kept to a minimum (bondo, sanding, etc) but what you have is a car, as ugly as the weather and age can pit the hell out of it, which will go for 40 or 50 years without any major engine work. And to be fair, my mechanic says the new Volvo engines of the last decade are pretty fragile. A three year old Volvo engine appears to have more wear than my '84's engine according to him. Of course, the sheer durability and weight of my old Volvo engine does amount to a heavier car that doesn't handle any better than a school bus, and gets terrible mileage. ;)
And when you look at where American cars used to be in terms of reliability compared to anything post 1970s, it's sad. Take a look at Cuba who got left behind after Fidel Castro. Many of the cars people have that are still running are 1950s American cars, back when America used to build everlasting cars.
Any car will go 250K miles if properly maintained, yet some cars would need more proper maintenance.
There is nothing better looking on the inside and out as the new BMWs, and if I could have a company car for 5 years, it would be a BMW. But today's BMW (engine longevity wise) is not the same company in any way as the one who put together the very rugged 2002 model. There may not have been the same attention to looks and style, but what counted was that the engine was made to last forever. You wouldn't believe how many of those rusted out and ripped up 2002s there are out there, but they keep on going. Kids get them from their parents and soon grandkids will have them from their grandparents.
That being said, today's automobile safety standards are far more strict. If I got hit, or crashed, I would want to be in a new BMW with airbags vs. an old BMW 2002. And I am sure the new BMW could simply kill the 2002 on a slalom course. And as far as chick magnets (or what some guys use as an accessory), the new BMWs have all the looks going for it.
The maintenance on indestructible cars like the BMW 2002 series, and cars like my 70s/80s Volvo DL-GL series amounts to making sure the upholstery is not too ripped up and the rust is kept to a minimum (bondo, sanding, etc) but what you have is a car, as ugly as the weather and age can pit the hell out of it, which will go for 40 or 50 years without any major engine work. And to be fair, my mechanic says the new Volvo engines of the last decade are pretty fragile. A three year old Volvo engine appears to have more wear than my '84's engine according to him. Of course, the sheer durability and weight of my old Volvo engine does amount to a heavier car that doesn't handle any better than a school bus, and gets terrible mileage. ;)
And when you look at where American cars used to be in terms of reliability compared to anything post 1970s, it's sad. Take a look at Cuba who got left behind after Fidel Castro. Many of the cars people have that are still running are 1950s American cars, back when America used to build everlasting cars.
Sydde
Mar 20, 06:45 PM
Hang about for a moment. I think you have struck on something brilliant.
We let them trust God to cure them, from a disease He has allowed them to acquire, and there will be less of 'them', in the long run.
I like this line of thinking. Mother Nature would be amused.
Nature's cure. Scrape that pink fungus off the big rock.
We let them trust God to cure them, from a disease He has allowed them to acquire, and there will be less of 'them', in the long run.
I like this line of thinking. Mother Nature would be amused.
Nature's cure. Scrape that pink fungus off the big rock.
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 03:16 PM
I'd rather have a CPU that is a bit slower for non-OpenCL tasks, than a computer that is faster at that but is unusable for other things because it doesn't have OpenCL.
Tad slower? If history repeats itself Intel's CPU will completely destroy AMD's offering. It won't be a bit slower, it will be a lot slower. Tell me when OpenCL suddenly becomes a requirement. Enjoy your vaporware bro. I'm sure your Llano machine will outperform Sandy Bridge in a few years when applications actually use the technology. Assuming said Sandy Bridge machine doesn't have discrete graphics. I'd love to know these apps you are using by the way and what your career is. If you are so serious about OpenCL then you shouldn't be purchasing a machine with an IGP to begin with.
Also I had a good chuckle at this:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12048219
"The future is fusion"
So you are a spokesperson for AMD?
Tad slower? If history repeats itself Intel's CPU will completely destroy AMD's offering. It won't be a bit slower, it will be a lot slower. Tell me when OpenCL suddenly becomes a requirement. Enjoy your vaporware bro. I'm sure your Llano machine will outperform Sandy Bridge in a few years when applications actually use the technology. Assuming said Sandy Bridge machine doesn't have discrete graphics. I'd love to know these apps you are using by the way and what your career is. If you are so serious about OpenCL then you shouldn't be purchasing a machine with an IGP to begin with.
Also I had a good chuckle at this:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12048219
"The future is fusion"
So you are a spokesperson for AMD?
nagromme
Jul 18, 02:06 AM
I hope the rental thing is true--I don't want to own. I'm not with Steve Jobs on this one (assuming the rumors are true that he opposes rentals).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
Built
Apr 3, 12:08 AM
That's funny. There was no bleed, blemishes, dents or scratches on my iPad 2 when I took it out of the box.
Are you sure that are not talking to people who are getting "returns" as "new"?
Jasmine villegas justin weird
justin bieber, jasmine
Nick Jonas Teams With Jasmine
Justin Bieber#39;s music video
his girlfriend, Jasmine
Jasmine villegas justin
Justin+ieber+jasmine+
justin bieber kissing his
to ex-girlfriend jasmine
She confronted Justin,
Are you sure that are not talking to people who are getting "returns" as "new"?
weg
Aug 16, 02:06 PM
If they use WiFi with the new iPods, they'll need a chunky battery. When I still used a PDA, the battery life nose dived when you turned on the WiFi. . .
My Nintendo DS lasts pretty long, even if I'm using WiFi.. and if it's just for Music download, WiFi won't be turned on all the time
My Nintendo DS lasts pretty long, even if I'm using WiFi.. and if it's just for Music download, WiFi won't be turned on all the time
danvdr
Oct 23, 11:12 PM
FWI Dell Just Lowered The List Of All Their Monitors � 30" $1279 24" $679 Right Now (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs). We paid $1349 last week in a sale and now it's been trumped. New 30" list is only $1599 and 24" list is $799.
2007FP 20" 1600x1200 is now only $359.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687). This is amazing.
And the E207WFP 20" monitor (which seems to be comparable to the 2007FP minus a few bells and whistles (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productcompare.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&p=320-4688~320-5123~)) is only $289.
2007FP 20" 1600x1200 is now only $359.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687). This is amazing.
And the E207WFP 20" monitor (which seems to be comparable to the 2007FP minus a few bells and whistles (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productcompare.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&p=320-4688~320-5123~)) is only $289.
Irishman
Apr 20, 08:33 AM
The 6950m and 6970m are also available in 2gb models. That would help with the larger resolution of the 27" display. Let's hope for that as well!
Maybe as a BTO. Not sure all those new things could happen for $1999.99
Maybe as a BTO. Not sure all those new things could happen for $1999.99
gburnham
Mar 31, 07:48 PM
Safari in fullscreen ignores the cmd+L hotkey for jumping to the address bar. That is a pretty huge bug for me... Pretty much removes my ability to use Safari fullscreen. I'm sure they'll catch that quick.
Also, I don't see an option to always show tabs while in fullscreen mode. They hide unless you mouseover the address bar, which makes tab management in fullscreen a little bit inconvenient. A setting for that would be nice to see added before release!
Finder also seems to occasionally not respond to mouse clicks when it is in the background. I have to activate it from the dock icon before it will respond. That has only happened once or twice though.
That said, everything seems much smoother (not sure about faster, but definitely smoother) and the bugs I have seen have been relatively minor. This should be a pretty awesome OS if I can train myself to use some of the new features/gestures.
Also, I don't see an option to always show tabs while in fullscreen mode. They hide unless you mouseover the address bar, which makes tab management in fullscreen a little bit inconvenient. A setting for that would be nice to see added before release!
Finder also seems to occasionally not respond to mouse clicks when it is in the background. I have to activate it from the dock icon before it will respond. That has only happened once or twice though.
That said, everything seems much smoother (not sure about faster, but definitely smoother) and the bugs I have seen have been relatively minor. This should be a pretty awesome OS if I can train myself to use some of the new features/gestures.
Benguitar
Nov 25, 11:02 PM
My gosh, they gigantic case joke was funny at first, then he tells you it's not amusing to him anymore, so you continue. You're beating a dead horse. In fact, this horse's insides are smeared all over the road.
Yes, Thank you, Beating a dead horse.
I'm a manager at an eyewear boutique. This is not Sunglasses Hut. We do not carry Oakley. We specialize in high-end, independent, mostly European designers that most people haven't heard of.
$400 is average for a pair of frames. The average pair of rx glasses without insurance is between $700 and $900.
I have never seen a case as intense as that gun case used to protect eyewear, ever! But don't take offense, each to his own.
Just wanted to raise awareness to all these people stating that $200-$400 is "expensive" for eyewear when they are spending $$$$$$ on phones, computers, tvs, etc; which are probably replaced more frequently than the glasses which help them see and are the first accessory others see on them.
Glasses should be as important of an investment as your fancy electronics.
Check out these brands if you're interested: ic! Berlin, Face a Face, Orgreen, Bevel, undostrial, strada del sol, historie du voire, theo, and so many more.
- eyewear nerd:cool:
Cool, Good for you, I personally have never liked "boutique" stuff, Just because of bad experiences with guitarists who worship the term and think anything else is horrible.
That being said, I've never heard of Oakley as "boutique" But if they do, I will admit that would have made me sound like a hypocrite. Also, I was not aware that that case is a gun case, That is just speculation made by another MacRumors member. As I said, I purchased it at a photography store and it is a Pelican Case.
From what I've seen most gun cases are metal? Eh, Whatever. Not another argument please.
Now... To end the eyeglasses argument forever, It is no longer my latest purchase.
I purchased a blue iPod Shuffle for my good friend and physical trainer.
http://images.apple.com/ipodshuffle/images/hero1_20100901.jpg
Yes, Thank you, Beating a dead horse.
I'm a manager at an eyewear boutique. This is not Sunglasses Hut. We do not carry Oakley. We specialize in high-end, independent, mostly European designers that most people haven't heard of.
$400 is average for a pair of frames. The average pair of rx glasses without insurance is between $700 and $900.
I have never seen a case as intense as that gun case used to protect eyewear, ever! But don't take offense, each to his own.
Just wanted to raise awareness to all these people stating that $200-$400 is "expensive" for eyewear when they are spending $$$$$$ on phones, computers, tvs, etc; which are probably replaced more frequently than the glasses which help them see and are the first accessory others see on them.
Glasses should be as important of an investment as your fancy electronics.
Check out these brands if you're interested: ic! Berlin, Face a Face, Orgreen, Bevel, undostrial, strada del sol, historie du voire, theo, and so many more.
- eyewear nerd:cool:
Cool, Good for you, I personally have never liked "boutique" stuff, Just because of bad experiences with guitarists who worship the term and think anything else is horrible.
That being said, I've never heard of Oakley as "boutique" But if they do, I will admit that would have made me sound like a hypocrite. Also, I was not aware that that case is a gun case, That is just speculation made by another MacRumors member. As I said, I purchased it at a photography store and it is a Pelican Case.
From what I've seen most gun cases are metal? Eh, Whatever. Not another argument please.
Now... To end the eyeglasses argument forever, It is no longer my latest purchase.
I purchased a blue iPod Shuffle for my good friend and physical trainer.
http://images.apple.com/ipodshuffle/images/hero1_20100901.jpg
yg17
Mar 22, 01:38 PM
Our Founding Fathers believed in God, proof alone is the pledge of allegiance "under god". Yes our country was founded on christian belief. Hate to say it, but it's true!
As for the invisible man in the sky I have no clue to what you are referring.
Under god was added to the pledge in the 50s because we were scared of the Russians. Nevermind the fact that the Pledge was written in 1892, long after the Founding Fathers died.
What else you got?
LMAO...Yes that's it, I don't meet age requirements!
Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.
As for the invisible man in the sky I have no clue to what you are referring.
Under god was added to the pledge in the 50s because we were scared of the Russians. Nevermind the fact that the Pledge was written in 1892, long after the Founding Fathers died.
What else you got?
LMAO...Yes that's it, I don't meet age requirements!
Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.
DrFrankTM
Aug 25, 09:23 AM
am I right in thinking that there is still no way to do extended desktop (two monitors displaying different stuff) on a Mini?
Hmmm... To cook an extended desktop on a Mini (sort of), you need:
1-) A Mac Mini
2-) An old Mac with a screen - mine is an old iBook G3
3-) A router
4-) Synergy
5-) Some kind of script - Automator does the job - to turn Synergy into a start-up item on both computers
Ok, it obviously doesn't give you two screens on your Mini, but you can cut and paste between screens, and use only one keyboard and mouse to control both, which is pretty sweet. Personally, I use my Mini for any kind of heavy workloads and the iBook for the small stuff. The lack of extended desktop was almost a show-stopper for me but, in the end, Synergy provides me with all the screen space I need. If you really need more than that though, maybe the Mini isn't the right machine.
EDIT: For example, I run Skype on my iBook. There is no difference whatsoever to me whether it is on my iBook or my Mini. You can use the secondary screen for a bunch of apps like those that do not really need to run on your Mini.
Hmmm... To cook an extended desktop on a Mini (sort of), you need:
1-) A Mac Mini
2-) An old Mac with a screen - mine is an old iBook G3
3-) A router
4-) Synergy
5-) Some kind of script - Automator does the job - to turn Synergy into a start-up item on both computers
Ok, it obviously doesn't give you two screens on your Mini, but you can cut and paste between screens, and use only one keyboard and mouse to control both, which is pretty sweet. Personally, I use my Mini for any kind of heavy workloads and the iBook for the small stuff. The lack of extended desktop was almost a show-stopper for me but, in the end, Synergy provides me with all the screen space I need. If you really need more than that though, maybe the Mini isn't the right machine.
EDIT: For example, I run Skype on my iBook. There is no difference whatsoever to me whether it is on my iBook or my Mini. You can use the secondary screen for a bunch of apps like those that do not really need to run on your Mini.
islanders
Dec 28, 01:08 AM
anything is possible minus 1 thing: the option to dock and iPod simply is so out of place that I do not know why it keeps getting brought up. iTV is focused on streaming content from your computer, not your iPod.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
Sorry, I�m still on a G3, but I still don�t get it. A 42�� LCD/Plasma is just a monitor so it would display a word document, and I assumed the new Macs would play a movie also.
Also, most people don�t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that�s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don�t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
I don�t care if an iPod dock in included or not, but the iTV will be connected to a home theater system, so it would be convenient addition.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
Also I thought preserving digital media was the process of saving it to disk? I haven�t done a lot of this but assumed it was matter of disk space.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
Sorry, I�m still on a G3, but I still don�t get it. A 42�� LCD/Plasma is just a monitor so it would display a word document, and I assumed the new Macs would play a movie also.
Also, most people don�t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that�s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don�t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
I don�t care if an iPod dock in included or not, but the iTV will be connected to a home theater system, so it would be convenient addition.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
Also I thought preserving digital media was the process of saving it to disk? I haven�t done a lot of this but assumed it was matter of disk space.
WRIGHTRACING
Nov 15, 11:39 PM
Toyota fixes all vehicles because they all have the potential to have dangerous problems.
Most iPhone owners have no problem whatsoever, and there's no danger at all to anyone.
So Toyota HAS to fix them all. It would be pointless for Apple to fix all iPhones in the field when most of them never have an issue needing a fix. But if you do have a problem, let them know and they will fix it for you for free. That's hardly a burden for such a non-dangerous situation.
We live in this ridiculous era of expectations. Apple comes out with a reasonable solution to a problem that affects a tiny percentage of users, and they get slammed for it. Hypocrisy.
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but to all of you comparing Apple/Phone manufacturer to Toyota/Car manufacturer.
So the deal with the "SAFETY" recall of the sticking accelerator, the way it works in the auto industry, generally they catch these things in testing "ON TRACK", but this was one that slipped thru the tracks, just the same as software issues Apple had with iOS4.0 and 4.1 on the older iPhones. So the customers experienced the problem, and it was reported. Toyota(the same as all other greedy, self righteous companies out there, deny everything), then had to create a software fix for the problem in the computer of the car. They then mail out letter's to everyone, because this is a safety issue. You can bring your vehicle in, if you feel safe, and if not, they will tow it at cost to warranty.
Now there are also other things that are problems with cars, and are reported by many consumers, but it isn't classified as a recall, because it is not a safety recall. Take the Chrysler 2.7 engine. It was unfortunate, because it was a good engine, but they had a flaw. The cylinder heads over time got oil buildup from the scorched oil around the overhead valvetrain. It was caused by the heads having a flaw in design that caused them to get hot spots and scorching the oil. So it was noted to Chrysler, and they decided if the engine had this problem and the owner kept sufficient evidence of oil changes, and it was within a certain mileage. They never sent this information out to anyone, and most don't know of this replacement, but the dealers know about it, and the company knows about it as well, and they will pay to replace it under certain circumstances, so long as you do your studying, and find what you can on this engine. As I said this is not safety related, and doesn't apply to everyone, so they don't let everyone know, or don't replace everyone's engine.
Most iPhone owners have no problem whatsoever, and there's no danger at all to anyone.
So Toyota HAS to fix them all. It would be pointless for Apple to fix all iPhones in the field when most of them never have an issue needing a fix. But if you do have a problem, let them know and they will fix it for you for free. That's hardly a burden for such a non-dangerous situation.
We live in this ridiculous era of expectations. Apple comes out with a reasonable solution to a problem that affects a tiny percentage of users, and they get slammed for it. Hypocrisy.
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but to all of you comparing Apple/Phone manufacturer to Toyota/Car manufacturer.
So the deal with the "SAFETY" recall of the sticking accelerator, the way it works in the auto industry, generally they catch these things in testing "ON TRACK", but this was one that slipped thru the tracks, just the same as software issues Apple had with iOS4.0 and 4.1 on the older iPhones. So the customers experienced the problem, and it was reported. Toyota(the same as all other greedy, self righteous companies out there, deny everything), then had to create a software fix for the problem in the computer of the car. They then mail out letter's to everyone, because this is a safety issue. You can bring your vehicle in, if you feel safe, and if not, they will tow it at cost to warranty.
Now there are also other things that are problems with cars, and are reported by many consumers, but it isn't classified as a recall, because it is not a safety recall. Take the Chrysler 2.7 engine. It was unfortunate, because it was a good engine, but they had a flaw. The cylinder heads over time got oil buildup from the scorched oil around the overhead valvetrain. It was caused by the heads having a flaw in design that caused them to get hot spots and scorching the oil. So it was noted to Chrysler, and they decided if the engine had this problem and the owner kept sufficient evidence of oil changes, and it was within a certain mileage. They never sent this information out to anyone, and most don't know of this replacement, but the dealers know about it, and the company knows about it as well, and they will pay to replace it under certain circumstances, so long as you do your studying, and find what you can on this engine. As I said this is not safety related, and doesn't apply to everyone, so they don't let everyone know, or don't replace everyone's engine.
Plymouthbreezer
Mar 23, 04:38 PM
lots, Bluetooth, WIFI (for internet radio), design..
Here's my classic mockup
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=277273&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1300734199
Really nice work. Bravo.
As I have said in past threads, I'm happy to hear that Apple plans on keeping the Classic around for a bit longer, as it truly is the best music player on the market for serious audiophiles.
Here's my classic mockup
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=277273&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1300734199
Really nice work. Bravo.
As I have said in past threads, I'm happy to hear that Apple plans on keeping the Classic around for a bit longer, as it truly is the best music player on the market for serious audiophiles.
ErikGrim
Apr 4, 07:36 PM
Click2Flash (the extension) seems to not work with a lot of Flash banners now. Especially on this forum. Anyone else get that?
kungming2
Jan 12, 10:57 AM
I think 'air' would have been capitalised on the banner if it was a reference to a product name.
It might not be capitalized: Check it out, iPod touch, nano, and classic. All lowercase.
It might not be capitalized: Check it out, iPod touch, nano, and classic. All lowercase.
w00master
Dec 30, 10:11 AM
I think a lot of you are expecting way too much on the "iTV" and will be very disappointed when it gets released.
1. DVR Functionality?
Nope, I don't see it. Don't see it happening EVER. This places iTV in direct competition with Cable and Satellite providers, which (imho) is a losing battle. A good example is Tivo. While, Tivo is still lauded in the industry and consumers as having the "best DVR interface/UI," it's still not selling well to consumers. Why? Cable and Satellite providers are providing DVRs and a MUCH lower cost, and even though their UI/interface sucks terribly, because of the LOW COST, the Cable/Satellite boxes are outselling Tivos.
On Demand. This category amongst cable companies are expanding very rapidly and offering free content left and right. Good example is HBO, nearly *ALL* of their shows are On Demand now which is instant access to all of their shows. Generally speaking (for people who use HBO On Demand), this has been extremely popular, maybe this is why HBO is still not being sold on iTunes? Why download when you have access to nearly all of the HBO content for free and instantaneous?
2. Remote Desktop viewer?
Nope, don't see this at all either. If this were a Mac world only, MAYBE I could see this happening, but the harsh reality is that we live in a primarily Windows world. I really don't see Apple moving into utilizing Remote Desktop on Windows machines THROUGH iTV.
You have to remember that unlike iMac, Mac Pro, Macbooks, etc, the iTV will have to satisfy Windows users as well.
What do I see the iTV for? Streaming media, a glorified IP TV box, an easier way to bring the iPod to the living room. I really don't see it doing anything else. I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
w00master
1. DVR Functionality?
Nope, I don't see it. Don't see it happening EVER. This places iTV in direct competition with Cable and Satellite providers, which (imho) is a losing battle. A good example is Tivo. While, Tivo is still lauded in the industry and consumers as having the "best DVR interface/UI," it's still not selling well to consumers. Why? Cable and Satellite providers are providing DVRs and a MUCH lower cost, and even though their UI/interface sucks terribly, because of the LOW COST, the Cable/Satellite boxes are outselling Tivos.
On Demand. This category amongst cable companies are expanding very rapidly and offering free content left and right. Good example is HBO, nearly *ALL* of their shows are On Demand now which is instant access to all of their shows. Generally speaking (for people who use HBO On Demand), this has been extremely popular, maybe this is why HBO is still not being sold on iTunes? Why download when you have access to nearly all of the HBO content for free and instantaneous?
2. Remote Desktop viewer?
Nope, don't see this at all either. If this were a Mac world only, MAYBE I could see this happening, but the harsh reality is that we live in a primarily Windows world. I really don't see Apple moving into utilizing Remote Desktop on Windows machines THROUGH iTV.
You have to remember that unlike iMac, Mac Pro, Macbooks, etc, the iTV will have to satisfy Windows users as well.
What do I see the iTV for? Streaming media, a glorified IP TV box, an easier way to bring the iPod to the living room. I really don't see it doing anything else. I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
w00master
koobcamuk
Apr 2, 08:23 PM
Marketing geniuses :)
Hmmm... not really. I hate marketing. Nothing they say will change that. They also need to stop calling the iPad "magical". It really isn't. It's very nice, but not magical.
Hmmm... not really. I hate marketing. Nothing they say will change that. They also need to stop calling the iPad "magical". It really isn't. It's very nice, but not magical.
albusseverus
Jun 23, 08:25 AM
Lay the iMac on it's back, and it all becomes clear. There's nothing more frustrating than not being able to touch your computer screen. A wedge shaped iMac is the best of both worlds�touch screen for moving stuff around and an optional keyboard for bulk text entry and keyboard shortcut commands.
Then the whole Apple line becomes different sized "tablets". 3.5", 10", 13", 15", 17", 22", 27", 30" Didn't Apple take control of the Tablet Mac trademark (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/29/apple-takes-control-of-tabletmac-trademark/) recently? Optional keyboard. The bigger the machine, the more full featured the Mac OS you get.
I just hope the rumour is confused and we get a proper Touch Mac OS, not either or. I suppose you could stand it up and use a keyboard and mouse, but who'd bother if they have a nice 22" touch screen to work with?
Problem is, Apple can't even manage to get Finder or iTunes to be full-Cocoa, so what are the chances they've figured out how to do a proper Touch Mac OS UI given their fascination with the 'new markets' of iPad and iPhone?
(maybe this is why, don't waste effort on mouse OS X when a touch OS is so close � if only�)
I'd dearly love to see Apple 'test the water' with a Touch iMac, but it had better be a well thought-out MacOS, not a printerless, fontless, filesystemless iOS botched job.
Then the whole Apple line becomes different sized "tablets". 3.5", 10", 13", 15", 17", 22", 27", 30" Didn't Apple take control of the Tablet Mac trademark (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/29/apple-takes-control-of-tabletmac-trademark/) recently? Optional keyboard. The bigger the machine, the more full featured the Mac OS you get.
I just hope the rumour is confused and we get a proper Touch Mac OS, not either or. I suppose you could stand it up and use a keyboard and mouse, but who'd bother if they have a nice 22" touch screen to work with?
Problem is, Apple can't even manage to get Finder or iTunes to be full-Cocoa, so what are the chances they've figured out how to do a proper Touch Mac OS UI given their fascination with the 'new markets' of iPad and iPhone?
(maybe this is why, don't waste effort on mouse OS X when a touch OS is so close � if only�)
I'd dearly love to see Apple 'test the water' with a Touch iMac, but it had better be a well thought-out MacOS, not a printerless, fontless, filesystemless iOS botched job.
No comments:
Post a Comment