starnyc
Apr 26, 01:25 PM
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
toddybody
Mar 24, 09:54 PM
Yes, it's an issue. Mac Pros don't carry heavy duty PSUs.
Ehhh...you're right that it's no 1200watt corsair. But it supports dual CPUs, crap ton of ram, and 5770x2 or 5870...surely it could support a 6970(from a tdp perspective)
Ehhh...you're right that it's no 1200watt corsair. But it supports dual CPUs, crap ton of ram, and 5770x2 or 5870...surely it could support a 6970(from a tdp perspective)
eleven59
Mar 25, 11:37 PM
Not really. Properly designed controls on touch screen will be just fine... You will see...
Anyone who thinks that the long-term viability of the IOS ecosystem as a significant home game player because of the lack of hard controls is just missing the picture.
I can't figure out why some people think you have to look at the screen of a touchscreen device to use it to manipulate things in a game world. Between rotation and movement of the device itself with properly placed buttons you can do a lot with it, none of it requiring looking at the touch screen.
I suspect most people could distinguish between the lower left corner of their device and the upper right corner, for instance, without looking at the screen.
FINALLY!! Someone else who has a brain that can adapt and learn with some training. Does no one else know that your brain would learn where to place the hands, thumbs and fingers without looking?? Just takes a smart UI designer to place virtual buttons in smart places.... And if all you needed to do for an attack is make a certain gesture like swipe or a circle, do you really need to look down to do that??. Add that to tilts and motion control and you could do more than just racing games....
Anyone who thinks that the long-term viability of the IOS ecosystem as a significant home game player because of the lack of hard controls is just missing the picture.
I can't figure out why some people think you have to look at the screen of a touchscreen device to use it to manipulate things in a game world. Between rotation and movement of the device itself with properly placed buttons you can do a lot with it, none of it requiring looking at the touch screen.
I suspect most people could distinguish between the lower left corner of their device and the upper right corner, for instance, without looking at the screen.
FINALLY!! Someone else who has a brain that can adapt and learn with some training. Does no one else know that your brain would learn where to place the hands, thumbs and fingers without looking?? Just takes a smart UI designer to place virtual buttons in smart places.... And if all you needed to do for an attack is make a certain gesture like swipe or a circle, do you really need to look down to do that??. Add that to tilts and motion control and you could do more than just racing games....
spicyapple
Nov 28, 10:15 AM
Microsoft lost billions on the Xbox and likely to lose hundreds of millions on their Zune attempt. iPod sales have been profitable for Apple since their introduction. How one measures success in this industry can't always be marketshare.
Peterkro
Mar 23, 01:53 PM
Anti-Daffy sites attacked including:
http://feb17.info/
Back up now.:mad:
http://feb17.info/
Back up now.:mad:
generik
Sep 6, 05:10 PM
Ah, I misunderstood. Well, it shouldn't be a surprise. At some point even the $599 mini will have a chip faster than yours. That's just the way things go.
There's a good reason apple didn't go Core2 on the mini...it would make it too close to the new minitower they'll be announcing soon!
Good thinking! That's the spirit?
There's a good reason apple didn't go Core2 on the mini...it would make it too close to the new minitower they'll be announcing soon!
Good thinking! That's the spirit?
DeusInvictus7
Feb 27, 10:26 PM
Finishing my graphic design degree this May. The large intuos might get replaced by a cintiq very soon.
That Razer logo looks sweet on the MBA, I might have to dig mine out of my Naga box and slap it on when my MBA comes later this week.
That Razer logo looks sweet on the MBA, I might have to dig mine out of my Naga box and slap it on when my MBA comes later this week.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 4, 02:27 PM
In many ways, it's shameful today that we think that 60 or even 70mpg is somehow remarkable for a family car. :(
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
benjs
Mar 23, 10:34 AM
This is a long-shot, but my dream feature for the iPod classic is the ability for bi-directional communication between that and my iPhone. What do I mean? Essentially, tethering the iPod classic to the iPhone so it acts as an extended hard drive for music and videos. This way, in my car, I could utilize Voice Control or the iPod app on the iPhone to select a song from my full library on my iPod classic, and have it stream that music to my iPhone, so that I could still have the phone feature or GPS instructions outputting audio to my car. Bi-directional communication comes into play when, once I've selected my album, or told it to shuffle, I could click the physical "Next" button on my iPod classic. Again.. very niche, but a dream feature for me!
TheIguana
Jul 18, 02:45 AM
Thing is Steve Jobs is going to pull the usual trick (stupid contracts) and only release this to the American public. Rubbish if you ask me, we live in a world of more than one country. Which is why this sounds like another stupid pipe dream that the rest of the world will never get to enjoy *points at TV shows*.
Iggy :rolleyes:
Iggy :rolleyes:
kdjc00
Mar 28, 01:19 PM
it will be interesting to see where apple takes that capabilities of this features to expand its gaming line. i hope it expands it to the apple tv. HD 1080p games would be great..
mealex
Nov 29, 11:24 PM
I think iTV will have the feature of showing your Keynote presentations right right there, how easy and cool would that be. Never have to sit at a Mac again to show that presentation, just a few click by with the Apple remote. By the way I am surprised I never heard of this on the internet, it just seems logical to me to be added as a feature.
Anybody got a clue why would iTV include a HD?
Anybody got a clue why would iTV include a HD?
Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 10:55 PM
First is advertising. Sure Apple's commericals are cute and award winning. But for once can we show some hard hitting ads that are shown more than just occasionally? Apple needs to advertise, and more than just the chic oh, that was nice. What I want to see is ads showing how much easier it is to use a mac than a pc, or how less venerable macs are to virus and hacking, then show the things for goodness sakes!!
Second is quality control.
Considering the recent problems with the ibook's logic board (over a years worth of laptops sold before admitting a problem?), problems with the 15in powerbook (wait almost a year for memory problems and white spots?) problems with the 12in powerbook(warping cases), and the old windtunnels, I'd say that Apple's quality control is slipping. Are they crap, no, but for the premium that we all pay they deserve to be better.
I do not mind a 500 dollar computer dying on me, but a 1700 laptop less than a year old? Yes I most certainly do. Having to pay $300 dollars to cover it? yes i do. Knowing a guy who sent in a 15in Albook three times for the screen? yes I do. A friend who owns a 12in whose case is warping, yes i do.
Price is not as much of an issue. Many of the people who buy 500 dollar computers would not take the time to learn about why a mac is better, they are too dollar concious(the Wal-Mart mentality, if its cheaper its better.)
Do I think Apple is dying, no. But we have an opportunity to regain market share if apple plays hardball.Jobs has stated hes not interested in the market, Apple has money in the bank. Apple has many problems but the biggest is Jobs and his denial. he thinks we dont want games, or TV, and we like being charged double what the otherside sells hardware wise. since he has taken over Apple they have put money in the bank but they have lost every year more and more of the buying public? they are doing something wrong. yeah we have ill die holding onto my old stale G4 crowd but there are plenty who will never even hear of a G4. they thought you said P4. how small will the Mac Market have to get before Apple wakes up? 1.7% last qtr is going to sound good when they release next qtrs numbers. go ahead and quote me on this if you want.
Second is quality control.
Considering the recent problems with the ibook's logic board (over a years worth of laptops sold before admitting a problem?), problems with the 15in powerbook (wait almost a year for memory problems and white spots?) problems with the 12in powerbook(warping cases), and the old windtunnels, I'd say that Apple's quality control is slipping. Are they crap, no, but for the premium that we all pay they deserve to be better.
I do not mind a 500 dollar computer dying on me, but a 1700 laptop less than a year old? Yes I most certainly do. Having to pay $300 dollars to cover it? yes i do. Knowing a guy who sent in a 15in Albook three times for the screen? yes I do. A friend who owns a 12in whose case is warping, yes i do.
Price is not as much of an issue. Many of the people who buy 500 dollar computers would not take the time to learn about why a mac is better, they are too dollar concious(the Wal-Mart mentality, if its cheaper its better.)
Do I think Apple is dying, no. But we have an opportunity to regain market share if apple plays hardball.Jobs has stated hes not interested in the market, Apple has money in the bank. Apple has many problems but the biggest is Jobs and his denial. he thinks we dont want games, or TV, and we like being charged double what the otherside sells hardware wise. since he has taken over Apple they have put money in the bank but they have lost every year more and more of the buying public? they are doing something wrong. yeah we have ill die holding onto my old stale G4 crowd but there are plenty who will never even hear of a G4. they thought you said P4. how small will the Mac Market have to get before Apple wakes up? 1.7% last qtr is going to sound good when they release next qtrs numbers. go ahead and quote me on this if you want.
Cagle
Mar 25, 05:05 PM
Most of the naysayers believe that tilting and touch-screen gaming is for sissies.
naysayers are probably more concerned with the fact that you can't look at the tv screen while fumbling for the touch controls on the ipad; physical buttons enable the player to just feel for the controls, without having to look down and miss the action on tv. the only games that would work for this are racing games, where you just tilt the ipad.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
naysayers are probably more concerned with the fact that you can't look at the tv screen while fumbling for the touch controls on the ipad; physical buttons enable the player to just feel for the controls, without having to look down and miss the action on tv. the only games that would work for this are racing games, where you just tilt the ipad.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
A.Fairhead
Jul 18, 04:11 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).
I agree; I watch movies a lot more than I buy movies. When I go to the cinema, I pay to watch the film, not to own it. Most people do this - owning films is something of an impulse post-viewing, in my experience. If iTMS can provide a rental service, that's great. If they end up providing purchases too, then, that's great too. Apple will be able to target 'viewing' markets as well as 'purchase' markets, if the difference is easy enough to see there.
I guess my thoughts are to not rule out rentals - I'm sure many of you work with films like I've just described :p
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).
I agree; I watch movies a lot more than I buy movies. When I go to the cinema, I pay to watch the film, not to own it. Most people do this - owning films is something of an impulse post-viewing, in my experience. If iTMS can provide a rental service, that's great. If they end up providing purchases too, then, that's great too. Apple will be able to target 'viewing' markets as well as 'purchase' markets, if the difference is easy enough to see there.
I guess my thoughts are to not rule out rentals - I'm sure many of you work with films like I've just described :p
fenixx
Sep 7, 09:45 AM
I think it's funny that this is pretty much the only mention of Amazon in this thread... even though Amazon will be announcing a competing movie store in a few days with supposedly much more content than Apple's offering! :D
P'rhaps because we are at a Mac-biased site,... this isn't AmazonRumors.com
:rolleyes:
P'rhaps because we are at a Mac-biased site,... this isn't AmazonRumors.com
:rolleyes:
berkleeboy210
Sep 1, 12:03 PM
just checked the apple store... currently 1-2 business day shipping time for the iMac.
this could mean updates on 9/5.....
MBP's still ship w/ in 24hrs though.
this could mean updates on 9/5.....
MBP's still ship w/ in 24hrs though.
markfc
Oct 23, 07:48 AM
Well, if you want to hear from my reliable source, stocks of macbooks and macbook pros are due in on the 27th/28th October.
You heard it here first!
:-)
You heard it here first!
:-)
Gem�tlichkeit
Nov 24, 10:12 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41C0o2GAJGL._SS500_.jpg
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
The guy on 24? I only know that because I was looking at that same bag ages ago and they marked it as the same bag he uses.
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
The guy on 24? I only know that because I was looking at that same bag ages ago and they marked it as the same bag he uses.
Mr Bigs
Sep 15, 09:17 AM
bmustaf
I agree with you on the points that Apple does need a reminder of where it stands in the consumer/producer relationship every now and then, just as any other company does. Consumer Reports generally does a good job with facilitating this. I'd much rather a major publication start taking Apple to task about not allowing sideloading/locking down the device though to be honest.
My issue, from a personal viewpoint as an iPhone and Android user, is the way the iPhone4 antenna issue was approached and in my opinion blown out of proportion in terms of the net effect.
Yes the phone suffers a -20dB attenuation when you hold the device and bridge that antenna. My HTC Desire gave me a -14dB attenuation when I held it in one hand and my Galaxy S gives me -18dB when holding it in one hand. The only difference is that the attenuation on the iPhone4 is possible by simply bridging that antenna with your pinky finger rather than needing to hold the device.
The point there is that how often does someone do that where they lay a device on a table and touch that particular spot with a pinky finger? Or why would someone do that? The issue is that the signal attenuates when the device is held. But every phone suffers that to some degree, with even phones that have internal antennas giving comparable attenuation when held in your hand.
They focused quite a bit on "if I touch the device just like this when it's laying down it gives me the attenuation" despite the fact no one does that. They should have looked at it from a net user experience, where "does a -20dB attenuation make a phone not recommendable compared to a phone with only a -15dB attenuation" being the more deciding factor.
To me personally, I can't see how someone can recommend a phone that gives you -15 to -18dB attenuation when held and then not recommend a phone that gives you -20dB simply because it can also be reproduced by touching a marked spot with your pinky if the device is laying on a table. That's not to say that Apple should be proud that their phone also attenuates (and usually more so by varying degrees), but where's the cutoff?
Is -19dB the maximum allowable attenuation before you say something isn't recommendable? I think that's a fair question to ask.How many of those devices actually loose service because of a grip ?
I agree with you on the points that Apple does need a reminder of where it stands in the consumer/producer relationship every now and then, just as any other company does. Consumer Reports generally does a good job with facilitating this. I'd much rather a major publication start taking Apple to task about not allowing sideloading/locking down the device though to be honest.
My issue, from a personal viewpoint as an iPhone and Android user, is the way the iPhone4 antenna issue was approached and in my opinion blown out of proportion in terms of the net effect.
Yes the phone suffers a -20dB attenuation when you hold the device and bridge that antenna. My HTC Desire gave me a -14dB attenuation when I held it in one hand and my Galaxy S gives me -18dB when holding it in one hand. The only difference is that the attenuation on the iPhone4 is possible by simply bridging that antenna with your pinky finger rather than needing to hold the device.
The point there is that how often does someone do that where they lay a device on a table and touch that particular spot with a pinky finger? Or why would someone do that? The issue is that the signal attenuates when the device is held. But every phone suffers that to some degree, with even phones that have internal antennas giving comparable attenuation when held in your hand.
They focused quite a bit on "if I touch the device just like this when it's laying down it gives me the attenuation" despite the fact no one does that. They should have looked at it from a net user experience, where "does a -20dB attenuation make a phone not recommendable compared to a phone with only a -15dB attenuation" being the more deciding factor.
To me personally, I can't see how someone can recommend a phone that gives you -15 to -18dB attenuation when held and then not recommend a phone that gives you -20dB simply because it can also be reproduced by touching a marked spot with your pinky if the device is laying on a table. That's not to say that Apple should be proud that their phone also attenuates (and usually more so by varying degrees), but where's the cutoff?
Is -19dB the maximum allowable attenuation before you say something isn't recommendable? I think that's a fair question to ask.How many of those devices actually loose service because of a grip ?
itcheroni
Jul 20, 04:50 AM
Switching is happening, even with the negative, false, disinformation posts on this site. The numbers will bear this our in the upcoming quarters. Apple at $54, Google @ $455, hmmm I wonder what I should invest in???
You sound paranoid. Where are the negative, false, disinformative posts? It's the exact opposite here, people are so pro-Apple they can't think straight.
And, by the way, purchasing stocks based on price isn't very smart. I don't understand why you're singleling out Google just because it has a high stock price. It actually works against your point because it's a great stock-arguably better than Apple.
You sound paranoid. Where are the negative, false, disinformative posts? It's the exact opposite here, people are so pro-Apple they can't think straight.
And, by the way, purchasing stocks based on price isn't very smart. I don't understand why you're singleling out Google just because it has a high stock price. It actually works against your point because it's a great stock-arguably better than Apple.
PBF
Apr 1, 03:29 AM
Guess why they are the only two removable apps?
http://cl.ly/5gbA/img.png
http://cl.ly/5gbA/img.png
(marc)
Mar 19, 05:12 PM
Historical observation: The Iraqi people never asked for US help, but there we were.
[...]
That's why the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
All about the oil... "protect the citizens" is a perfect excuse. Sadly, because this is what it should be about.
I don't think so. Gaddafi willingly traded Libya's oil, currently no oil at all is traded, and I don't think the rebels (unorganized as they are) will do a good job at it anytime soon. The nations now supporting the air strikes against Gaddafi would have been better off quietly sending him weapons to mute the rebels if they wanted oil.
[...]
That's why the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
All about the oil... "protect the citizens" is a perfect excuse. Sadly, because this is what it should be about.
I don't think so. Gaddafi willingly traded Libya's oil, currently no oil at all is traded, and I don't think the rebels (unorganized as they are) will do a good job at it anytime soon. The nations now supporting the air strikes against Gaddafi would have been better off quietly sending him weapons to mute the rebels if they wanted oil.
Paul Graham
Jan 23, 10:22 AM
I will be getting one of these later this year, Once I have enough put back lol...
http://www.meinekarre.de/cars/VW_BORA_AudiA3extra.jpg
No that isn't mine, But it's the style I'll be going with etc...
Call it inspiration lol.
So watch this space hehe......
http://www.meinekarre.de/cars/VW_BORA_AudiA3extra.jpg
No that isn't mine, But it's the style I'll be going with etc...
Call it inspiration lol.
So watch this space hehe......
No comments:
Post a Comment