Cubert
Jul 19, 03:46 PM
Boooo-Yahhhh!
Quoth Jim Cramer.
Quoth Jim Cramer.
*LTD*
May 2, 09:26 PM
I think this is the wrong way to go!
Its pulling apart mac os into a waterd down version of itself they will continue to add this stuff untill there is no difference between iOS and Mac OS!
What we'll be left with is a powerfull but waterd down mac iOS/hybrid platform with downloads through the app store like the iphone and ipad killing the powerfull features we have but running on every apple device!
I personally think apple will kill the ability to download any content through safari in the future in mac os!
So all apps will be vetted by apple and all music/films we HAVE to be made through itunes no popping on to amazon or whever to make a purchase through a browser on your imac or macbook!
I hate the direction this is going they are building a walled garden around mac os slowly and dont be supprised the ports start disapearing on the macbook soon for a 30pin dock!
Bad move apple!
"powerful but watered down."
So in other words: "powerful but much easier to use for everyone."
Sounds good to me. Go iOS.
However, if we take your sentence in full:
"What we'll be left with is a powerfull but waterd down mac iOS/hybrid platform with downloads through the app store like the iphone and ipad killing the powerfull features we have but running on every apple device!"
Then it's just nonsense! LOL
Its pulling apart mac os into a waterd down version of itself they will continue to add this stuff untill there is no difference between iOS and Mac OS!
What we'll be left with is a powerfull but waterd down mac iOS/hybrid platform with downloads through the app store like the iphone and ipad killing the powerfull features we have but running on every apple device!
I personally think apple will kill the ability to download any content through safari in the future in mac os!
So all apps will be vetted by apple and all music/films we HAVE to be made through itunes no popping on to amazon or whever to make a purchase through a browser on your imac or macbook!
I hate the direction this is going they are building a walled garden around mac os slowly and dont be supprised the ports start disapearing on the macbook soon for a 30pin dock!
Bad move apple!
"powerful but watered down."
So in other words: "powerful but much easier to use for everyone."
Sounds good to me. Go iOS.
However, if we take your sentence in full:
"What we'll be left with is a powerfull but waterd down mac iOS/hybrid platform with downloads through the app store like the iphone and ipad killing the powerfull features we have but running on every apple device!"
Then it's just nonsense! LOL
Tmelon
Apr 1, 04:21 PM
So I guess we won’t see any new features… Apple is busy polishing what we’ve got now…:/
Basically. Now they just need to polish what they gave us. It's honestly a lot though. I wouldn't feel ripped off for them charging money for it.
Almost all of the Applications have been enhanced, autosave, Launchpad, Mission Control, Versions, resume, Multitouch gestures, full screen apps and the Mac App Store.
Basically. Now they just need to polish what they gave us. It's honestly a lot though. I wouldn't feel ripped off for them charging money for it.
Almost all of the Applications have been enhanced, autosave, Launchpad, Mission Control, Versions, resume, Multitouch gestures, full screen apps and the Mac App Store.
CommodityFetish
May 4, 12:36 PM
Yep, another example of Apple coercing developers (and users) into using their app store. "The choice is yours, either:
1. use our app store and your app is a first-class citizen of OS X!
2. don't use our app store and your app is a second-class app that will not be able to work like first-class apps -- now they can't even be deleted in the same way..."
Will it be any surprise that eventually the second-class apps will be eliminated and the only option will be apple's app store. Classic proprietary monopoly tactics.
But this will become confusing to some. Some will ask why can I delete some apps this way and others I have to move manually to the trash?
My girlfriend complained the other day that installing new programs is a bit of a pain. I showed her the app store and her response was but what if the programs I want is not in the app store? In this case VLC.
1. use our app store and your app is a first-class citizen of OS X!
2. don't use our app store and your app is a second-class app that will not be able to work like first-class apps -- now they can't even be deleted in the same way..."
Will it be any surprise that eventually the second-class apps will be eliminated and the only option will be apple's app store. Classic proprietary monopoly tactics.
But this will become confusing to some. Some will ask why can I delete some apps this way and others I have to move manually to the trash?
My girlfriend complained the other day that installing new programs is a bit of a pain. I showed her the app store and her response was but what if the programs I want is not in the app store? In this case VLC.
ValSalva
Jun 23, 12:08 PM
iOS on a real Mac seems about as pointless as Microsoft Bob on Windows.
:D I like your comparison.
:D I like your comparison.
MacMan86
Apr 21, 04:05 PM
But it doesn't need to be as persistent and as precise as it is for that to work. My history of last year is not relevent. The file should be flushed/cleaned out after a certain time. After a point, the data isn't useful to the phone.
The data is nearly always useful to the phone. Cell towers don't move very often, cached data would very rarely be out of date. If you go back to a city you visited several months back but have no data connection, the cached cell tower data could still be used to find your rough location.
It also shouldn't be backed-up. The device starts with a new DB when its new, no reason it shouldn't start over when you restore. That would alleviate some of the privacy concerns at least.
I would agree, but there's a hell of a lot of other information in an iTunes backup (geotagged photos, passwords in clear text in plist files stored by 3rd party apps who don't bother to use the Keychain, SMS messages, call logs etc) and if you're worried about privacy you should already have ticked the 'Encrypt backups' box - that's all it takes. I'd say all the other data in an unencrypted backup is just as, if not more, valuable.
And if this same file isn't what is being sent to Apple, and you have information indicating this, then the summary of the article that makes it sound like it is should be fixed.
It says so quite clearly at the top of Levinson's article which this MR article links to (https://alexlevinson.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/3-major-issues-with-the-latest-iphone-tracking-discovery/):
1) Apple is not collecting this data.
And to suggest otherwise is completely misrepresenting Apple. I quote:
Apple is gathering this data, but it�s clearly intentional, as the database is being restored across backups, and even device migrations.
Apple is not harvesting this data from your device. This is data on the device that you as the customer purchased and unless they can show concrete evidence supporting this claim � network traffic analysis of connections to Apple servers � I rebut this claim in full. Through my research in this field and all traffic analysis I have performed, not once have I seen this data traverse a network.
If the phone sends Apple a cell tower ID and gets back a lat/lon of that tower (this is being done anonymously according to T&C's), what is the benefit to Apple of sending this log back to them? They've already got the information from the calls to their servers, no need to get it twice.
The data is nearly always useful to the phone. Cell towers don't move very often, cached data would very rarely be out of date. If you go back to a city you visited several months back but have no data connection, the cached cell tower data could still be used to find your rough location.
It also shouldn't be backed-up. The device starts with a new DB when its new, no reason it shouldn't start over when you restore. That would alleviate some of the privacy concerns at least.
I would agree, but there's a hell of a lot of other information in an iTunes backup (geotagged photos, passwords in clear text in plist files stored by 3rd party apps who don't bother to use the Keychain, SMS messages, call logs etc) and if you're worried about privacy you should already have ticked the 'Encrypt backups' box - that's all it takes. I'd say all the other data in an unencrypted backup is just as, if not more, valuable.
And if this same file isn't what is being sent to Apple, and you have information indicating this, then the summary of the article that makes it sound like it is should be fixed.
It says so quite clearly at the top of Levinson's article which this MR article links to (https://alexlevinson.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/3-major-issues-with-the-latest-iphone-tracking-discovery/):
1) Apple is not collecting this data.
And to suggest otherwise is completely misrepresenting Apple. I quote:
Apple is gathering this data, but it�s clearly intentional, as the database is being restored across backups, and even device migrations.
Apple is not harvesting this data from your device. This is data on the device that you as the customer purchased and unless they can show concrete evidence supporting this claim � network traffic analysis of connections to Apple servers � I rebut this claim in full. Through my research in this field and all traffic analysis I have performed, not once have I seen this data traverse a network.
If the phone sends Apple a cell tower ID and gets back a lat/lon of that tower (this is being done anonymously according to T&C's), what is the benefit to Apple of sending this log back to them? They've already got the information from the calls to their servers, no need to get it twice.
Multimedia
Aug 29, 12:56 PM
It seems that if this rumor is correct, then why now? Why not 2 months ago? Have mini sales been all that great to warrant holding off on a simple update? Or could they possibly have been waiting for other products to move to merom so the mini doesn't infringe? I just don't understand why this has taken so long.I would assume they're going to update everything at once to make a grander impression with all of the new upgrades. Sure, they could probably easily update the mini now and make it available for purchase, but why not wait until the C2D hits the other machines at the same time? That way Apple can say their entire computer product line has been updated. I think it makes more of an impression to casual computer and mac users.IF TRUE - Just In Time Invintory Management Makes When Yonah Price Falls The Time To Do It. That would be once Merom is shipping - like NOW.
I'm still not convinced this rumor is true. I've got my fingers crossed these two processors are going to be C2D at 1.66 and 1.83GHz - not Yonah.
Only fair & logical reason it might be true would be due to constrained supply of Merom to begin with so Apple has to use all those for MacBook Pro first, then iMac - excluding a Conroe plan -, MacBook and finally mini when supply of Merom is unconstrained like around November-December. By first doing the speed bumps to the Merom speeds with Yonah, they can deliver an immediate benefit to their mini customers without spreading the limited supply of Meroms all over the lines yet.
So after they have enough Meroms for MBP they can switch the MB to Meroms at the same speeds as now, then switch the mini ALMOST silently once that line is satisfied fully. iMac is a big unknown due to Conroe possability.
More I think about it, that is probably what's happening. Intel probably has the order with Apple designed to reduce the Yonah supply as quickly as they can provde enough Meroms to keep satisfying Apple's every growing appetite for more and more C2 Intel processors at the ever growing assembly lines in Taiwan & China.
I'm still not convinced this rumor is true. I've got my fingers crossed these two processors are going to be C2D at 1.66 and 1.83GHz - not Yonah.
Only fair & logical reason it might be true would be due to constrained supply of Merom to begin with so Apple has to use all those for MacBook Pro first, then iMac - excluding a Conroe plan -, MacBook and finally mini when supply of Merom is unconstrained like around November-December. By first doing the speed bumps to the Merom speeds with Yonah, they can deliver an immediate benefit to their mini customers without spreading the limited supply of Meroms all over the lines yet.
So after they have enough Meroms for MBP they can switch the MB to Meroms at the same speeds as now, then switch the mini ALMOST silently once that line is satisfied fully. iMac is a big unknown due to Conroe possability.
More I think about it, that is probably what's happening. Intel probably has the order with Apple designed to reduce the Yonah supply as quickly as they can provde enough Meroms to keep satisfying Apple's every growing appetite for more and more C2 Intel processors at the ever growing assembly lines in Taiwan & China.
mcarnes
Jul 18, 01:44 AM
If I'm going to spend all that time downloading a movie, I should at least be able to keep it. Bah.
rockthecasbah
Jul 13, 10:46 PM
I'm sure that the drive with be built-to-order only. They are far too expensive and appeal to such a small audience (right now) that having it standard would just iritate people buying pro line equipment who don't need these drives yet because of the unnecessary costs.
MicroByte
Sep 14, 08:56 PM
@kelving525 - Which BB did you get the Belkin from? I'm about to cave and get the light blue one. Also, it really looks like a dark blue in your pics, is it really purple?
kjjnk
Apr 12, 09:17 PM
Wow, it looks absolutely stunning.
rdowns
Mar 22, 01:03 PM
At my base they picket outside of the entrance gates every thursday. And all military members are to take a different entrance to avoid getting hurt. They have signs saying horrible comments and they attack you and your vehicle. Yes they get arrested if they attack anything, but at least 1 gets hurt a week. As for funerals somehow they find out where they are and play music, throw a party, cause a nascence basically to ruin the moment of memory and putting someone to rest.
How about a link?
Busted. The IT company owner who happens to serve in the military at the same time. Busy life.
His profile says he's the Director of IT. Who am I to question that?
So two questions (I will try to write out as best as I can, hopefully it's understandable).
1: Is it possible that while I am on a business trip with my laptop that if I needed to access my network at work that I can remotely access it to view computers on the network with abilities to grab files from a computer, check things / alter things, and maintain. If so how?
2: If someone is on my network is it possible to see what traffic they are bringing in or out of my network without installing a file on their pc / mac to know the site they entered, file download, etc.
Thanks team.
How about a link?
Busted. The IT company owner who happens to serve in the military at the same time. Busy life.
His profile says he's the Director of IT. Who am I to question that?
So two questions (I will try to write out as best as I can, hopefully it's understandable).
1: Is it possible that while I am on a business trip with my laptop that if I needed to access my network at work that I can remotely access it to view computers on the network with abilities to grab files from a computer, check things / alter things, and maintain. If so how?
2: If someone is on my network is it possible to see what traffic they are bringing in or out of my network without installing a file on their pc / mac to know the site they entered, file download, etc.
Thanks team.
Macula
Oct 23, 11:14 PM
Why NAND?
Because I am just obsessed with system responsiveness. I can tolerate things like slow peripheral throughput or a less than stellar GPU, but hiccups and delays are such a turnoff! I would be relieved to see applications load 30-50% faster, with all their components instantly fetched, and with lightning fast task-switching.
Besides, NAND-supported computers is a paradigmatic shift of sorts and, as such, a very exciting prospect.
I just hope NAND is included in the first generation of Santa-Rosa iMacs and laptops!
Because I am just obsessed with system responsiveness. I can tolerate things like slow peripheral throughput or a less than stellar GPU, but hiccups and delays are such a turnoff! I would be relieved to see applications load 30-50% faster, with all their components instantly fetched, and with lightning fast task-switching.
Besides, NAND-supported computers is a paradigmatic shift of sorts and, as such, a very exciting prospect.
I just hope NAND is included in the first generation of Santa-Rosa iMacs and laptops!
nemaslov
Mar 23, 01:36 PM
To each his own. But come on. 497 days worth of music? That's almost a year and a half of listening to music 24 hours a day without listening to the same song twice. I think you'd have to replace the battery before then.
You still don't get it. It is having all your music with you. The choice to play anything you feel in the mood to hear , not that you play it all from start to finish.
You still don't get it. It is having all your music with you. The choice to play anything you feel in the mood to hear , not that you play it all from start to finish.
jgould
Feb 27, 06:58 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5483175217_83c32f59b9_b.jpg
What did you unplug before taking the picture? :o
What did you unplug before taking the picture? :o
timerollson
Nov 27, 05:04 PM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5212127859_f4913c6267.jpg
...to make macaroni and cheese. It's currently in the oven. :o
...to make macaroni and cheese. It's currently in the oven. :o
MasonH
Apr 2, 10:48 PM
It is very obvious when someone has no idea what they are talking about, and just making up false information.
I like the iPad... but I don't see any "false information" in his post. At all.
What was false?
Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
justin bieber and selena gomez
I like the iPad... but I don't see any "false information" in his post. At all.
What was false?
kerryb
Apr 26, 01:09 PM
I don't even think the word "App" is really officially a word. As for generic terms, everyone uses generic terms to describe their company's products and brand names, as that's the only way you can allow people to make a link between something they already know, and the product.
"Apple" is also generic, yet everyone agrees that it's fairly reserved for Apple inc. So are many other names that companies patent to avoid others using it.
App is not an official word but "ape" as in "he aped my every move" is.
"Apple" is also generic, yet everyone agrees that it's fairly reserved for Apple inc. So are many other names that companies patent to avoid others using it.
App is not an official word but "ape" as in "he aped my every move" is.
lordonuthin
Mar 21, 03:29 PM
I guess I'm number 1 on the team now :cool:
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
Caitlyn
Nov 27, 03:57 PM
A 17" Apple Cinema Display would be great in my opinion. Probably an afforable, well selling product. However, the thing I want more than anything is built-in iSights so...this doesn't really phase me much to be honest. :D
extrafuzzyllama
Sep 29, 11:23 PM
is that lime case tpu or silicon?
Mac Fly (film)
Nov 30, 05:51 AM
My guess would be too much cost for such a small market. There's not a lot of 1080p content out there and even less 1080p displays. For a first gen device, I think 720p would be good enough. Maybe even 480p if it's cheap enough.
Although, in the end it'll probably depend on bandwidth limitations. They never said what protocol they'll be using. Some are assuming 802.11n, but that would limit them to the newest Intel Macs with a firmware upgrade.
What if the iTV did both, which it will? B, G and N. They would offer the same quality download to start with. Broadband connections haven't reached acceptable levels for HD movie downloads in 1080p etc. So as is, if you have an intel Mac, all it means is that the video, movie etc. will shoot over to your TV a heck of alot quicker. The name's gonna be "Teleport" by the way.
Although, in the end it'll probably depend on bandwidth limitations. They never said what protocol they'll be using. Some are assuming 802.11n, but that would limit them to the newest Intel Macs with a firmware upgrade.
What if the iTV did both, which it will? B, G and N. They would offer the same quality download to start with. Broadband connections haven't reached acceptable levels for HD movie downloads in 1080p etc. So as is, if you have an intel Mac, all it means is that the video, movie etc. will shoot over to your TV a heck of alot quicker. The name's gonna be "Teleport" by the way.
extraextra
Aug 29, 09:52 AM
i think the main thing instead of saying apple is a full 64-bit company is to say they are a full dual-core company, which if they put in meron, one will have to still be single core. dual core yonah or single core meron? (in the base machine)
Fully dual-core doesn't sound particularly impressive, and I think other companies can claim that they are fully dual-core as well.
It's Merom, by the way.
I'd rather them put the Yonah in and lower the price.
Fully dual-core doesn't sound particularly impressive, and I think other companies can claim that they are fully dual-core as well.
It's Merom, by the way.
I'd rather them put the Yonah in and lower the price.
No comments:
Post a Comment