doo-hik-ee
Jan 3, 09:06 PM
give me an apple clothing line!
%IMG_DESC_2%
%IMG_DESC_3%
%IMG_DESC_4%
%IMG_DESC_5%
%IMG_DESC_6%
%IMG_DESC_7%
%IMG_DESC_8%
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
spyderracer393
Nov 27, 02:34 PM
Wow, for the first time ever I actually beat MacRumors: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3095478#post3095478
I think a 17" model would be a good idea for Apple. It'll stop people buying Minis from getting their LCD fix from elsewhere to some extent and won't cost Apple a bean in R&D costs since they already use 17" panels in the iMac and have all the internals ready because of the 20" and 23" ACDs. It would only need a different sized chassis to be designed.
dude you may have "beaten them" by getting on the front page, but I sent this tip in this morning at 8 AM and it was not from digitimes, it was from industry resources and factories in Asia so HA I beat you.
I think a 17" model would be a good idea for Apple. It'll stop people buying Minis from getting their LCD fix from elsewhere to some extent and won't cost Apple a bean in R&D costs since they already use 17" panels in the iMac and have all the internals ready because of the 20" and 23" ACDs. It would only need a different sized chassis to be designed.
dude you may have "beaten them" by getting on the front page, but I sent this tip in this morning at 8 AM and it was not from digitimes, it was from industry resources and factories in Asia so HA I beat you.
supremedesigner
Jul 18, 07:38 AM
This is bulls***! IF they want to do that way, then it's their loss! That is really stupid. I'd rather buy DVD instead of renting their cheapstake movies!
viperguy
Aug 29, 01:55 PM
LoL
The discussion in thinksecret is so fun at the moment, you can't even imagine how.
Basically everyone was talkin about it's video card, how it should be upgraded and things like that
But then these messages came into topic
User1
I think the Mac mini has a future as long as they can get a better video output and a DVR.
User2
It'd be great if they added a nuclear reactor.
User3
Will it include a pony?
Coments? Mine: LOL
The discussion in thinksecret is so fun at the moment, you can't even imagine how.
Basically everyone was talkin about it's video card, how it should be upgraded and things like that
But then these messages came into topic
User1
I think the Mac mini has a future as long as they can get a better video output and a DVR.
User2
It'd be great if they added a nuclear reactor.
User3
Will it include a pony?
Coments? Mine: LOL
macfan881
Sep 6, 10:26 PM
i agree thats why i think we will see new airports basestations with 8021n so that way we get high networkspeeds when viewing the movies on tv etc
kLy
Apr 1, 08:37 AM
Two *major* bugs:
1) TextEdit crashes on launch (tried trashing the prefs file - nothing)
2) cmd+left/right no longer goes to the start/end of the line :O wtf!
Anyone else experiencing these?
1) TextEdit crashes on launch (tried trashing the prefs file - nothing)
2) cmd+left/right no longer goes to the start/end of the line :O wtf!
Anyone else experiencing these?
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
h'biki
Apr 16, 03:21 AM
when marketshare is almost 0 % you are close to dying, look a 1 % of all new machines built is not giving me any confidence in the platform. sure we have 10 % in a installed platform but are loosing everywhere( thank you motorola for holding up the ass end. Fact is Pcs are running away from Mac and when a 500 dollar machine kicks a new $2000 Imac its time to say so long to Jobs and his croonies. Supported you guys way to long at my expense.
Layman's version:
When you CEASE TO MAKE A PROFIT then you are dying*. Until then, it doesn't matter what your market share is.
If 1% of the world's population gave me a dollar, I'd be very rich. If 50% of the world's population gave you 1 cent, you'd also be rich, but not as rich as me... even though you have a greater market share. Its all about margins!
For those who are actually interested in understanding the world of business:
*Well, possibly dying... You have to continue to lose money and do it over a period of time before you are dying. Even then, that may be a result of mismanagement, rather than the company itself being dead -- there may still be the potential for money to be made. Really, the only time a company is dead is when its bankrupt and/or when its taken over and its assets stripped (because its been mis-valued).
To give two recent examples. Gateway has been losing money for some time. It has gone from a all time high in 1997 of $61 per share to its current price of around $6 (which it has been at for over the last year). In other words, its been devalued by a magnitude of 10. (They may have refinanced during that time and devalued the price per share, while increasing their overall market value... but I can't remember them doing that. Gateway may have greater marker share, but Apple is valued at around $28 per share. Just to make the comparison properly fair, Gateway has a market value of $1,999 Million, while Apple's market value is around $10,000 million. In other words, Apple is worth ten times as much as Gateway, despite their smaller market share. (Admittely, Apple's share price flucates like crazy, but thats arguably a result of the FUD of uninformed gits, like those at C|Net). Nonetheless, Gateway is likely to be around for some time. Until it continues to burn through money and its share price drops even lower, and it becomes the target of a hostile takeover... which will result in (1) a merger/total buyout/absortion; (2) a massive corporate governance change because the hostile company thinks there's money to be made; and (3) its bought out, its assets stripped and resold.
Example 2 is Media 100. They were also burning through money. Unlike Gateway, however, they weren't generating much gross revenue. Their technology was good, but not that good, and their management was baaad. They weren't generating much gross revenue, which is why no one was really interested in buying them or giving them a loan. They just didn't seem capable of even making a profit (and thats what matters). They were a dying company (unlike Gateway, which is just troubled). So they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Now their assets are being bought by Optibase -- when that deal is complete, they will be dead.
Point is, corporate finance is a very convuluted world. They're like stars. The bigger they are, the longer it usually takes them to die. Sometimes there are corporate "supernovas" (like Enron or HIH or OneTel) in which the whole corporate structure implodes, but thats because of criminal negligence, lack of transparency, and dodgy account practices. (All of which render the mechanisms of the market for corporate control to be rather useless. Noone wants to touch a company when you don't want to know what you're buying).
The most important thing to the world of corporate finance -- the one in which a company lives or dies -- is profit per share, then revenue. Both of which Apple has. Thus it is healthy. Oh, and its debt free. This is a good thing, because it signals to potentially future creditors that it pays off it loans... thus they're likely to bail it out, if it finds itself in trouble again. (Of course, there are mitigating factors there, but thats true of anything).
The only reason that Apple's market share is an issue is because uninformed gits in the IT press (tautology that) scream about it being an issue. This creates information asynchronicity (imnsho) and distorts the market (both the share market and the IT market). Personally I reckon that if people didn't think market share was an issue, Apple would actually be increasing its marketshare. Of course, thats exactly the reason companies like C|NET do scream about it, so it becomes a quasi self-fulfililng prophercy.
Here endeth the lesson on "Introduction to Corporate Financing 101"
Layman's version:
When you CEASE TO MAKE A PROFIT then you are dying*. Until then, it doesn't matter what your market share is.
If 1% of the world's population gave me a dollar, I'd be very rich. If 50% of the world's population gave you 1 cent, you'd also be rich, but not as rich as me... even though you have a greater market share. Its all about margins!
For those who are actually interested in understanding the world of business:
*Well, possibly dying... You have to continue to lose money and do it over a period of time before you are dying. Even then, that may be a result of mismanagement, rather than the company itself being dead -- there may still be the potential for money to be made. Really, the only time a company is dead is when its bankrupt and/or when its taken over and its assets stripped (because its been mis-valued).
To give two recent examples. Gateway has been losing money for some time. It has gone from a all time high in 1997 of $61 per share to its current price of around $6 (which it has been at for over the last year). In other words, its been devalued by a magnitude of 10. (They may have refinanced during that time and devalued the price per share, while increasing their overall market value... but I can't remember them doing that. Gateway may have greater marker share, but Apple is valued at around $28 per share. Just to make the comparison properly fair, Gateway has a market value of $1,999 Million, while Apple's market value is around $10,000 million. In other words, Apple is worth ten times as much as Gateway, despite their smaller market share. (Admittely, Apple's share price flucates like crazy, but thats arguably a result of the FUD of uninformed gits, like those at C|Net). Nonetheless, Gateway is likely to be around for some time. Until it continues to burn through money and its share price drops even lower, and it becomes the target of a hostile takeover... which will result in (1) a merger/total buyout/absortion; (2) a massive corporate governance change because the hostile company thinks there's money to be made; and (3) its bought out, its assets stripped and resold.
Example 2 is Media 100. They were also burning through money. Unlike Gateway, however, they weren't generating much gross revenue. Their technology was good, but not that good, and their management was baaad. They weren't generating much gross revenue, which is why no one was really interested in buying them or giving them a loan. They just didn't seem capable of even making a profit (and thats what matters). They were a dying company (unlike Gateway, which is just troubled). So they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Now their assets are being bought by Optibase -- when that deal is complete, they will be dead.
Point is, corporate finance is a very convuluted world. They're like stars. The bigger they are, the longer it usually takes them to die. Sometimes there are corporate "supernovas" (like Enron or HIH or OneTel) in which the whole corporate structure implodes, but thats because of criminal negligence, lack of transparency, and dodgy account practices. (All of which render the mechanisms of the market for corporate control to be rather useless. Noone wants to touch a company when you don't want to know what you're buying).
The most important thing to the world of corporate finance -- the one in which a company lives or dies -- is profit per share, then revenue. Both of which Apple has. Thus it is healthy. Oh, and its debt free. This is a good thing, because it signals to potentially future creditors that it pays off it loans... thus they're likely to bail it out, if it finds itself in trouble again. (Of course, there are mitigating factors there, but thats true of anything).
The only reason that Apple's market share is an issue is because uninformed gits in the IT press (tautology that) scream about it being an issue. This creates information asynchronicity (imnsho) and distorts the market (both the share market and the IT market). Personally I reckon that if people didn't think market share was an issue, Apple would actually be increasing its marketshare. Of course, thats exactly the reason companies like C|NET do scream about it, so it becomes a quasi self-fulfililng prophercy.
Here endeth the lesson on "Introduction to Corporate Financing 101"
gmcalpin
May 2, 07:50 PM
They could have simplified the whole process in the following way:
(blah blah blah)
Both sound more logical and intuitive than this.
You assume that the method described here is/will be the ONLY way to do this.
How many different ways can you create a new folder on a hard drive? I can think of three without even trying.
I guess that's way easier than dragging it to the trash?
Dragging an application to the trash doesn't delete all the associated files littering your Library, or hidden files, or…
(blah blah blah)
Both sound more logical and intuitive than this.
You assume that the method described here is/will be the ONLY way to do this.
How many different ways can you create a new folder on a hard drive? I can think of three without even trying.
I guess that's way easier than dragging it to the trash?
Dragging an application to the trash doesn't delete all the associated files littering your Library, or hidden files, or…
Evangelion
Aug 29, 11:40 AM
people, we need a reality-check here! all this talk of sales grinding to a halt is complete bs. what does merom have that yonah doesn't? it has 5-20% better performance clock-for-clock and it's 64bit. that's it, in the end. are those really such features that not having those would doom the mini? no they are not! mini is about being cheap. and using yonah is a good way of doing just that. if you want more performance, apple has other products for you.
what would i like to see? lower price (maybe -100 across the board) and maybe dvd-burner on all models. add to that a new cpu, and you are all set.
posting from my nokia 770, so no caps
what would i like to see? lower price (maybe -100 across the board) and maybe dvd-burner on all models. add to that a new cpu, and you are all set.
posting from my nokia 770, so no caps
MacFever
Apr 21, 12:31 PM
I don't see the big hoopla and the press who are probably not very tech savy just ran with this....
If you really knew about the features Apple offers with the iPhone then they would know that they have a service to find your stolen iPhone...how else would it work...?? lol morons.
This is no biggie.
This is also capable on any phone...triangulation can be done on any cellular device if the "authorities" wanted too look for someone.
If you really knew about the features Apple offers with the iPhone then they would know that they have a service to find your stolen iPhone...how else would it work...?? lol morons.
This is no biggie.
This is also capable on any phone...triangulation can be done on any cellular device if the "authorities" wanted too look for someone.
BoyBach
Aug 7, 05:14 AM
Not too brag or anything :D but it works out great for us in UK. Get in from work 5.30pm / open a beer / macrumors / keynote 6pm / tears of joy / rob bank 9pm / buy mac pro :D
Finish work at 5.30pm - 1 hour of 5-a-side footy (6.00 - 7.00pm) - drive home, eat & shower by 7.30pm - turn on Mac, log into MacRumors (hopefully it'll be running!) - and laugh at all you silly bugger's who have to spend �1000's on a new Mac and display :p
Finish work at 5.30pm - 1 hour of 5-a-side footy (6.00 - 7.00pm) - drive home, eat & shower by 7.30pm - turn on Mac, log into MacRumors (hopefully it'll be running!) - and laugh at all you silly bugger's who have to spend �1000's on a new Mac and display :p
iBug2
May 2, 06:03 PM
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Obviously the guy you replied to did not know anything he was talking about. Apple's resume function on Lion does not break the multitasking we have on SL anyway and it's just a nice addition.
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Obviously the guy you replied to did not know anything he was talking about. Apple's resume function on Lion does not break the multitasking we have on SL anyway and it's just a nice addition.
stefan15
Sep 6, 05:39 PM
Really confused as to why they just didn't skip to Core2.
twoodcc
Oct 5, 02:22 PM
thanks. when it gets colder here, i'll start doing the bigadv units again. then the points should really add up. if they keep the units going.
way to go dude!
hey, congrats to you for 6 million!!
way to go dude!
hey, congrats to you for 6 million!!
firestarter
Mar 19, 11:50 AM
I suspect his foot dragging was done to get other nations to step up and take the lead here. About time IMO.
That's one possible reason for delaying. More here (http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article973767.ece/British-press-raps-Obama-over-Libya-no-fly-zone-delay).
(FWIW, I don't disagree with you that it's time for other nations to do more)
Thinking ahead, what happens when the power vacuum is in place?
Get ready for the same old story, yet again, just in Libya this time.
I think this action is probably too late to bring about a collapse of the Gadaffi regime. It may well lead to an extended stalemate, with different parts of the country run by Gadaffi and the rebels.
It will probably drag on, and be messy.
That's one possible reason for delaying. More here (http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article973767.ece/British-press-raps-Obama-over-Libya-no-fly-zone-delay).
(FWIW, I don't disagree with you that it's time for other nations to do more)
Thinking ahead, what happens when the power vacuum is in place?
Get ready for the same old story, yet again, just in Libya this time.
I think this action is probably too late to bring about a collapse of the Gadaffi regime. It may well lead to an extended stalemate, with different parts of the country run by Gadaffi and the rebels.
It will probably drag on, and be messy.
chrismacguy
Feb 27, 08:32 PM
hahaha, a true collector collects what is obsoleat for the simply fact of owning it. if i had more mony my room would be a mac musum :D
Trust me, when you hit 10 or so, you begin to start creating innovative methods of Mac Storage... (Yes, I have 15 of them, and yes, I am not done...) before you start collecting I recommend buying either a lot of shelves, or a lot of storage units...
Trust me, when you hit 10 or so, you begin to start creating innovative methods of Mac Storage... (Yes, I have 15 of them, and yes, I am not done...) before you start collecting I recommend buying either a lot of shelves, or a lot of storage units...
Nugget
Jan 1, 05:20 PM
Sounds like the keynote will either be really boring or really surprising.
infernohellion
Apr 3, 09:18 AM
The size decrease makes sense right?
Leopard was large because it was built to be run on PPC as well (universal binary)
Snow Leopard was much smaller because it's Intel only
and now further refinement plus 64-bit only stuff (right?)
Leopard was large because it was built to be run on PPC as well (universal binary)
Snow Leopard was much smaller because it's Intel only
and now further refinement plus 64-bit only stuff (right?)
Digitalclips
Mar 23, 08:40 AM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
My classic is full, mix of music from my CDs (and old LPs I digitized myself) and a few audio books. I've re ripped my entire CD collection at the highest rate on my Mac but cannot re sync my iPod now as it would overflow like mad. I'd love at least 220 GB. I've wondered about trying to do it myself but decided against it as I've no idea if it would work ... I should google that! ;)
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
My classic is full, mix of music from my CDs (and old LPs I digitized myself) and a few audio books. I've re ripped my entire CD collection at the highest rate on my Mac but cannot re sync my iPod now as it would overflow like mad. I'd love at least 220 GB. I've wondered about trying to do it myself but decided against it as I've no idea if it would work ... I should google that! ;)
fswmacguy
Sep 8, 08:44 PM
I've always been a sucker for the SwitchEasy products.
http://www.switcheasy.com/
But they do not have any iPod touch 4G cases yet. :C
http://www.switcheasy.com/
But they do not have any iPod touch 4G cases yet. :C
wordoflife
Nov 23, 06:40 PM
Last thing I paid for was the fair to get on the public bus to get to school for $0.85.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Bucharest_HESS_bus_1.jpg
That's not the city bus I took, I just Googled "public bus"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Bucharest_HESS_bus_1.jpg
That's not the city bus I took, I just Googled "public bus"
charlituna
Apr 2, 09:42 PM
I only talked to the guy for about one minute and was told that Apple was looking into this so I am guessing that more than 10 people have an issue.
They look into everything for all new products, standard practice. That's why they encourage folks to return 'bad' units those first few weeks. They call it Early Field Failure Analysis
They look into everything for all new products, standard practice. That's why they encourage folks to return 'bad' units those first few weeks. They call it Early Field Failure Analysis
netdog
Aug 29, 01:09 PM
Think Secret say no Merom in the Mini so you guys believe it?
It makes little sense to continue with the Yonah.
I am suspect of this rumour.
It makes little sense to continue with the Yonah.
I am suspect of this rumour.
No comments:
Post a Comment