ozziegn
Jan 15, 01:46 PM
I'm sitting here laughing at the tons of people who were saying how they were going to buy the new MBP when it came out on MWSF on Jan. 15th. - kept telling all these people "how are you going to buy a new MBP when you don't even know if there is going to be a new MBP????"
-and here I sit and say, "I told you so.........." :D
-and here I sit and say, "I told you so.........." :D
ten-oak-druid
Apr 29, 09:44 PM
As for this control panel issue with buttons versus sliders, why does Apple feel they need to group expose and spaces under one control panel anyway?
Why not just make them separate control panels?
Why not just make them separate control panels?
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 08:24 PM
How do you count your elapsed ? Again, NSTimer is simply an object inserted into the run loop. It has no conception of elapsed time beyond its own internal interval.
What methods are being called and by what ? What is the code to those methods ?
You have posted bit and pieces all over the thread, why not just post a readable, compilable example of everything you have that can help us reproduce or see your actual problem ?
What methods are being called and by what ? What is the code to those methods ?
You have posted bit and pieces all over the thread, why not just post a readable, compilable example of everything you have that can help us reproduce or see your actual problem ?
revjay
Sep 25, 11:34 AM
Just FYI, I'm running Aperture with 17k+ images on an iMac 24" 2.1ghz G5 - sometimes slow, but heck i'm doing it and drooling over the 1.5 update
...well...I've been using Aperture 1.1 with 765k+ images on a 24" 800mhz G3 and it really rocks!...
I'm assuming you slipped and meant to type 20"...right?
...well...I've been using Aperture 1.1 with 765k+ images on a 24" 800mhz G3 and it really rocks!...
I'm assuming you slipped and meant to type 20"...right?
MikhailT
Apr 6, 11:16 PM
Microsoft is doing the smart thing by basing W8 on W7 and refining with a smaller collection of new features/improvements instead of trying everything new like they did with Vista. They are not going overboard this time around and they're also pushing to do <3 year release cycle. I hope they do another smart thing by actually decreasing the price of their SKUs a bit while reducing the SKUs as well. W8 Home for 150$ and W8 Pro for 250$, remove the Ultimate SKU.
Windows 8 is rumored to have a new feature called History Vault that's similar to Time Machine, so it'd be interesting to see how it works out.
Please note that it's not fair to compare both right now. They both say things but it does not mean that those features will show up in the final build. W7 changed a lot from the first beta to the final release due to their massive beta test program. Microsoft is likely to repeat the same beta test project with W8 because of the massive success it bought to W7.
Windows 8 is rumored to have a new feature called History Vault that's similar to Time Machine, so it'd be interesting to see how it works out.
Please note that it's not fair to compare both right now. They both say things but it does not mean that those features will show up in the final build. W7 changed a lot from the first beta to the final release due to their massive beta test program. Microsoft is likely to repeat the same beta test project with W8 because of the massive success it bought to W7.
Joshuarocks
Apr 7, 11:39 AM
Also this just in... Windows 8 appears to be running off of a Unix like platform underneath the GUI interface.. this could be the beginning of a Unix based OS similar to MAC OS X itself.
Ballmer has outdone himself this time.
Ballmer has outdone himself this time.
dejo
May 2, 01:09 PM
I read somewhere that congress wants to know why NSA has a security expert over at Apple...
NSA does not have a security expert at Apple. Apple has a security expert who used to be with the NSA. Big difference.
NSA does not have a security expert at Apple. Apple has a security expert who used to be with the NSA. Big difference.
someguy
Jan 12, 09:40 AM
Wow, I just watched the keynote and my god this guy is hard to stand. I've watched previous keynotes and he never seemed this bad. The charisma he's displayed in the past has been replaced with smugness. He acted like the iPhone was the second coming of christ and we were so lucky that he existed to bring it upon us.
When really, this is probably the single worst keynote for Mac users that he has ever given. No hardware updates. No 10.5 preview. Not even iLife and iWork '07! Plus, very people I know are going to be interested in spending $600 + $60 a month or more to use this phone while plenty of us would love to spend $300 or $400 or even more on a full-screen video iPod. God, I wish this keynote was all some nightmare and in the real one Apple actually gave us something we wanted.
This may have already been said, I haven't read this thread because this topic has been done to death IMO, but I sense more arrogance in your single post than in all of Steve's keynotes combined.
When really, this is probably the single worst keynote for Mac users that he has ever given. No hardware updates. No 10.5 preview. Not even iLife and iWork '07! Plus, very people I know are going to be interested in spending $600 + $60 a month or more to use this phone while plenty of us would love to spend $300 or $400 or even more on a full-screen video iPod. God, I wish this keynote was all some nightmare and in the real one Apple actually gave us something we wanted.
This may have already been said, I haven't read this thread because this topic has been done to death IMO, but I sense more arrogance in your single post than in all of Steve's keynotes combined.
dethmaShine
Apr 29, 01:16 PM
Downloading...
EDIT:
Size: 1.17GB
Title: Mac OS X Lion Preview Update
EDIT:
Size: 1.17GB
Title: Mac OS X Lion Preview Update
steadysignal
Apr 29, 05:44 PM
Great news. Now if only they'd kept Rosetta, I'd upgrade happily. As it is... I'm going to have to stay stuck in Snow Leopard.
why?
why?
getalifemacfans
Jan 9, 11:48 AM
What are your predictions for this years MacWorld?
i expect a new iphone(yes i do).the current iphone i think sucks i rather buy a nokia/sony ericson.
a new mbp.ore even bether i really want that new ultraportebole with nice penryn to go.
and what about that blueray?after warner has gone for the kill in toshibas heart and the theory microsoft just want chaos in blueray/hd sales so they can sell downloaded movies from the internett-maybe apple likes that theory as well ?would not suprise me.
And if they update the macpro why dont they update the cinema displays?(look at the name "cinema" displays you really expect something juicy with that name)
but like allways apple are allways interestet in proclaming that there products state of the art some of the products are.But if the product are state of the art - the product often speaks for it selfs..and if you are interested in a new fancy screen with that macpro check out the dell glass screen thats really something.
'And what about that games?why cant apple/steve jobs close the deal with more gamedesigners so that mac/appleusers can stop playing on windows on ther mac(never gonna hapend i supouse)...
dont allways wait for apple thats my tip but i really expect something groundbreaking to hapend inn MWSF - if not i would be just as shocking(thypical apple)...
i expect a new iphone(yes i do).the current iphone i think sucks i rather buy a nokia/sony ericson.
a new mbp.ore even bether i really want that new ultraportebole with nice penryn to go.
and what about that blueray?after warner has gone for the kill in toshibas heart and the theory microsoft just want chaos in blueray/hd sales so they can sell downloaded movies from the internett-maybe apple likes that theory as well ?would not suprise me.
And if they update the macpro why dont they update the cinema displays?(look at the name "cinema" displays you really expect something juicy with that name)
but like allways apple are allways interestet in proclaming that there products state of the art some of the products are.But if the product are state of the art - the product often speaks for it selfs..and if you are interested in a new fancy screen with that macpro check out the dell glass screen thats really something.
'And what about that games?why cant apple/steve jobs close the deal with more gamedesigners so that mac/appleusers can stop playing on windows on ther mac(never gonna hapend i supouse)...
dont allways wait for apple thats my tip but i really expect something groundbreaking to hapend inn MWSF - if not i would be just as shocking(thypical apple)...
bretm
Apr 25, 01:43 PM
Curiouser and curiouser.
If it's a fake, whoever did it did a pretty interesting job on it.
It looks plausible.
I mean we had:
iphone 3g
iphone 3gs
why not
iphone 4
iphone 4gs
Which would give incentive for people to go for the white one I guess.
then the 5 comes out later?
Because 3g stood for 3g connectivity. The added S stood for Speed because it got a much faster processor.
What would 4gs mean? It's not a 4g phone. And it's not faster. It's a bigger screen. How about the 4b (bigger)?
If it's a fake, whoever did it did a pretty interesting job on it.
It looks plausible.
I mean we had:
iphone 3g
iphone 3gs
why not
iphone 4
iphone 4gs
Which would give incentive for people to go for the white one I guess.
then the 5 comes out later?
Because 3g stood for 3g connectivity. The added S stood for Speed because it got a much faster processor.
What would 4gs mean? It's not a 4g phone. And it's not faster. It's a bigger screen. How about the 4b (bigger)?
jamesi
Jan 12, 07:51 PM
the iphone is definitely the coolest, best, most capabile, etc but this keynote wasnt very good i thought. i was just hoping for some sort of upgrade or new product that has been a long time coming. the iphone, while impressive, really isnt it. a fullscreen ipod i think woulda been nice, that with the iphone woulda earned this keynote a very high ranking.
i somehow feel that they dont know exactly what to do about the whole ipod iphone relationship. when i was watching the keynote on the iphone i felt as tho the cell phone feauture of the machine was second to all of the cool features like going online, applications etc. hmmm
i somehow feel that they dont know exactly what to do about the whole ipod iphone relationship. when i was watching the keynote on the iphone i felt as tho the cell phone feauture of the machine was second to all of the cool features like going online, applications etc. hmmm
mpw
Jan 10, 06:39 PM
...I did this once at school, but only once, and I was 14 at the time...
Me too!:D
I took the remote that came with my first TV into town and turned the volume of every TV in one shop to maximum one night after close. I also once saw somebody switch a window display to 'Red Hot Dutch' over night, there was a huge crowd of drunk guys with kebabs leering in from the street.:D
Me too!:D
I took the remote that came with my first TV into town and turned the volume of every TV in one shop to maximum one night after close. I also once saw somebody switch a window display to 'Red Hot Dutch' over night, there was a huge crowd of drunk guys with kebabs leering in from the street.:D
*LTD*
Mar 11, 01:08 PM
I thought the iPod succeeded due to integration with an online music source, as well as finally being a useable HD based mp3 player.
I wasn't aware computing had changed. Please detail this.
Milestone 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0FtgZNOD44
Milestone 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftf4riVJyqw
Milestone 3 (the most recent):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBhYxj2SvRI
Any questions?
I wasn't aware computing had changed. Please detail this.
Milestone 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0FtgZNOD44
Milestone 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftf4riVJyqw
Milestone 3 (the most recent):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBhYxj2SvRI
Any questions?
Hastings101
May 3, 10:31 PM
I want that voice-over guy to read me bedtime stories.
I think most people would agree with that statement
I think most people would agree with that statement
snberk103
Apr 13, 12:03 PM
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
xPismo
Oct 28, 05:16 PM
The whole OSx86 project is a warez project hiding behind OSS. It just re-enforces the negative OSS image.
edit: They even have screenshots of Aqua running on an unknown Pentium 4 processor. If that's not promoting warez, what is it?
Ack. Thats pretty damming text.
edit: They even have screenshots of Aqua running on an unknown Pentium 4 processor. If that's not promoting warez, what is it?
Ack. Thats pretty damming text.
OdduWon
Oct 10, 05:22 PM
Yeah, Apple isn't going to sit back and let Zune steal its lunch!
Those who bought the 5.5g ipods lately probably are going to feel bummed.
Those who bought the 5.5g ipods lately probably are going to feel bummed.
Dammit Cubs
Jul 21, 02:12 PM
Apple is proving a point. A point that most consumers, many people on these macrumors boards and even intelligent users don't understand.
ALL phones are subject to detuning. The amount of detuning is up to the phone but this is natural. When someone told me, your signal drops when hold the iphone in a wierd way....no s***.
Anyone with half a brain should already know the outcome. Also, holding your phone a certain way doesn't create a blackhole. It creates a constant -24dbm drop. I'll say that again. CONSTANT! Not accelerating.
ALL phones are subject to detuning. The amount of detuning is up to the phone but this is natural. When someone told me, your signal drops when hold the iphone in a wierd way....no s***.
Anyone with half a brain should already know the outcome. Also, holding your phone a certain way doesn't create a blackhole. It creates a constant -24dbm drop. I'll say that again. CONSTANT! Not accelerating.
interlaced
Nov 24, 11:31 PM
some kid in front of me in line brought in his old ipod for the ipod exchange program and got an additional discount on today's price. the 30gb ipod he got ended up being a little over $200. :rolleyes:
imuk
Aug 16, 09:14 AM
I received a 2A62XXX Display last week with a May production date. No idea whether it is an old or a new one. However, I did notice a few dead pixels last night after watching a movies. (The movie credits came with a black background. Great for dead pixel discovery!)
By just looking at it, I noticed at least 4 dead pixels, some appeared stronger than others. They are all on the left half of the screen. Is this considered an acceptable or normal number of dead pixels? I am tempted to return it while I can. Any suggestions?
By just looking at it, I noticed at least 4 dead pixels, some appeared stronger than others. They are all on the left half of the screen. Is this considered an acceptable or normal number of dead pixels? I am tempted to return it while I can. Any suggestions?
BC2009
May 2, 03:39 PM
Oooh. You're a software developer. That makes you an expert.
Except - as someone who is surround by IT professionals - many of which create systems that are governed by strict compliance issues - ALL of them have stated that 2MB is ridiculous for a cache of the intended purpose. And that QA could have missed this - but the fact that they did is really bad.
Look - defend Apple all you want. Don't really care. At the end of the day - a switch that is supposed to turn something off should turn something off. I know it. You know it. And Apple knows it - which is why they are (for WHATEVER reason) making the switch work correctly. End of story.
P.S. - Since Apple does great marketing and pr spin (my profession) - while I don't buy all the conspiracy theories at all - but neither do I "trust" Apple's altruism nor their rhetoric just because "they say so."
dude you do PR? couldn't tell.
all I am saying is that it is far more likely that this is a bug than intentional. if they wanted to do something intentionally to track people they could have hidden it very easily (and who knows if they do). I never said this was NOT a bug -- clearly it is. "End of story".
You should know that hindsight is 20/20. I am surrounded by IT professionals too -- and wait -- I am one (one who creates systems governed by strict compliance rules) -- one with lots of experience in software engineering and very senior with my company. I am sure that if I asked anybody today if they thought that file size was too large, they would definitely use their 20/20 hindsight to say "of course it is". I would.
But the fact of the matter is that these sort of things are exactly what can slip through the software development process. Most automated test cases are based around things that have already gone wrong (these are called regression tests) -- because you want to make sure you don't make the same mistake twice. It's likely that proactive "unit tests" around this code would have been written to trap the file size growing without bounds and filling up the device. Few would have thought to write a test to check how many records were being stored. Its exactly the kind of thing that is missed in the design process can make its way all the way into production. And, because of regression tests, the kind of thing that should not happen again.
I never said I trusted Apple's altruism. For all I know they are really tracking all of us -- it just won't be in a database stored on my phone. For all I know, AT&T is tracking me, as is Google, and Verizon. All have the capability based on my online Internet and wireless usage patterns and the devices I carry. I am just choosing not to be paranoid about it. This little "media scare" did not make me any more vulnerable to be tracked -- the means has been there for years. Incidentally, Google can read all my email too.
For somebody who doesn't "really care", your sure took offense to my pointing out that it was unlikely that this was some kind of Apple conspiracy. What would be a smoking gun would be finding personally identifiable location data on Apple's servers -- it would be very hard for Apple to talk their way out of that -- kinda like how Google tried to say "we didn't mean to gleam data off unprotected WiFi networks as we rolled our trucks by, we just happened to store it inadvertently." I'm sure somebody intended to keep that data -- it's kinda like accidentally starting a car and driving somewhere -- too many steps involved. Some idiot at Google did it and some smarter person realized the stupidity in it and they decided to come clean and destroy the data.
Apple used this tacky process you described becuase they obviously wanted to CONCEAL it from users, they certainly would not want the FEDS, Washinton and other agencies to know that they where doing it to them, whether or not they picked certain individuals is a matter Congress will settle, im sure if a mafia or cartel had this type of access they would also monitor wall street and join in on the scams.
And yeah Google does record but they at least give you the option to turn it off which makesd them liable if they intrude, Apple uses suckers and propaganda on forums and BS to cover up their sweatshop companies and 3rd party developers who probably helped them spy on competitors.
<sarcasm>
Yeah definitely, and the worst thing about Apple is that the iPhone transmits a signal in the middle of the night that brainwashes the user into fully trusting Steve Jobs as his/her new leader.
</sarcasm>
Please -- go hide in your basement bomb shelter. Just make sure the walls are lined with lead to protect you from those iPhone transmission signals.
Except - as someone who is surround by IT professionals - many of which create systems that are governed by strict compliance issues - ALL of them have stated that 2MB is ridiculous for a cache of the intended purpose. And that QA could have missed this - but the fact that they did is really bad.
Look - defend Apple all you want. Don't really care. At the end of the day - a switch that is supposed to turn something off should turn something off. I know it. You know it. And Apple knows it - which is why they are (for WHATEVER reason) making the switch work correctly. End of story.
P.S. - Since Apple does great marketing and pr spin (my profession) - while I don't buy all the conspiracy theories at all - but neither do I "trust" Apple's altruism nor their rhetoric just because "they say so."
dude you do PR? couldn't tell.
all I am saying is that it is far more likely that this is a bug than intentional. if they wanted to do something intentionally to track people they could have hidden it very easily (and who knows if they do). I never said this was NOT a bug -- clearly it is. "End of story".
You should know that hindsight is 20/20. I am surrounded by IT professionals too -- and wait -- I am one (one who creates systems governed by strict compliance rules) -- one with lots of experience in software engineering and very senior with my company. I am sure that if I asked anybody today if they thought that file size was too large, they would definitely use their 20/20 hindsight to say "of course it is". I would.
But the fact of the matter is that these sort of things are exactly what can slip through the software development process. Most automated test cases are based around things that have already gone wrong (these are called regression tests) -- because you want to make sure you don't make the same mistake twice. It's likely that proactive "unit tests" around this code would have been written to trap the file size growing without bounds and filling up the device. Few would have thought to write a test to check how many records were being stored. Its exactly the kind of thing that is missed in the design process can make its way all the way into production. And, because of regression tests, the kind of thing that should not happen again.
I never said I trusted Apple's altruism. For all I know they are really tracking all of us -- it just won't be in a database stored on my phone. For all I know, AT&T is tracking me, as is Google, and Verizon. All have the capability based on my online Internet and wireless usage patterns and the devices I carry. I am just choosing not to be paranoid about it. This little "media scare" did not make me any more vulnerable to be tracked -- the means has been there for years. Incidentally, Google can read all my email too.
For somebody who doesn't "really care", your sure took offense to my pointing out that it was unlikely that this was some kind of Apple conspiracy. What would be a smoking gun would be finding personally identifiable location data on Apple's servers -- it would be very hard for Apple to talk their way out of that -- kinda like how Google tried to say "we didn't mean to gleam data off unprotected WiFi networks as we rolled our trucks by, we just happened to store it inadvertently." I'm sure somebody intended to keep that data -- it's kinda like accidentally starting a car and driving somewhere -- too many steps involved. Some idiot at Google did it and some smarter person realized the stupidity in it and they decided to come clean and destroy the data.
Apple used this tacky process you described becuase they obviously wanted to CONCEAL it from users, they certainly would not want the FEDS, Washinton and other agencies to know that they where doing it to them, whether or not they picked certain individuals is a matter Congress will settle, im sure if a mafia or cartel had this type of access they would also monitor wall street and join in on the scams.
And yeah Google does record but they at least give you the option to turn it off which makesd them liable if they intrude, Apple uses suckers and propaganda on forums and BS to cover up their sweatshop companies and 3rd party developers who probably helped them spy on competitors.
<sarcasm>
Yeah definitely, and the worst thing about Apple is that the iPhone transmits a signal in the middle of the night that brainwashes the user into fully trusting Steve Jobs as his/her new leader.
</sarcasm>
Please -- go hide in your basement bomb shelter. Just make sure the walls are lined with lead to protect you from those iPhone transmission signals.
SynPiekarza
Mar 28, 02:28 PM
I do not think this is a bad move. I mean, Apple seems to believe (and so do I) that App Store will eventually be the best way to distribute apps for developers and to buy/get them for consumers. All they need to do now is get it up to speed. So they force developers to submit their apps to the App Store.
About "App Store only apps on Mac OS X", hmm.. I don't think Apple will make the same mistake twice. They once fell back because of lack of software for their system. They will be forced to have App Store rules flexible enough so that users can easily find all sufficient apps there. If they can't install them, they will switch platforms. If they do, Apple loses.
Either way, the user kind of wins so I wouldn't worry too much about it ;)
About "App Store only apps on Mac OS X", hmm.. I don't think Apple will make the same mistake twice. They once fell back because of lack of software for their system. They will be forced to have App Store rules flexible enough so that users can easily find all sufficient apps there. If they can't install them, they will switch platforms. If they do, Apple loses.
Either way, the user kind of wins so I wouldn't worry too much about it ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment