codyc815
Apr 26, 04:51 PM
you guys are still in denial.
the fact is...most people dont want an iphone. the reports says it and the sales numbers proves it. its not about the limit availability of the iphone or contract issues...its just doesn't appeal to most people.
That's why, although they're not the main OS used, they are the number one phone supplier
the fact is...most people dont want an iphone. the reports says it and the sales numbers proves it. its not about the limit availability of the iphone or contract issues...its just doesn't appeal to most people.
That's why, although they're not the main OS used, they are the number one phone supplier
mBox
Apr 24, 05:32 PM
...This said, it could potentially make macs more expensive in the future....on what basis? has the iPhone and iPad gone higher in price as it progressed?
Our budget for a MacPro is almost a quarter of what it used to be 3 years ago :)
Our budget for a MacPro is almost a quarter of what it used to be 3 years ago :)
teerexx52
Aug 11, 02:23 PM
I wish apple would just hurry up and get the MBP upgraded i need one within the next 4/5 weeks before uni starts!! an with regards to redesign im all for it aslong as they dont put an integrated keyboard in like the MB cos its rubbish!!
so heres hoping for next tuesday!!!:D
What about the keyboard don't you like? I have MacBook and my wife has a MacBook Pro. Both seem very good. I do miss the lighted keyboard though. Almost went and bough a Pro today with Glossy screen but afraid of Sept. updates:)
so heres hoping for next tuesday!!!:D
What about the keyboard don't you like? I have MacBook and my wife has a MacBook Pro. Both seem very good. I do miss the lighted keyboard though. Almost went and bough a Pro today with Glossy screen but afraid of Sept. updates:)
QuarterSwede
Apr 24, 05:45 PM
on what basis? has the iPhone and iPad gone higher in price as it progressed?
Our budget for a MacPro is almost a quarter of what it used to be 3 years ago :)
Agreed. 5 years ago I paid $2700 for a 12" PowerBook. I can get a top 17" for that now and a 13" MBP for over $1,000 less.
Our budget for a MacPro is almost a quarter of what it used to be 3 years ago :)
Agreed. 5 years ago I paid $2700 for a 12" PowerBook. I can get a top 17" for that now and a 13" MBP for over $1,000 less.
pack
Apr 7, 12:32 PM
Wow. I think you missed the point. At 1199, the MacbookPRO should have a discrete option...hell, POS HP's at 600.00 do.
Oh, and please spare me the snarky "well then enjoy your HP! Har har har" comment.
No you have no point. 1199 vs 1799.00 one costs significantly more money. You can't have everything, all the build quality and all the features some things have to be omitted. There are trade offs. That is one. Those potential customers that don't want it buy a crappy 600 dollar hp laptop. Macbook pros aren't considered the best laptop in the industry because they are missing features and cost too much despite what you'd like to believe.
PS enjoy your ****** 600 dollar HP laptop
Oh, and please spare me the snarky "well then enjoy your HP! Har har har" comment.
No you have no point. 1199 vs 1799.00 one costs significantly more money. You can't have everything, all the build quality and all the features some things have to be omitted. There are trade offs. That is one. Those potential customers that don't want it buy a crappy 600 dollar hp laptop. Macbook pros aren't considered the best laptop in the industry because they are missing features and cost too much despite what you'd like to believe.
PS enjoy your ****** 600 dollar HP laptop
TedSlawski
Aug 7, 06:02 PM
Just ordered my Mac Pro!! :D
Quad 3Ghz, 4GB ram, 250GB HD + 500 GB HD, X1900 XT 512MB, Bluetooth+Airport, wireless keyboard and mouse, 1 Superdrive (holding out for BluRay) 30" ACD... $8264.23 :eek:
Estimated Ship Time... 3- 5 Weeks :eek: :eek:
This is gonna be good.
I got the base model, really don't find that graphic cards make much difference to me, RAM is usually less than half of what Apple wants in the aftermarket, putting my lightscribe in the other optical bay, Hard drives are usually close to free with my Staples office rewards, so I'll pick up the pieces to deck it out while I wait 3 weeks to get mine. Plus the place I bought it from gave me a $1200 trade in on my moderately upgraded original 2gig G5. I envy the 3gig processor though but that was financially just out of reach.
Quad 3Ghz, 4GB ram, 250GB HD + 500 GB HD, X1900 XT 512MB, Bluetooth+Airport, wireless keyboard and mouse, 1 Superdrive (holding out for BluRay) 30" ACD... $8264.23 :eek:
Estimated Ship Time... 3- 5 Weeks :eek: :eek:
This is gonna be good.
I got the base model, really don't find that graphic cards make much difference to me, RAM is usually less than half of what Apple wants in the aftermarket, putting my lightscribe in the other optical bay, Hard drives are usually close to free with my Staples office rewards, so I'll pick up the pieces to deck it out while I wait 3 weeks to get mine. Plus the place I bought it from gave me a $1200 trade in on my moderately upgraded original 2gig G5. I envy the 3gig processor though but that was financially just out of reach.
jayducharme
Apr 24, 03:06 PM
Uhmm, how about 640x480? Or less, with the vic 20.
I had an early PC that sported an amazing 16 color resolution at 320x240. When I later upgraded to 256 colors, I was convinced that computers were the ultimate multimedia machine.
I had an early PC that sported an amazing 16 color resolution at 320x240. When I later upgraded to 256 colors, I was convinced that computers were the ultimate multimedia machine.
Elijahg
Apr 23, 06:45 PM
Instead of pixel based images that are just bigger, why not simply ship vector based icons/wallpapers ?
KDE supported SVG as a format for wallpapers and icons something like 10 years ago... That way, it doesn't matter what the display resolution is, the icon always looks sharp and non-pixelated.
I'd rather Apple work on making SVG the standard graphics format for graphics ressources than just bumping up the pixel count (and the file size!).
Heck, if they don't like SVG (which is just a bunch of XML), they could go with one of the other vector based image formats or come up with one of their own.
Translating a photo to a vector based format would be completely pointless and would end up massive. Take for example the Snow Leopard Prowl JPEG. It's 1.2MB, and converting to BMP or TIFF (both describe each pixel individually, i.e. lossless) makes it 12mb, 10 times the size. Converting it to the much less efficient SVG, makes it insanely massive; 225mb or 187.5 times bigger to be exact.
Computer generated imagery can be converted to a vector format more efficiently, as long as the source is available. The computer knows that for example, there is a gradient starting at X,Y and ending at X,Y with colour RGB at the start, and colour RGB at the end. Thus eliminating the need to keep detail about each pixel individually. This is great for things such as icons and certain web images, but for images with lots of detail, it quickly becomes much less efficient than even the highest quality JPEG. For real photos, it's pointless to vectorize. You'd just end up pixellating the image when scaled over it's original size anyway. So in other words, it's unlikely we'll see vector graphics for most icons and most certainly not for desktop backgrounds.
I agree with others about Apple needing to beef up the GPUs if they want retina displays in their Macs. They always seem to put last-generation cards into them... I'm sure it wouldn't keep them away from iOS development for [i]too[/] long to add the latest, even as BTO. Valve has really helped gaming on the Mac, bringing great new releases like Left 4 Dead 2 and Portal 2 at the same time as Windows. At least it seems Apple have had a kick up their ass from Valve pointing out the inefficiencies in OpenGL. Maybe that's what's made them hire a few gaming-type developers...? C'mon Apple!
KDE supported SVG as a format for wallpapers and icons something like 10 years ago... That way, it doesn't matter what the display resolution is, the icon always looks sharp and non-pixelated.
I'd rather Apple work on making SVG the standard graphics format for graphics ressources than just bumping up the pixel count (and the file size!).
Heck, if they don't like SVG (which is just a bunch of XML), they could go with one of the other vector based image formats or come up with one of their own.
Translating a photo to a vector based format would be completely pointless and would end up massive. Take for example the Snow Leopard Prowl JPEG. It's 1.2MB, and converting to BMP or TIFF (both describe each pixel individually, i.e. lossless) makes it 12mb, 10 times the size. Converting it to the much less efficient SVG, makes it insanely massive; 225mb or 187.5 times bigger to be exact.
Computer generated imagery can be converted to a vector format more efficiently, as long as the source is available. The computer knows that for example, there is a gradient starting at X,Y and ending at X,Y with colour RGB at the start, and colour RGB at the end. Thus eliminating the need to keep detail about each pixel individually. This is great for things such as icons and certain web images, but for images with lots of detail, it quickly becomes much less efficient than even the highest quality JPEG. For real photos, it's pointless to vectorize. You'd just end up pixellating the image when scaled over it's original size anyway. So in other words, it's unlikely we'll see vector graphics for most icons and most certainly not for desktop backgrounds.
I agree with others about Apple needing to beef up the GPUs if they want retina displays in their Macs. They always seem to put last-generation cards into them... I'm sure it wouldn't keep them away from iOS development for [i]too[/] long to add the latest, even as BTO. Valve has really helped gaming on the Mac, bringing great new releases like Left 4 Dead 2 and Portal 2 at the same time as Windows. At least it seems Apple have had a kick up their ass from Valve pointing out the inefficiencies in OpenGL. Maybe that's what's made them hire a few gaming-type developers...? C'mon Apple!
nuckinfutz
May 8, 05:39 PM
I meant it might happen, it's just a thought.
Well they did kill itools so in the end they'd have to kill the whole MobileMe brand.
Luckily the Apple today is cash rich compared to the Apple 8 or so years ago. We certainly should be expecting more from Apple.
Well they did kill itools so in the end they'd have to kill the whole MobileMe brand.
Luckily the Apple today is cash rich compared to the Apple 8 or so years ago. We certainly should be expecting more from Apple.
Moyank24
May 3, 06:35 PM
There's a few mis-stated rules in Don't panic's rules that I will address shortly.
But one is that a trap activates as soon as you attempt to leave the room. The only way to avoid a trap is to explore the room, which will discover, and disarm, the trap.
With that said, there are currently nothing placed on the map by the villain. He will make his first move after you slow-pokes are done ;)
Ahh, gotcha. So I guess our best bet is to just explore the room we're in.
But one is that a trap activates as soon as you attempt to leave the room. The only way to avoid a trap is to explore the room, which will discover, and disarm, the trap.
With that said, there are currently nothing placed on the map by the villain. He will make his first move after you slow-pokes are done ;)
Ahh, gotcha. So I guess our best bet is to just explore the room we're in.
thisisahughes
Mar 28, 11:29 AM
The only behavior that seems to be awarded is: give Apple money is soon as you can and don't ask any questions.
that's what I do.
that's what I do.
satkin2
Apr 26, 02:23 PM
This was inevitable given the number of phone models each OS is on. It was clear to see from way off. However if Apple are making more money than Google from these units it won't be anything for them to worry about.
It's much like Windows and OS X, there's the volume model (Windows) and the Apple model. I'm happy with my iPhone and I haven't met anyone who's been unhappy with theirs either, that said, I've also not spoken to any friends who are unhappy with Android.
Competition is good and while ever there is the competition then innovation will be driven more than if there was a monopoly, so this can't really be seen as a bad thing.
It's much like Windows and OS X, there's the volume model (Windows) and the Apple model. I'm happy with my iPhone and I haven't met anyone who's been unhappy with theirs either, that said, I've also not spoken to any friends who are unhappy with Android.
Competition is good and while ever there is the competition then innovation will be driven more than if there was a monopoly, so this can't really be seen as a bad thing.
ThaDoggg
Mar 28, 09:47 AM
It's important that Apple starts to devote some serious time to it's operating systems as well. I don't see any major drawbacks to delaying any potential new hardware introductions.
munkery
Nov 2, 06:22 PM
You also have to be careful to choose an anti-virus software that requires superuser privileges as little as possible because they receive user defined inputs, often run with elevated privileges, and can be the source of the most critical exploits (remote root).
For example, http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/14818/
For example, http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/14818/
nuckinfutz
May 7, 02:48 PM
It's no assumption at all that Apple's getting into the advertising game. They announced iAd loud and clear as part of the iPhone's new OS. Your assuming these ads won't make it into any thing other than apps and I'm saying you're mistaken.
Why would they limit a massive profit opportunity and a chance to deliver a huge financial blow to their new arch enemy? They wouldn't. Google's laid the groundwork for how these free services work. Apple's may just put their spin on it.
I do think that a paid, ad free version would exist. They'll continue their current service uninterrupted. But to offer it free, well, "Ain't nothin' free, baby." They'll generate revenue off it with their new ad system. It wouldn't make any sense not to. It's just the world in which we live.
I'll admit the money is there but Apple skews conservative and I believe what they say when they state that iAds are an option for developers seeking to deliver free or low cost iPhone/iPad apps. I don't get the feeling that Apple wants to extend iAds everywhere. Putting adds in MobileMe doesn't grant them much IMO. The play for free MobileMe will start and end with iLife and iPhone/iPod/iPad/App Store
Is the size of Apple's NC Data Center overkill for just delivering MobileMe services? Or is that the type of facility they would need to bring it in-house with current subscribers?
It's the type of facility that makes me believe that Apple will be rolling out a whole lot more of Cloud services. At 500k ft^2 it's bigger than many of Google's datacenters and it's 5x larger than Apple's Cali datacenter. Apple's plans for the Cloud are big.
Eh... iDisk is stored locally then synced in the background. When you work on your iDisk files you edit the local file on HD which is then synced to the cloud. Sorry mate but I guess you fall into category of people who don't understand the fundamental difference between iDisk and Drop Box. iDisk file transfer speed is dead slow and Drop Box is fast...
Only if you choose to "sync" your data in the preferences as was stated before in this thread so in fact iDisk out of the box does "not" work like Drop Box. I think WebDAV may be a speed culprit as well but if anyone knows of a blazing fast WebDAV service chime in.
Why would they limit a massive profit opportunity and a chance to deliver a huge financial blow to their new arch enemy? They wouldn't. Google's laid the groundwork for how these free services work. Apple's may just put their spin on it.
I do think that a paid, ad free version would exist. They'll continue their current service uninterrupted. But to offer it free, well, "Ain't nothin' free, baby." They'll generate revenue off it with their new ad system. It wouldn't make any sense not to. It's just the world in which we live.
I'll admit the money is there but Apple skews conservative and I believe what they say when they state that iAds are an option for developers seeking to deliver free or low cost iPhone/iPad apps. I don't get the feeling that Apple wants to extend iAds everywhere. Putting adds in MobileMe doesn't grant them much IMO. The play for free MobileMe will start and end with iLife and iPhone/iPod/iPad/App Store
Is the size of Apple's NC Data Center overkill for just delivering MobileMe services? Or is that the type of facility they would need to bring it in-house with current subscribers?
It's the type of facility that makes me believe that Apple will be rolling out a whole lot more of Cloud services. At 500k ft^2 it's bigger than many of Google's datacenters and it's 5x larger than Apple's Cali datacenter. Apple's plans for the Cloud are big.
Eh... iDisk is stored locally then synced in the background. When you work on your iDisk files you edit the local file on HD which is then synced to the cloud. Sorry mate but I guess you fall into category of people who don't understand the fundamental difference between iDisk and Drop Box. iDisk file transfer speed is dead slow and Drop Box is fast...
Only if you choose to "sync" your data in the preferences as was stated before in this thread so in fact iDisk out of the box does "not" work like Drop Box. I think WebDAV may be a speed culprit as well but if anyone knows of a blazing fast WebDAV service chime in.
Erwin-Br
Apr 26, 02:24 PM
iPhones are still better.
Unfortunately, only 25% of the US market agrees with you. ;)
Unfortunately, only 25% of the US market agrees with you. ;)
ender land
Apr 10, 09:16 AM
As for the math, the equation is ambiguous. Another set of parentheses would help.
It's ambiguous in the same way 1 + 1 = ?? is ambiguous.
(the answer could be 2, or 10, or plenty of other answers if you make different assumptions other than what is stated in the unknown equation)
It's ambiguous in the same way 1 + 1 = ?? is ambiguous.
(the answer could be 2, or 10, or plenty of other answers if you make different assumptions other than what is stated in the unknown equation)
Small White Car
Apr 5, 02:02 PM
No they didn’t. They ruled that distributing custom (jailbroken) firmware wasn’t in violation of copyright law.
Apple can’t sue people who jailbreak or distribute jailbreaks for copyright infringement. They can, however, still try to prevent people from jailbreaking.
Fact is that Nintendo can still sue you for selling Nintendo games without their permission. But jailbreakers can't be sued by Apple.
So what's the big difference? It's a very fine line from here to there. A lack of money going to the people who figure out these jailbreak softwares is a big part of it.
Adding that kind of money to the mix just seems dangerous to me. Makes the difference between Apple and Nintendo seem less different.
Yes it will happen, what comes around goes around.:cool:
No. It won't.
Sorry.
Apple can’t sue people who jailbreak or distribute jailbreaks for copyright infringement. They can, however, still try to prevent people from jailbreaking.
Fact is that Nintendo can still sue you for selling Nintendo games without their permission. But jailbreakers can't be sued by Apple.
So what's the big difference? It's a very fine line from here to there. A lack of money going to the people who figure out these jailbreak softwares is a big part of it.
Adding that kind of money to the mix just seems dangerous to me. Makes the difference between Apple and Nintendo seem less different.
Yes it will happen, what comes around goes around.:cool:
No. It won't.
Sorry.
Slurpy2k8
Apr 7, 02:19 PM
Some of you people are ****ing hilarious, and heinously hypocritical.
The same people who bash (and are still bashing) Apple for not having enough iPad2 supply (to satiate an absolutely insane demand), calling it some sort of conspiracy to create demand, are the same people now bashing Apple for procuring and guaranteeing these components ahead of time, which inevitably has had a negative effect on companies.
What the hell do you people want? Apple will clearly sell every damn iPad2 they produce, and they'll do what they need to do to produce as much as they can. Having a ton of cash reserves, and the foresight to pay for these compoenents in advance makes them an effective, and intelligent company, not monopolistic. Should Apple shoot itself in the face to please its competitors? Should any company? Unbelievable.
The same people who bash (and are still bashing) Apple for not having enough iPad2 supply (to satiate an absolutely insane demand), calling it some sort of conspiracy to create demand, are the same people now bashing Apple for procuring and guaranteeing these components ahead of time, which inevitably has had a negative effect on companies.
What the hell do you people want? Apple will clearly sell every damn iPad2 they produce, and they'll do what they need to do to produce as much as they can. Having a ton of cash reserves, and the foresight to pay for these compoenents in advance makes them an effective, and intelligent company, not monopolistic. Should Apple shoot itself in the face to please its competitors? Should any company? Unbelievable.
Jodles
Nov 2, 07:59 PM
just out of curiosity, what type of work?
Lots of places require antivirus software installed to access their internet. I'm at uni and no mac or pc will get internet access unless they pass a test with valid and up to date antivirus. I think it's a good thing, even for mac users, as it limits the amount of viruses that are passed on.
We get McAfee on a uni license, but this might make me consider Sophos instead if it's lighter on system resources (the only thing I don't like about antivirus software...)
Lots of places require antivirus software installed to access their internet. I'm at uni and no mac or pc will get internet access unless they pass a test with valid and up to date antivirus. I think it's a good thing, even for mac users, as it limits the amount of viruses that are passed on.
We get McAfee on a uni license, but this might make me consider Sophos instead if it's lighter on system resources (the only thing I don't like about antivirus software...)
MacBoobsPro
Aug 2, 11:23 AM
I can't see the Cinema Displays having built in iSight. I mean sure, it's useful - but what about people who work in environments where you can't have cameras (i.e. some pros) what about people who have dual monitors etc...I can't see it being feasible.
If you 'can't have cameras' dont use them. It doesnt matter if they are built in. And for people with dual monitors they will have... er... oh yeh two cameras :D
If you 'can't have cameras' dont use them. It doesnt matter if they are built in. And for people with dual monitors they will have... er... oh yeh two cameras :D
iRobby
Mar 27, 03:00 PM
Heh. No LTE, no NFC, no bigger screen, no antenna fix, and now no iOS upgrade? What's the point in releasing an iPhone at all this year?
These are just RUMORS! They will do at least some. Most likely, NFC, antenna fix, and IOS upgrade.
These are just RUMORS! They will do at least some. Most likely, NFC, antenna fix, and IOS upgrade.
Moyank24
May 6, 06:15 PM
Why quicker?
I don't understand how it would be quicker either.
I don't understand how it would be quicker either.
toddybody
Apr 7, 12:37 PM
The strategy of offering a limited set of options has worked well for Apple. A discrete only option might lower the price by $100 and no one would buy it. What would be the point? They leave that segment of the market to the people who make cheap laptops AND offer another product..The iPad. I only actualy use my laptop when I need the GPU.
I feel like im taking crazy pills...I think theres some confusion as to my feelings on the topic. Apple SHOULD include a discrete GPU in all of it's PRO Macbook line. Period. If you want a more exotic upgrade, fine. But to give a high end, expensive notebook integrated graphics is pure rubbish! Now, does Apple make more money by their status quo? Absolutely. Is is the right thing for the consumer? NO.
I feel like im taking crazy pills...I think theres some confusion as to my feelings on the topic. Apple SHOULD include a discrete GPU in all of it's PRO Macbook line. Period. If you want a more exotic upgrade, fine. But to give a high end, expensive notebook integrated graphics is pure rubbish! Now, does Apple make more money by their status quo? Absolutely. Is is the right thing for the consumer? NO.
No comments:
Post a Comment