skunk
Apr 28, 02:34 PM
There is no legal duty to assist, and laws requiring otherwise are unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.Is there no duty to report a crime?
obeygiant
May 1, 10:05 PM
http://i51.tinypic.com/1427788.jpg
Nope. :)
Nope. :)
Umbongo
May 3, 09:14 AM
Specs don't mention IPS panel like with previous models.
It is mentioned in the screen section under features.
It is mentioned in the screen section under features.
roland.g
Apr 12, 09:36 AM
At least they used the image of the phone for this article and not the stage shot of Steve with iPhone on the Keynote screen. Seriously, every time I see that stage shot, it implies an actual announcement, as opposed to a rumor regarding the product.
Full of Win
Apr 22, 07:16 PM
it can double as a "knife"....
Once again, an area that Palm has done before with the Pre.
http://gizmodo.com/#!5277499/palm-pre-review
Once again, an area that Palm has done before with the Pre.
http://gizmodo.com/#!5277499/palm-pre-review
Sodner
Apr 12, 09:22 AM
Aren't we quickly getting to the point where it's all about the software?
Ok, so we know iPhone 5 will get dual core A5....big deal. It'll be nice to have the extra power, but the iPhone 4 now is no slouch.
Added RAM.....yeah, that would be nice....but not going to suddenly sell more phones because it has more RAM :p
Display won't get any better resolution-wise. Doubt they'd go with a larger screen either.
Better cameras....ok.....still, the iPhone 4 cameras are no slouch, and it's not like it will reach the quality of a nice DSLR with those tiny sensors.
Better graphics processing.....sure.....but it's not like it has to drive a 9.7" screen like the iPad.
I'd say Apple is smartly switching into software mode. Kick ass with iOS5, revamp notifications, make some much needed overhauls to the system, and optimize performance for todays devices (iPhone 4, iPad & iPad 2).
Apple is going to stay ahead with software. That's the way Apple is and always has been.
-Kevin
Pretty much agree with everything you said though I do HOPE for a increased screen size on the 5.
Ok, so we know iPhone 5 will get dual core A5....big deal. It'll be nice to have the extra power, but the iPhone 4 now is no slouch.
Added RAM.....yeah, that would be nice....but not going to suddenly sell more phones because it has more RAM :p
Display won't get any better resolution-wise. Doubt they'd go with a larger screen either.
Better cameras....ok.....still, the iPhone 4 cameras are no slouch, and it's not like it will reach the quality of a nice DSLR with those tiny sensors.
Better graphics processing.....sure.....but it's not like it has to drive a 9.7" screen like the iPad.
I'd say Apple is smartly switching into software mode. Kick ass with iOS5, revamp notifications, make some much needed overhauls to the system, and optimize performance for todays devices (iPhone 4, iPad & iPad 2).
Apple is going to stay ahead with software. That's the way Apple is and always has been.
-Kevin
Pretty much agree with everything you said though I do HOPE for a increased screen size on the 5.
MacSlut
May 4, 04:03 AM
I qualify for a full upgrade on 6/25/2011, I bought the iPhone 4 on launch day, 6/24/2011. So there's some other reason why this guy isn't qualifying for the upgrade. AT&T treats upgrades differently based on monthly plan, how long you've been a customer, and if you've paid your bills on time.
AT&T likes me, so I always get a full upgrade early. They really like my sister. She also upgrades yearly and loses or destroys an iPhone mid-year, and still gets upgrades both times.
That being said, I've seen nothing but speculation and baseless rumors about a Fall launch for the new iPhone.
AT&T likes me, so I always get a full upgrade early. They really like my sister. She also upgrades yearly and loses or destroys an iPhone mid-year, and still gets upgrades both times.
That being said, I've seen nothing but speculation and baseless rumors about a Fall launch for the new iPhone.
InuNacho
May 1, 10:58 PM
Looking forward to the movie version. ;)
You've seen him on the TV. You've seen him online. And you've heard him on the radio.
This summer See. Him. On. The. BIG SCREEN.
Osama the motion picture.
7/7/11
You've seen him on the TV. You've seen him online. And you've heard him on the radio.
This summer See. Him. On. The. BIG SCREEN.
Osama the motion picture.
7/7/11
jessica.
Jan 26, 10:49 AM
Haha, I don't care, but it would have been nice to keep it going since I did the last 2 and put some work in tracking down old threads and adding up posts etc etc. Whatever.
Really? So even after I PM you and apologize for stepping on toes that I did not know were there you're still going to give me crap? I don't get it. Now, on the note of tracking down old threads, I will add them since it is apparently SOP to have them there. I will likely do it in a while though, I hope that is acceptable to you.
What I truly love is when I take the time to apologize for creating a thread, which is absurd, then that very person continues to brow beat me over the content, format, and apparent creation. If using your logic then you creating the last two stepped on the toes of the one who created the one just before yours. Again, this seems absurd and quite childish.
If this is going to ruin your day then please PM me and ask me to have a mod delete this thread to leave it open for you to create a new one. I don't gain anything by creating a new thread, I just saw the other exceeded 2k posts. Again, this was as innocent as I could possibly get and yet I'm still being **** on by people who apparently have issues with me.
Really? So even after I PM you and apologize for stepping on toes that I did not know were there you're still going to give me crap? I don't get it. Now, on the note of tracking down old threads, I will add them since it is apparently SOP to have them there. I will likely do it in a while though, I hope that is acceptable to you.
What I truly love is when I take the time to apologize for creating a thread, which is absurd, then that very person continues to brow beat me over the content, format, and apparent creation. If using your logic then you creating the last two stepped on the toes of the one who created the one just before yours. Again, this seems absurd and quite childish.
If this is going to ruin your day then please PM me and ask me to have a mod delete this thread to leave it open for you to create a new one. I don't gain anything by creating a new thread, I just saw the other exceeded 2k posts. Again, this was as innocent as I could possibly get and yet I'm still being **** on by people who apparently have issues with me.
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
AVERE CAPELLI LUNGHISSIMI!
ah treccine lunghi capelli
capelli, lunghi oltre 20
dato dei capelli
HA I CAPELLI LUNGHI FINO
AP: Io adoro i capelli lunghi.
dai capelli lunghissimi e
Capelli lunghi
dei capelli lunghissimi!
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Edmoil12
Apr 21, 10:56 PM
All I'm saying is that if, in the event Apple, or ANY other company REMOVES once-standard features ... to later then call them 'luxary' features ... those companies deserve a big round of boos from us - the consumers. That's a pathetic and cynical way to try to goose sales for your higher end products.
Fair enough, but it seems all we can do as consumers is vote with our dollars if we don't like it.
Fair enough, but it seems all we can do as consumers is vote with our dollars if we don't like it.
CPTMONK
Oct 24, 08:02 AM
why doiesnt the 15ich have 7200 hard drrivew?
thefourthpope
Mar 31, 10:48 AM
I'm all for a new look, and the iCal UI is pretty awkward most of the time. But, as many have pointed out, this is just fugly. I can do without the faux leather. I get how that could work on an iPad, when you're holding the thing in your hands like a real calendar, but when operating on a monitor....I don't get it.
tristangage
Apr 4, 12:09 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5097/5589560004_83ac6b1b33.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5589560004/)
plinky plonky (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5589560004/) by tristangage (http://www.flickr.com/people/tristangage/), on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS 500D
Exposure 1.3
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 300 mm
ISO Speed 100
plinky plonky (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5589560004/) by tristangage (http://www.flickr.com/people/tristangage/), on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS 500D
Exposure 1.3
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 300 mm
ISO Speed 100
fatboyslick
May 4, 05:57 AM
I'm starting to think it will be. If you look at the "big picture" it makes sense. The iPod is in decline, so Apple's previous big Fall music event isn't really big anymore. The iPhone could shore that up and bring lots of sales to 4Q and maybe even, reinvigorate iPod sales.
Apple then uses early summer to push new Macs for back to school. Late winter/early Spring remains iPad.
I agree
The iPhone is currently the jewel in the crown for Apple so moving it to Autumn will make the latest device the main Christmas gift.
iPods won't be boosted in my opinion though; they mainly appeal to those who dont want an iPhone but use iTunes/want more than 32GB of storage.
They'll boost if they turn it into a fully fledged media behomoth that plugs into a tv and can stream as well as download from iTunes....but at a much cheaper price than an iPhone.
Apple then uses early summer to push new Macs for back to school. Late winter/early Spring remains iPad.
I agree
The iPhone is currently the jewel in the crown for Apple so moving it to Autumn will make the latest device the main Christmas gift.
iPods won't be boosted in my opinion though; they mainly appeal to those who dont want an iPhone but use iTunes/want more than 32GB of storage.
They'll boost if they turn it into a fully fledged media behomoth that plugs into a tv and can stream as well as download from iTunes....but at a much cheaper price than an iPhone.
Intell
Apr 26, 03:16 PM
Just a reminder: About 45 minutes to go and you vote must be bolded or I won't count it. Eldiablojoe I'm looking at your post/vote.
sam10685
Jul 28, 10:47 AM
I hate the name Zune.
it reminds me of the month June, but with a Z instead. no way is M$ going to come up with a product that even remotely rivals the iPod.
it reminds me of the month June, but with a Z instead. no way is M$ going to come up with a product that even remotely rivals the iPod.
i.mac
Apr 22, 06:14 AM
that samsung looks like it came out from 1975
Not exactly...
They saw the iPhone in January, then rushed to change their ui design. it hows in their crapy look.
Have we seen this take place recently with another samsug product?
Not exactly...
They saw the iPhone in January, then rushed to change their ui design. it hows in their crapy look.
Have we seen this take place recently with another samsug product?
davidgrimm
Apr 24, 05:41 PM
I had service with T-mob (not with an iPhone) and the only difference I noticed with ATT and T=mob was the T-mob service was WAY cheaper. Its hard to imagine that will continue if ATT buys them up.
YoNeX
Nov 6, 09:33 AM
Just FYI.
The "private" beta that's being circulated is a very old beta in the development stage. VMware has big plans, and is working closely with Apple to have a true Mac look and feel.
Things VMware Final version will do:
Be 100% Free
Support Adjusting how many processors you use.
64bit support and optimization
Drag and drop into the VM window (just try dragging a file off your desktop into the VM now)
***And full support to use your bootcamp volume. So you don't have to have two disks anymore or one for Virtual Machine, and another for bootcamp with full video accelerations. You can just run your bootcamp volume right inside of VMware for those times when you don't want to reboot, and just need to do work. That way you only have one copy of windows on your machine! No VM needed!
**Support for "Virtual Appliances" which VMware has a bunch of on their site. Thousands of companies make ready-made Virtual Machines, that you can download and run in VMware, such as a lamp server, special build of RedHat, or a Ubuntu for graphics, or a mail server, or anything you can imagine, there are over 100,000 Virtual Appliances available on the VMware site, and you can create your own "Virtual Appliance" and share it with your friends!
I don't know about the free part though. If its just a player (like the current Beta), I can see that being free. But if they add all those extra features I don't see it being free at all. But then again, Macs aren't targeted towards the Corporations, so they might just make one version with a lot of features and not charge as much as VMware Workstation (for Windows).
Yes, the current version is really buggy.
The "private" beta that's being circulated is a very old beta in the development stage. VMware has big plans, and is working closely with Apple to have a true Mac look and feel.
Things VMware Final version will do:
Be 100% Free
Support Adjusting how many processors you use.
64bit support and optimization
Drag and drop into the VM window (just try dragging a file off your desktop into the VM now)
***And full support to use your bootcamp volume. So you don't have to have two disks anymore or one for Virtual Machine, and another for bootcamp with full video accelerations. You can just run your bootcamp volume right inside of VMware for those times when you don't want to reboot, and just need to do work. That way you only have one copy of windows on your machine! No VM needed!
**Support for "Virtual Appliances" which VMware has a bunch of on their site. Thousands of companies make ready-made Virtual Machines, that you can download and run in VMware, such as a lamp server, special build of RedHat, or a Ubuntu for graphics, or a mail server, or anything you can imagine, there are over 100,000 Virtual Appliances available on the VMware site, and you can create your own "Virtual Appliance" and share it with your friends!
I don't know about the free part though. If its just a player (like the current Beta), I can see that being free. But if they add all those extra features I don't see it being free at all. But then again, Macs aren't targeted towards the Corporations, so they might just make one version with a lot of features and not charge as much as VMware Workstation (for Windows).
Yes, the current version is really buggy.
CANEHDN
Jul 11, 03:14 PM
Apple knows what their doing. They will wait as long as they can on the 5G. Then before competition arises they will release a new one to stay on top. I wouldn't doubt that they announce a new iPod during the WWDC(a month away, eeekkk!). Jobs talked a little bit about the iPod the last few years, at the WWDC.
Then again, Microsoft lost money on every Xbox sold just to get their foot in the door. It's possible they will do the same thing on the "iPod Killer". Time will tell.
Then again, Microsoft lost money on every Xbox sold just to get their foot in the door. It's possible they will do the same thing on the "iPod Killer". Time will tell.
b_scott
Apr 15, 11:36 AM
I did that but it still does not work. I rebooted my macbook, installed the latest security updates, wiped my 3GS, tried restoring and then updating to 4.3.2 - same thing just happened.
cybaster
Jun 7, 12:26 AM
As usual American's (yeah I'm American) love to blame someone for their own responsibility. It's so weird how people on here fight for freedom from the lockdowns that Apple puts on it's developers, freedoms from the limitations and restrictions Apple puts on the iPhone (hence why people jailbreak). Yet when a parent doesn't take accountability for their absence of judgement and legal obligation to be responsible for their child, everyone goes off on Apple for not having the protections in place to prevent this?
There are so many hypocrites in this country, probably because nobody wants to take accountability for their own actions. What if it were a gun. If the parent left it on the night stand with a bullet in it, and the kid picked it up and shot & killed someone, would you all be blaming the maker of the gun? No, you'd be going after the parents for failure to supervise their kid which led to actions causing someone's death.
So why is it different here?
IT'S NOT.
<insert like button>like</insert like button>
Thank you!
There are so many hypocrites in this country, probably because nobody wants to take accountability for their own actions. What if it were a gun. If the parent left it on the night stand with a bullet in it, and the kid picked it up and shot & killed someone, would you all be blaming the maker of the gun? No, you'd be going after the parents for failure to supervise their kid which led to actions causing someone's death.
So why is it different here?
IT'S NOT.
<insert like button>like</insert like button>
Thank you!
Iconoclysm
Apr 21, 11:44 PM
Let me help you out, since you've got it wrong.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_(supply_chain)
I never said they weren't a vendor. Let me help you out...try reading the post.
What I was getting at, because a Vendor can provide anything from software to consultants to hardware to designs, is that it's important to note that Samsung doesn't design the parts. They just manufacture them.
And, let's be clear - this is the definition of Vendor:
ven�dor
�noun
1.
a person or agency that sells.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_(supply_chain)
I never said they weren't a vendor. Let me help you out...try reading the post.
What I was getting at, because a Vendor can provide anything from software to consultants to hardware to designs, is that it's important to note that Samsung doesn't design the parts. They just manufacture them.
And, let's be clear - this is the definition of Vendor:
ven�dor
�noun
1.
a person or agency that sells.
No comments:
Post a Comment