martingc
Apr 14, 01:46 PM
Why did you buy XCode, all you needed to have done was go to developers.apple.com and sign up for a free Dev account, once there, just download the older version (3.2.5) and install. The older version works fine and will enable the Gestures.
Yes I do have Xcode installed and also I hace an Apple dev account, but I've had it for long and gestures were not enabled on the previous updates to my iPad. If nobody else can confirm gestures on their iPads then what you say might be the case, but I still cant understand why they were not enabled on the previous updates.
Yes I do have Xcode installed and also I hace an Apple dev account, but I've had it for long and gestures were not enabled on the previous updates to my iPad. If nobody else can confirm gestures on their iPads then what you say might be the case, but I still cant understand why they were not enabled on the previous updates.
southernpaws
Apr 23, 04:25 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Seriously? An apple rumors forum is no place fo a shareholder? That's absurd.
"As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries."
If you want to play numbers, the iPhone on Verizon (same carrier as thunderbolt) sold 2.2 million in two months, compared to a quarter million in one month for tbolt. Saying that equals 3million annually 1) makes it compete better with the iPhone over two months on a single carrier and 2) assumes that the numbers remain constant. Being that people are figuring out that the battery life is dreadful (and you forget that the majority of the market doesn't want to swap batteries like it's 1999) and that android phones have a short cycle of being the hottest new thing, I don't think there's a basis to assume consistent sales in line with their opening month. Numbers can say anything when there's no common sense behind it.
Correction: 260000 HTC Thunderbolts in 2 weeks.
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/vz042111a.png
My point remains unchanged, but thanks for the clarification
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Seriously? An apple rumors forum is no place fo a shareholder? That's absurd.
"As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries."
If you want to play numbers, the iPhone on Verizon (same carrier as thunderbolt) sold 2.2 million in two months, compared to a quarter million in one month for tbolt. Saying that equals 3million annually 1) makes it compete better with the iPhone over two months on a single carrier and 2) assumes that the numbers remain constant. Being that people are figuring out that the battery life is dreadful (and you forget that the majority of the market doesn't want to swap batteries like it's 1999) and that android phones have a short cycle of being the hottest new thing, I don't think there's a basis to assume consistent sales in line with their opening month. Numbers can say anything when there's no common sense behind it.
Correction: 260000 HTC Thunderbolts in 2 weeks.
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/vz042111a.png
My point remains unchanged, but thanks for the clarification
boxlight
Nov 3, 10:20 AM
Will it support playing graphic intensive Windows games? That's the only think Parallels doesn't do for me. Also, is there any indication of a price?
Competition is always good, but they're going to have their work cut out for them to get me to switch away from Parallels.
boxlight
Competition is always good, but they're going to have their work cut out for them to get me to switch away from Parallels.
boxlight
.jpg "Para o novo Orkut, clique em")
St0rMl0rD
Dec 4, 11:06 AM
You want a GUN for Christmas?
-J
-J
more...
jmcrutch
Apr 12, 11:29 AM
Maybe this is already being done (if so, I'm not aware), but it would be very nice if PREDICTIONS for iPhone and iPad were tracked. I'd love to see a chart that shows all the predictions, including the dates they were made, what the prediction was, in terms of speculated release dates, and finally, the accuracy of the prediction.
We get ambiguous statements in the MacRumors reports, along the lines of "this analyst/reporter has demonstrated viable sources in the past;" however I don't think there's any hard reporting on how accurate past predictions have been. All we have to do is just think about the iPad2 predictions that were being made as late as January to comprehend how wrong they are ... and that was on the practical eve of release.
I vote for Page 2 as well. Or page 3.
We get ambiguous statements in the MacRumors reports, along the lines of "this analyst/reporter has demonstrated viable sources in the past;" however I don't think there's any hard reporting on how accurate past predictions have been. All we have to do is just think about the iPad2 predictions that were being made as late as January to comprehend how wrong they are ... and that was on the practical eve of release.
I vote for Page 2 as well. Or page 3.
chrmjenkins
Apr 27, 12:11 PM
I buy appleguy's logic. eldiablojoe
more...
emaja
Apr 26, 01:33 PM
I'll delete all the music that I've purchased via iTunes that will be available on the cloud, yes.
I wouldn't delete it. Local storage is so cheap that you'd be almost foolish to not have a local physical backup.
Personally, I wouldn't store my music in the cloud. I would back it up and stream it from the cloud, but it wouldn't be my only copy. Call me paranoid, but I like backups.
I wouldn't delete it. Local storage is so cheap that you'd be almost foolish to not have a local physical backup.
Personally, I wouldn't store my music in the cloud. I would back it up and stream it from the cloud, but it wouldn't be my only copy. Call me paranoid, but I like backups.
jasondono
Sep 30, 01:46 PM
Three to four bars of 3G at my house in suburban Detroit and I'm lucky if I can make a call and if I can, half the time it's dropped. And nobody can hear me anyway. I rarely receive calls and the missed call and voice-mails notifications don't show up till I leave home. Had Verizon for years and I can't remember ever dropping a call anywhere. But I love my iPhone and never did like Verizon.
This is exactly my experience in Brooklyn, NY. I'm considering going back to Verizon. How much does it cost o break the att contract?
This is exactly my experience in Brooklyn, NY. I'm considering going back to Verizon. How much does it cost o break the att contract?
more...
dethmaShine
Apr 22, 07:17 AM
Image (http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Samsungvs.Apple_-550x391.jpg)
yes it's obvious who stole.....
Fuddy Fud.
F700 was shown in Feb 2007 1 month after the showcase of the iPhone and was not ready for sale until later.
:rolleyes:
yes it's obvious who stole.....
Fuddy Fud.
F700 was shown in Feb 2007 1 month after the showcase of the iPhone and was not ready for sale until later.
:rolleyes:
tripjammer
Apr 22, 04:24 PM
I think it looks tight...but we will have to wait and see...We all know it is gonna be lighter, slimmer and faster....
more...
.jpg "Para o novo Orkut, clique em")
johnnyrb
Apr 11, 04:32 PM
Why no Thunderbolt cards for MacPro users?
zacman
Apr 22, 04:47 PM
F700, announced 2007 feb, released dec.
iPhone, announced 2007 jan, released june.
it's clear that the f700 is also a copycat....
The GSMArena article is wrong there. It is true that the F700 was officially "introduced in Feb 2007", but it was already shown at the IFA fair in Berlin in autumn 2006.
iPhone, announced 2007 jan, released june.
it's clear that the f700 is also a copycat....
The GSMArena article is wrong there. It is true that the F700 was officially "introduced in Feb 2007", but it was already shown at the IFA fair in Berlin in autumn 2006.
more...
wedge antilies
Jul 28, 10:21 AM
I agree. I like MS strategy. They want to get their foot in the door and compete, then sell you all kinds of other ish. Look at the XBOX/XBOX 360, they may sell them at a loss, but with the Software, XBOX Live, and the Marketplace, they are making their money.
No they are still not making money....From a Forbes article 2005/09/12..
linkypoo (http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2005/09/12/microsoft-management-software_cz_vm_0913microsoft.html)
"The Xbox game console is hot, but its division has lost $4 billion in four years and isn't yet in the black."
And as for the success of the XBox 360 from bink.nu (july 23)
bink link (http://bink.nu/Article7827.bink)
"Microsoft's Home and Entertainment division, home to the Xbox, posted a hefty fiscal year loss of $1.26 billion, thanks largely to losses involved with the Xbox 360. For Microsoft's fourth quarter, losses in the Home and Entertainment division were $414 million. Microsoft says they have shipped 5 million Xbox 360 units worldwide as of the end of June, roughly seven and a half months after launch."
Having said that I do own a Xbox, and will probably buy an Xbox 360 when Halo 3 comes out. And a PS3. And a Wii.
The fact is the Xbox 360 really isn't sellilng that well outside the US, where it has sold 3.3 mil units, in Europe it has sold only 1.3 mil, and more embarrasingly only 0.4 mil in the rest of the world INCLUDING Japan. In fact for the week ending 16th July only 1105 Xbox 360s were sold in Japan, compared to 140,858 DS LItes, and less than one tenth of the sales of the DS phat and less than one twentieth of the PS2, during the same time.
Microsofts home and entertainment division just lost $414million in the last quarter!
I just don't think you should say that the Xbox has been a success, it is possible, however success is a long way off.
-Red 2.
No they are still not making money....From a Forbes article 2005/09/12..
linkypoo (http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2005/09/12/microsoft-management-software_cz_vm_0913microsoft.html)
"The Xbox game console is hot, but its division has lost $4 billion in four years and isn't yet in the black."
And as for the success of the XBox 360 from bink.nu (july 23)
bink link (http://bink.nu/Article7827.bink)
"Microsoft's Home and Entertainment division, home to the Xbox, posted a hefty fiscal year loss of $1.26 billion, thanks largely to losses involved with the Xbox 360. For Microsoft's fourth quarter, losses in the Home and Entertainment division were $414 million. Microsoft says they have shipped 5 million Xbox 360 units worldwide as of the end of June, roughly seven and a half months after launch."
Having said that I do own a Xbox, and will probably buy an Xbox 360 when Halo 3 comes out. And a PS3. And a Wii.
The fact is the Xbox 360 really isn't sellilng that well outside the US, where it has sold 3.3 mil units, in Europe it has sold only 1.3 mil, and more embarrasingly only 0.4 mil in the rest of the world INCLUDING Japan. In fact for the week ending 16th July only 1105 Xbox 360s were sold in Japan, compared to 140,858 DS LItes, and less than one tenth of the sales of the DS phat and less than one twentieth of the PS2, during the same time.
Microsofts home and entertainment division just lost $414million in the last quarter!
I just don't think you should say that the Xbox has been a success, it is possible, however success is a long way off.
-Red 2.
daveschroeder
Oct 23, 08:35 AM
Dave,
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
more...
bushido
Apr 14, 05:21 AM
they probably fixed the issue months ago, considering its no problem on the iPad 2 and they just haven't released it just yet to have an excuse to push the iPhone 5 further away
Jason Beck
Apr 12, 05:58 AM
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/101/3/4/buds_2_by_jasonbeck-d3dsp1n.jpg
more...
generik
Aug 18, 04:51 PM
Yet that doesn't change the fact that the BSOD still exists in XP.
The code for kernel panics exists in MacOS too, from my experience sometimes the OS even croaks before it can even draw the cool graphical error screen out. At least Windows XP has a fully functional BSOD :rolleyes:
The code for kernel panics exists in MacOS too, from my experience sometimes the OS even croaks before it can even draw the cool graphical error screen out. At least Windows XP has a fully functional BSOD :rolleyes:
woolfgang
Jul 25, 10:21 AM
I tried the MM that came with my last computer, and I thought it sucked. Steve Jobs is brilliant, but also stubborn. He didn't want to make a 2 button mouse, so he found a way to make a mouse that didn't actually have 2 buttons, but could work like it did. I have a Logictech that works amazingly. It's comfortable, and I can do everything really fast and easy. I think most people that do/will buy the MM, do so because it's Apple.
.jpg "amor imagens")
hatehereyes
Sep 17, 02:34 PM
Just got this for $30 :D
http://image.nixonnow.com/image/product_detail/season3/products/hero/A119-hero-985.jpg
http://image.nixonnow.com/image/product_detail/season3/products/hero/A119-hero-985.jpg
Corey Grandy
Sep 12, 09:36 PM
I actually get a half-green, half-passion tea lemonade. Try it. It's good. :)
Corey, that dog is adorable. What breed?
Thank you :)
He is a Toy American Eskimo (Eskimo/German/American Spitz).
Not Japanese, I'm dumb :)
Corey, that dog is adorable. What breed?
Thank you :)
He is a Toy American Eskimo (Eskimo/German/American Spitz).
Not Japanese, I'm dumb :)
wmk461
Jan 30, 04:09 PM
I had an engineering friend that did exactly that in the early 1980s. He sold his house and all of his investments, and purchased gold. At the time it was trading right around $900/oz. Needless to say his expectation of the demise of the US Economy and upswing in gold value didn't pan out in the long term.
I saw him at a party over the holidays this past year and asked if he was excited to finally be near the break-even point again. He was not amused.
Gold goes up because of investor fears about market uncertainty and global uncertainty (and the bulk of global uncertainty is driven by US geopolitical actions). When the predicted global calamity doesn't happen, the price of gold declines again. Since we have been fortunate enough to be unable to test what happens after a global calamity, we can't be certain what will happen to the price of gold then. My guess is it will be worth slightly more than paper, and less than a loaf of bread.
I understand what you are saying and it makes sense, and I am gambling my extra money on geopolitical actions. In the 1980's gold was selling for nearly 3000.00 of today dollars. Switzerland is reporting a shortage of gold and Russia has announced that they will be backing up their currency with gold. Bottom line is I don't mind taking a chance on my research, especially with the tensions in the middle east.
I saw him at a party over the holidays this past year and asked if he was excited to finally be near the break-even point again. He was not amused.
Gold goes up because of investor fears about market uncertainty and global uncertainty (and the bulk of global uncertainty is driven by US geopolitical actions). When the predicted global calamity doesn't happen, the price of gold declines again. Since we have been fortunate enough to be unable to test what happens after a global calamity, we can't be certain what will happen to the price of gold then. My guess is it will be worth slightly more than paper, and less than a loaf of bread.
I understand what you are saying and it makes sense, and I am gambling my extra money on geopolitical actions. In the 1980's gold was selling for nearly 3000.00 of today dollars. Switzerland is reporting a shortage of gold and Russia has announced that they will be backing up their currency with gold. Bottom line is I don't mind taking a chance on my research, especially with the tensions in the middle east.
cal6n
Apr 24, 07:07 AM
No surprise that Apple are developing an iphone suitable for T-Mobile and other carriers that use the same spectrum. It is only AT&T's exclusivity that's held them back so long. And it's only that exclusivity that's held them back from offering unsubsidised, unlocked iPhones in their stores. The iPhone will be 4 years old in June. maybe AT&T's stranglehold is coming to an end.
If you want to see an iPhone ecosystem to Apple's liking you need to look at the UK, where O2 only had exclusivity for 2 years. Within months, every major network and most of the minor ones started to offer the iPhone. Now even the chav (that probably translates best as "trailer-trash") supermarket network of choice, Tesco, sells it. Competition keeps the prices lowish, but not as low as the junk android handsets and Apple sells unlocked iPhones at full price for those of us with cheap SIM-only plans.
If you want to see an iPhone ecosystem to Apple's liking you need to look at the UK, where O2 only had exclusivity for 2 years. Within months, every major network and most of the minor ones started to offer the iPhone. Now even the chav (that probably translates best as "trailer-trash") supermarket network of choice, Tesco, sells it. Competition keeps the prices lowish, but not as low as the junk android handsets and Apple sells unlocked iPhones at full price for those of us with cheap SIM-only plans.
MacinDoc
Apr 13, 06:25 PM
No, nay, never... nay, never, no more! (sung with an Irish lilt). TV = mass-produced low-margin market that is focused primarily on price and specs. Exactly the kind of market that Apple avoids like the plague.
firewood
Apr 28, 11:30 AM
It's a platform war, but not in the way that a lot of people think it is. Developers are making a lot more money on iOS because it has a lot more users and those users tend to buy things. Therefore, those users are going to get the developers' attention first.
It's better than that. Not only does the iOS platform include the iPod Touch and the iPad, which about doubles the platform installed base of users, but iPad and iPhone users each buy more paid apps on average. Android customers seem like cheapskates by comparison, and far less profitable to target by most developers. With that kind of tilted revenue incentive for mobile app developers moving to iOS, how is the Android platform going to keep up?
It's better than that. Not only does the iOS platform include the iPod Touch and the iPad, which about doubles the platform installed base of users, but iPad and iPhone users each buy more paid apps on average. Android customers seem like cheapskates by comparison, and far less profitable to target by most developers. With that kind of tilted revenue incentive for mobile app developers moving to iOS, how is the Android platform going to keep up?
No comments:
Post a Comment