mdntcallr
Jul 23, 02:53 PM
Just so long as they don't make the glossy screen standard on the MBP, like they did on the MB. I can't stand that glare ridden, reflective surface finish!
Yeah the glossy screen is annoying, reason enough to order a custom job.
Yeah the glossy screen is annoying, reason enough to order a custom job.
wclyffe
Dec 5, 07:29 PM
FYI...you cannot even order it from Tomtom.com. Here's what it says:
TomTom car kit for iPhone
USD 119.95
+southeast+asia+political+
and faces Southeast Asia.
Southeast Asia consists of
Map of the “East Indies,”
Physical map of Southeast Asia
Southeast Asia Map Links
Location in Southeast Asia
Political Map
South Asia Political Map 2004
east asia map political. east
East asia map International
Maps
Asia portrait Political Map of
Map 1. Southeast Asia
South East Asia
Southeast+asia+map+outline
South East Asia Political
TomTom car kit for iPhone
USD 119.95
kskill
Jul 29, 11:07 PM
they guy says it's the sleekest phone he's ever seen? i wonder if it incorporates this "none-touch" interface that was posted earlier in the week for the iPod. that'd be pretty awesome.
Thex1138
Mar 26, 10:40 PM
iOS is centric to iPhone and I can't really see why the sudden shift from the status quo.
The scorching success of iPhone 4 hand set is really setting the pace.
The Lion revision of OSX will probably see much more inheritance of features and the ap-verse of iOS.
In my view the real buzz for iOS 5 might be the appearance of the whole swag of new touch gestures that Apple have been working on and previewed in the recent beta.
That along with the cloud, NFC and maybe 4G.
I think that the only thing that might trigger iPad 3 to market could be the success rate of OLED screen manufacture process. Currently I take it that for larger screens the death rate of OLED pixels seems too high.... Either that or a retina level of screen res might trigger iPad 3 to market by years end.
:)
The scorching success of iPhone 4 hand set is really setting the pace.
The Lion revision of OSX will probably see much more inheritance of features and the ap-verse of iOS.
In my view the real buzz for iOS 5 might be the appearance of the whole swag of new touch gestures that Apple have been working on and previewed in the recent beta.
That along with the cloud, NFC and maybe 4G.
I think that the only thing that might trigger iPad 3 to market could be the success rate of OLED screen manufacture process. Currently I take it that for larger screens the death rate of OLED pixels seems too high.... Either that or a retina level of screen res might trigger iPad 3 to market by years end.
:)
MSlaw
May 6, 08:18 AM
This would actually be the logical thing to do. (in the future) Offload more and more onto the GPU (which is way more powerful than any CPU out there anyway) and develop the CPUs in house. The customer could possibly get cheaper and more powerful macs.
firestarter
Apr 21, 02:34 PM
Good!
It would be great if there was an even smaller one, now that Thunderbolt allows high speed expansion outside the box.
It would be great if there was an even smaller one, now that Thunderbolt allows high speed expansion outside the box.
paradox00
May 4, 03:16 PM
Here's my problem with this distribution method for an OS:
I have 4 Macs in my house. Previously, I'd buy a Family License DVD and go from machine to machine installing it.
If I have to DL it from the App Store, I've got to download it 4 times! I don't care about paying for multiple licenses... I do care about blowing out my internet bandwidth downloading the same multi-gigabyte file 4 times. :mad:
There had better be a physical-media option!
From the article:
"Apple is said to presumably be planning to also release Mac OS X Lion on physical media to support users who are running older Mac OS X versions incompatible with the Mac App Store or who have slow Internet connections that would make downloading the large update unwieldy."
From the source article:
"While the Mac App Store will be the preferred method for installing Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, set for release this summer, it's logical to presume that Apple will also offer an optical disc for people who may not have broadband. At least person with knowledge of the situation claims that this will indeed be the case "for those with slower connections, or [for those who for whatever reason do] not want to download it.""
Furthermore, what if the app store download is just a dmg that allows you to burn it to a disk or copy it to a thumb drive? Wouldn't that alleviate your concerns too? Way too early to be getting bent out of shape over this.
I have 4 Macs in my house. Previously, I'd buy a Family License DVD and go from machine to machine installing it.
If I have to DL it from the App Store, I've got to download it 4 times! I don't care about paying for multiple licenses... I do care about blowing out my internet bandwidth downloading the same multi-gigabyte file 4 times. :mad:
There had better be a physical-media option!
From the article:
"Apple is said to presumably be planning to also release Mac OS X Lion on physical media to support users who are running older Mac OS X versions incompatible with the Mac App Store or who have slow Internet connections that would make downloading the large update unwieldy."
From the source article:
"While the Mac App Store will be the preferred method for installing Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, set for release this summer, it's logical to presume that Apple will also offer an optical disc for people who may not have broadband. At least person with knowledge of the situation claims that this will indeed be the case "for those with slower connections, or [for those who for whatever reason do] not want to download it.""
Furthermore, what if the app store download is just a dmg that allows you to burn it to a disk or copy it to a thumb drive? Wouldn't that alleviate your concerns too? Way too early to be getting bent out of shape over this.
myotis
Nov 2, 02:11 PM
I've never heard of this company -- are they reputable, does anyone know? I've heard all sorts of stories abut these types of things being spyware or some such, don't want to pollute my Mac with any of that garbage!
See my message just after yours, they are not well known because they only sell to very large corporates. Ten years ago I ran Sophos AV on all our company computers. I went for Sophos because its reputation was streets ahead of all the competition. Everyone I spoke to at the time seemed to have some a range of AV horror stories/problems that they no longer suffered after switching to Sophos.
Excellent support, whenever a new virus appeared, Sophos would have an update out within minutes/hours, sometimes this was a temporary fix, with a final version out a few hours later. Telephone support was excellent with phone answered in seconds. Used virtually no resources when running.
As I said in other email, I stopped using it only because I lost my free "employees" license when I left the company that I had bought it for and couldn't justify the �100 + to buy a home license. I'm afraid I found everything else I tried (Norton, McAfee etc) to be very poor alternatives. Eventually settling on ESET NOD32, which while still taking more resources than Sophos, and only having daily updates rather than the minute by minute updates from Sophos, it was still the best of the ones I tried.
Graham
See my message just after yours, they are not well known because they only sell to very large corporates. Ten years ago I ran Sophos AV on all our company computers. I went for Sophos because its reputation was streets ahead of all the competition. Everyone I spoke to at the time seemed to have some a range of AV horror stories/problems that they no longer suffered after switching to Sophos.
Excellent support, whenever a new virus appeared, Sophos would have an update out within minutes/hours, sometimes this was a temporary fix, with a final version out a few hours later. Telephone support was excellent with phone answered in seconds. Used virtually no resources when running.
As I said in other email, I stopped using it only because I lost my free "employees" license when I left the company that I had bought it for and couldn't justify the �100 + to buy a home license. I'm afraid I found everything else I tried (Norton, McAfee etc) to be very poor alternatives. Eventually settling on ESET NOD32, which while still taking more resources than Sophos, and only having daily updates rather than the minute by minute updates from Sophos, it was still the best of the ones I tried.
Graham
kingtj
Mar 28, 10:02 AM
Apple has been repeatedly bashed for focusing too much on iOS devices, to the detriment of their core computer product line. (They took people off of working on OS X to finish fixing things on the iPad, etc. etc.)
Now, it sounds like they're trying to bring the focus back to the Mac again for a little while, and people are complaining??
Why would you feel a need to get a new cellphone every single year? Contracts tend to run 2 years, discouraging you from upgrading that often anyway. But regardless, all of the recent "smartphones" I've seen are built well enough so they'll easily hold up for a good 2 years of use. All of the things I'd really need to do on a mobile phone will work fine next year, just the way they work this year. Even if you're just hung up on having "the latest thing"? If Apple delays release of the iPhone 5, then the 4 remains the "latest thing" from them for a while longer.
More to the point of the original topic though? I can definitely see why this WWDC would be a critical one, in many ways, to talk about a lot of software changes! Apparently, the Linux community is rapidly switching over their software to the "GPL3" license, which has a lot of "gotchas" in it that try to restrict what commercial businesses can do with the code. Essentially, they're trying to keep companies like Apple from benefiting from their free, open-source projects, and keep them for Linux users instead. The Apache web server is moving to a GPL3 license, for example, as is the gcc compiler and Samba.
Apple has to start moving to alternate products for all of this core functionality and get developers up to speed on the changes, or we're in for a LOT of reduced functionality in future OS X versions.
That's just getting complacent in my opinion, people like myself like changing phones yearly, no new iPhone means no return business, I'll try something else instead, bad move if true.
Now, it sounds like they're trying to bring the focus back to the Mac again for a little while, and people are complaining??
Why would you feel a need to get a new cellphone every single year? Contracts tend to run 2 years, discouraging you from upgrading that often anyway. But regardless, all of the recent "smartphones" I've seen are built well enough so they'll easily hold up for a good 2 years of use. All of the things I'd really need to do on a mobile phone will work fine next year, just the way they work this year. Even if you're just hung up on having "the latest thing"? If Apple delays release of the iPhone 5, then the 4 remains the "latest thing" from them for a while longer.
More to the point of the original topic though? I can definitely see why this WWDC would be a critical one, in many ways, to talk about a lot of software changes! Apparently, the Linux community is rapidly switching over their software to the "GPL3" license, which has a lot of "gotchas" in it that try to restrict what commercial businesses can do with the code. Essentially, they're trying to keep companies like Apple from benefiting from their free, open-source projects, and keep them for Linux users instead. The Apache web server is moving to a GPL3 license, for example, as is the gcc compiler and Samba.
Apple has to start moving to alternate products for all of this core functionality and get developers up to speed on the changes, or we're in for a LOT of reduced functionality in future OS X versions.
That's just getting complacent in my opinion, people like myself like changing phones yearly, no new iPhone means no return business, I'll try something else instead, bad move if true.
Northgrove
May 6, 04:21 AM
I was about to say, "What?! And lose the Windows compatibility they bragged on so much with the Intel transition? You're kidding me!", then I remembered that Windows 8 is also rumored (confirmed?) to run on ARM.
This might actually happen..
Yes, hmm... You bring up an interesting point of view here.
Windows 8 do currently run on ARM, yes:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/ces-microsoft-shows-off-windows-8-on-arm/8339
Not sure if MS decides to ship it for ARM or not (working in a controlled tech demo doesn't imply a finished stable release in the Windows 8 timeframe), but what matters here is that Microsoft is absolutely moving to support ARM either in Windows 8 or later.
This might actually happen..
Yes, hmm... You bring up an interesting point of view here.
Windows 8 do currently run on ARM, yes:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/ces-microsoft-shows-off-windows-8-on-arm/8339
Not sure if MS decides to ship it for ARM or not (working in a controlled tech demo doesn't imply a finished stable release in the Windows 8 timeframe), but what matters here is that Microsoft is absolutely moving to support ARM either in Windows 8 or later.
gnasher729
Apr 7, 11:55 AM
And just how could Apple be found to be absuing its position by buying what it needs to supply its customers whith product? Maybe if the iPad wasn't selling all that well but Apple can't keep up with demand as it is. Arguments like yours don't even make sense and I'll bet you some serious money that no one can produce a single instance of a company "found to be abusing its position" by buying what its needs to produce and sell its products. It would appear people like you are just angry that Apple is successful and want to take it down somehow. Stupid, just stupid.
The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.
The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.
ZorPrime
Nov 26, 12:34 AM
[QUOTE=MikeTheC;3091231]Ok, how about this:
you read my mind! :eek: :)
you read my mind! :eek: :)
Winni
Apr 6, 03:53 AM
It sort of makes you think what it would be like if Apple took a hand at other industries. This theme is absolutely fugly. Toyota basically turned the iphone into a zone.
What if the tables were turned? If Toyota can make the iphone so unappealing, then how much better would the design of a Toyota be if Apple redesigned it?
Just because you know how to design a computer user interface doesn't mean that you also know how to design a car. Cars are much more complex than computers -- all cars have computers built in, but no computer has a car built in.
Also, most of Apple's products look better than they are user friendly or work well. Their keyboards and mice are horrible, for example - every Microsoft or Logitech keyboard or mice blows the Apple competition out of the water when it comes to ergonomics. And ergonomics is something that's VERY important in a car. Apple very obviously sucks at that.
If you want a car that looks and feels like something that could have been designed by Apple, buy a Smart (Diesel). They're great and affordable city and short distance cars, I love them. The only difference is that if Apple would have designed the Smart, it would cost as much as BMW.
What if the tables were turned? If Toyota can make the iphone so unappealing, then how much better would the design of a Toyota be if Apple redesigned it?
Just because you know how to design a computer user interface doesn't mean that you also know how to design a car. Cars are much more complex than computers -- all cars have computers built in, but no computer has a car built in.
Also, most of Apple's products look better than they are user friendly or work well. Their keyboards and mice are horrible, for example - every Microsoft or Logitech keyboard or mice blows the Apple competition out of the water when it comes to ergonomics. And ergonomics is something that's VERY important in a car. Apple very obviously sucks at that.
If you want a car that looks and feels like something that could have been designed by Apple, buy a Smart (Diesel). They're great and affordable city and short distance cars, I love them. The only difference is that if Apple would have designed the Smart, it would cost as much as BMW.
Genetheninja
Apr 26, 04:25 PM
One interesting thing to note. Apple held 25% of recent acquirers with 2 phone models. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS. They are also on only 2 carriers, and have only been with Verizon for part of the time leading up to the march survey. Android however is on dozens of handsets and all four US carriers. I would say apple is doing amazingly well when you consider those specifics.
I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
Took the words right out of my mouth!!!:)
I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
Took the words right out of my mouth!!!:)
enda1
Aug 4, 06:32 AM
All the pics on the banner are just apple's existing products. There's nothing new there and (i believe) no hints. Its the keynote to look out for. I just hope they announce merom in MB as soon as possible. Maybe a new 12/13'' MBP otherwise which would be my ideal computer.
Monday is a bank holiday here in Ireland and i will be on a train during the keynote. Damn!!! Ill just have to watch it when I get back.
Though, I'm still not back in college till the second week of october so everything should be clearer by then! :)
Monday is a bank holiday here in Ireland and i will be on a train during the keynote. Damn!!! Ill just have to watch it when I get back.
Though, I'm still not back in college till the second week of october so everything should be clearer by then! :)
Vegasman
Apr 5, 06:57 PM
And while this little Apple - Toyota "thingy" is happening, Microsoft announces a joint press announcement with Toyota:
http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-and-toyota-announce-joint-press-event-for-april-6/
http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-and-toyota-announce-joint-press-event-for-april-6/
Michael Scrip
Apr 26, 03:13 PM
Deceptive Report... Let's not forget, Apple iOS encompasses more then just iPhones. If you included the iPad and iPod Touch which both run Apple iOS then Apple's market share is still ahead of Android.
It's not *that" deceptive... they did include "US smartphone usage" in the headline.
Here's why... Apple's smartphone is called "the iPhone"
And then you've got "Android" which is a tons of phones from many manufacturers.
When comparing smartphone numbers... it's the iPhone vs. many Android phones.
You're right... if you wanna have a platform battle... iOS vs Android... you'd have to include iPods and iPads.
But this is a comparison of phones...
It's not *that" deceptive... they did include "US smartphone usage" in the headline.
Here's why... Apple's smartphone is called "the iPhone"
And then you've got "Android" which is a tons of phones from many manufacturers.
When comparing smartphone numbers... it's the iPhone vs. many Android phones.
You're right... if you wanna have a platform battle... iOS vs Android... you'd have to include iPods and iPads.
But this is a comparison of phones...
bella92108
Apr 5, 01:51 PM
Actually, Apple is doing them a favor. That's an ugly, ugly theme.
Look at the "Post your homescreen" thread, lots of tacky people with tacky looking screens. LOL
Look at the "Post your homescreen" thread, lots of tacky people with tacky looking screens. LOL
Clive At Five
Nov 22, 12:31 PM
Okay, I've heard here a lot, that people want simple integration/syncronization with iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, & Address Book. These are all, (minus iTunes) 100% Mac-Centric. PC users would only get integration/syncronization with iTunes. What good is that to them? At that point you only have iPod + Phone.
So Apple has a choice: Mac-Centric or not.
Knowing Apple, their first choice is "not" (which doesn't mean it will start out that way, but we'll just have to wait to find out). Apple would then have to either write iCal et al. for Windows or build in support for Outlook, ...uh... photo viewer... whatever PCs use for photos.
Both are daunting tasks.
Conclusion: In order for Apple to make a phone as good and as universal as the iPod, it will have to accomplish one of the aforementioned daunting tasks.
Making a phone for Mac users would be a walk in the park, because 1) it's such a small microcosm, 2) It's an environment that they are familiar with.
Making a phone for everyone will not be as easy. HOWEVER, Apple is great at building OSes (the iPod OS is simple & intuitive and I have no doubt that they will do the same with a phone) and Apple is great at integration with software, so even though there will be hurdles to overcome, Apple will eventually churn out a phone that is simple and is loved by everyone.
I also think there won't be a single serious Mac-User who won't have one. It'll just be too handy to have a device that will sync easily with the awesome Mac software.
-Clive
So Apple has a choice: Mac-Centric or not.
Knowing Apple, their first choice is "not" (which doesn't mean it will start out that way, but we'll just have to wait to find out). Apple would then have to either write iCal et al. for Windows or build in support for Outlook, ...uh... photo viewer... whatever PCs use for photos.
Both are daunting tasks.
Conclusion: In order for Apple to make a phone as good and as universal as the iPod, it will have to accomplish one of the aforementioned daunting tasks.
Making a phone for Mac users would be a walk in the park, because 1) it's such a small microcosm, 2) It's an environment that they are familiar with.
Making a phone for everyone will not be as easy. HOWEVER, Apple is great at building OSes (the iPod OS is simple & intuitive and I have no doubt that they will do the same with a phone) and Apple is great at integration with software, so even though there will be hurdles to overcome, Apple will eventually churn out a phone that is simple and is loved by everyone.
I also think there won't be a single serious Mac-User who won't have one. It'll just be too handy to have a device that will sync easily with the awesome Mac software.
-Clive
marksman
Apr 25, 11:10 AM
No, he said "the info circulating". "THE" info includes the info about the database.
The question specifically asked about Apple tracking this person. That is the question he was answering.
The question specifically asked about Apple tracking this person. That is the question he was answering.
SuperCachetes
May 3, 09:28 PM
Yes, it's a system that has its roots in the past, but the system still works. There's no compelling reason to change it. There's no efficiency to be gained.
I don't buy that for a second. As someone who works in the construction industry and has to deal with fractions of inches and materials that are odd nominal dimensions and even odder actual dimensions, I can tell you that there is a ****-ton of efficiency to be gained by getting away from bricks that are 3-5/8" deep, interior sheetrock walls that are 4-7/8" thick, and ceiling grids that are 15/16" wide.
Can a guy who's been working construction for 30 years add this stuff up in his head? Sure. But all along the way - from the architect, to the contractor, to the fabricator, to the installer - there is a chance for miscalculation because of our goofy system of measurement, and the savings from going to SI would be both in time spent designing and time spent correcting errors in the field.
Yes, there is a cost, both monetary and emotional - but we need to just rip the bandage off, already. "It's what I'm used to" is a tired excuse.
I don't buy that for a second. As someone who works in the construction industry and has to deal with fractions of inches and materials that are odd nominal dimensions and even odder actual dimensions, I can tell you that there is a ****-ton of efficiency to be gained by getting away from bricks that are 3-5/8" deep, interior sheetrock walls that are 4-7/8" thick, and ceiling grids that are 15/16" wide.
Can a guy who's been working construction for 30 years add this stuff up in his head? Sure. But all along the way - from the architect, to the contractor, to the fabricator, to the installer - there is a chance for miscalculation because of our goofy system of measurement, and the savings from going to SI would be both in time spent designing and time spent correcting errors in the field.
Yes, there is a cost, both monetary and emotional - but we need to just rip the bandage off, already. "It's what I'm used to" is a tired excuse.
DakotaGuy
May 6, 12:10 AM
Moving away from Intel in their notebooks and desktops would be a HUGE mistake in my opinion. Intel is the big dog and they have the resources to keep innovating. I guess if they plan on making everything iOS then it makes a little more sense, but for true blue OSX machines Intel has the muscle.
LittleJoe
Nov 27, 02:44 AM
http://littleemedia.com/icontrol.jpg
i was bored.
i was bored.
yellow
Mar 28, 11:28 AM
Hmm.. interesting turn of events.
Though I will still wait until that time gets closer and the speculation changes/gets more accurate, I suppose there's no reason not to go ahead and ditch this P.O.S. Blackberry for an iPhone.
Though I will still wait until that time gets closer and the speculation changes/gets more accurate, I suppose there's no reason not to go ahead and ditch this P.O.S. Blackberry for an iPhone.
No comments:
Post a Comment