MacApple21
Apr 7, 10:20 AM
So, what is Apple doing with a bunch of 7" touch screens, since Jobs said "7 inch tablets are dead on arrival"?
I also don't recall RIM ever giving a date before April 19th.
Well, perhaps it's not 7" screens Apple is buying, but production capacity, which consequently hinders competitors from having their orders produced.
I also don't recall RIM ever giving a date before April 19th.
Well, perhaps it's not 7" screens Apple is buying, but production capacity, which consequently hinders competitors from having their orders produced.
srathi
Apr 26, 02:15 PM
inevitable as android devices are available everywhere and in every price segment. remember, half of all American workers earn $505 or less per week.
This argument is getting old now. As usual, iFans are in denial.
This argument is getting old now. As usual, iFans are in denial.
brewno
May 7, 04:14 PM
Mobileme is certainly worth more than free. Apple doesn't scrape your emails and other data to target adds at you a la Google.
Well, maybe they will make it free and they will make it exactly like Google.
Have you thought about that?
Well, maybe they will make it free and they will make it exactly like Google.
Have you thought about that?
seek3r
Apr 22, 01:22 AM
It is trivial, in say my case, to SSH into a "workstation" type Mac Pro, say "Noble Mac Pro, run this really computational intensive code, I'll check back in a bit" and then SSH the output back to another machine when it's done. No muss, no fuss.
Now imagine you have bunches of workstations...
In my end of things we usually call that a cluster :-p
Now imagine you have bunches of workstations...
In my end of things we usually call that a cluster :-p
Fukui
Mar 30, 02:07 AM
Globalization is a race to the bottom, and nobody seems to understand that while the 3rd world rises up, the 1st world inevitably must slide down.
The data (http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_asia_s_rise_how_and_when.html) would say otherwise...
The data (http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_asia_s_rise_how_and_when.html) would say otherwise...
alent1234
Mar 29, 08:49 AM
And if you stop subscribing?...What happens to your music files stored in the cloud?
there is no subscription
you buy music from amazon you download an mp3. or you upload your own and listen to it on an android phone. if you stop using the service you still have your music on your computer
there is no subscription
you buy music from amazon you download an mp3. or you upload your own and listen to it on an android phone. if you stop using the service you still have your music on your computer
jasonefmonk
May 6, 01:47 AM
There have been good reasons discussed for why this could happen. Mainly the future goals of ARM development, and the fusion of iOS and OSX.
I still can't see how ARM could keep up with Intel. I just got a new MacBook Pro, it's just the base model but it has a hell of a kick for 2.3GHz dual core. It seems to virtually create four cores (threads?). Intel always seems to be ahead of expectation with performance and efficiency. Apple has a lot of money, but can they really buy all the experience needed to compete with a company of this much history?
I still can't see how ARM could keep up with Intel. I just got a new MacBook Pro, it's just the base model but it has a hell of a kick for 2.3GHz dual core. It seems to virtually create four cores (threads?). Intel always seems to be ahead of expectation with performance and efficiency. Apple has a lot of money, but can they really buy all the experience needed to compete with a company of this much history?
lilo777
Apr 18, 03:07 PM
That took awhile.
Samsung, that's what you get from trying to kill the golden egg goose. Hopefully apple follows through by moving to TSMC.
I did not know that TSMC produces LCD panels, RAM, SSD drives or flash memory. If Samsung stops supplying those to Apple, Apple is dead.
Samsung, that's what you get from trying to kill the golden egg goose. Hopefully apple follows through by moving to TSMC.
I did not know that TSMC produces LCD panels, RAM, SSD drives or flash memory. If Samsung stops supplying those to Apple, Apple is dead.
rmwebs
Apr 21, 03:52 PM
Unless they can do it at a very low cost, I cant see them doing it at all. The rackmount market for the mac was minuscule with pretty much just specialist research and university/college networks using them. It would probably cost a lot in R&D to redesign the Pro, when it doesn't really need it. Its a functional design which is in keeping with the rest of the range.
As a Pro user, I'd LOVE to see new updates, but they should really be advances that you would expect from the Pro range:
- Better support for graphics cards
- Advancements to processor usage (4x CPU's for example)
- RAID card support
- Thunderbolt
- Fiber
you get the point.
Generally there is little NEED to use Macs in a server environment as its pretty much always possible to do it with Linux, and some cases Windows. I'm not denying that it has its uses, but the size of this market has made it impractical.
As a Pro user, I'd LOVE to see new updates, but they should really be advances that you would expect from the Pro range:
- Better support for graphics cards
- Advancements to processor usage (4x CPU's for example)
- RAID card support
- Thunderbolt
- Fiber
you get the point.
Generally there is little NEED to use Macs in a server environment as its pretty much always possible to do it with Linux, and some cases Windows. I'm not denying that it has its uses, but the size of this market has made it impractical.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
Ruhruh
Apr 26, 02:59 PM
Can someone post the updated chart on which OS is making more profit, not only for the company behind the OS, but for developers? :rolleyes:
As much as I want Android to succeed, being a google fan, the OS along with the app store(s) and apps are not on the same level as iOS.
As a consumer, I could careless if Android has 99% of the market, I want the best ecosystem.
Nokia/Symbian dominated the phone market, at least worldwide, they are doing what now? As they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Apple has been doing just fine for the last 10 years or so sticking to its devoted followers, they are not going to start releases 10 iPhone versions to compete to save their market share. But I'm going to guess they will continue to pull in the most cash.
As much as I want Android to succeed, being a google fan, the OS along with the app store(s) and apps are not on the same level as iOS.
As a consumer, I could careless if Android has 99% of the market, I want the best ecosystem.
Nokia/Symbian dominated the phone market, at least worldwide, they are doing what now? As they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Apple has been doing just fine for the last 10 years or so sticking to its devoted followers, they are not going to start releases 10 iPhone versions to compete to save their market share. But I'm going to guess they will continue to pull in the most cash.
skyline r34
Apr 21, 11:17 PM
i think the Mac Pro is going to remain the same just with upgraded CPU, GPU and thunder bolt but the Mac Pro server will have redesign case but who know until it comes out
dontwalkhand
Apr 20, 01:18 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone : Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
I am happy for this, this means when my upgrade happens, iPhone 6 will be a HUGE one :-)
I am happy for this, this means when my upgrade happens, iPhone 6 will be a HUGE one :-)
MythicFrost
Apr 26, 02:54 AM
iPad 2 not being retina is not a good example when talking about desktops. First, there are no battery issues to deal with for a desktop. Second, there heat issues but less so since the screen isn't held in your hand. And third, you can raise costs if you are talking about a high end screen to attach to your high end Mac Pro. Apple can target the "money is no object crowd" with some of its offerings. Apple sells $1,000 displays already and I'm not sure that they couldn't sell a $2,000 retina level display. I'd consider it. Yeah it would be a lot of money but I would expect the screen to last five years and I use my computer everyday. Would I spend about a dollar a day to have retina on a 27" screen? I'd at least consider it.
That said, I don't know if the technology is there yet. Could a current Mac Pro run a retina screen without a hiccup? I'd still 60 FPS on Crysis. :p
Interestingly enough, there should be no more power drain nor heat produced on an iPad with a retina display than there is without.
I also remember reading an article a while ago that pinned a 2048x1536 retina display for the iPad at ~3x the current iPad's display price. Although, I'm not sure if it was real or not, I think it was though.
That said, I don't know if the technology is there yet. Could a current Mac Pro run a retina screen without a hiccup? I'd still 60 FPS on Crysis. :p
Interestingly enough, there should be no more power drain nor heat produced on an iPad with a retina display than there is without.
I also remember reading an article a while ago that pinned a 2048x1536 retina display for the iPad at ~3x the current iPad's display price. Although, I'm not sure if it was real or not, I think it was though.
daneoni
Aug 11, 12:18 PM
For all who are saying Merom is not necessarily better..64 bit who needs it/no apps for it....marginally faster....waste of time waiting for it. We know we dont NEED it but we still WANT it.
Think of your cellphones they have tons of features most of us hardly use but we still like the fact that we have those features should we need em. Its ancient geek behaviour we want the best/fastest/superior no matter how marginal or ridiculously illogical/impractical.
:D
Think of your cellphones they have tons of features most of us hardly use but we still like the fact that we have those features should we need em. Its ancient geek behaviour we want the best/fastest/superior no matter how marginal or ridiculously illogical/impractical.
:D
kntgsp
Apr 20, 03:40 AM
They can keep the form factor, just give us a bigger screen. Stretch it to the bezel.
That thing is dying for a 4", hell even a 3.7" screen.
That thing is dying for a 4", hell even a 3.7" screen.
mBox
Apr 24, 05:32 PM
...This said, it could potentially make macs more expensive in the future....on what basis? has the iPhone and iPad gone higher in price as it progressed?
Our budget for a MacPro is almost a quarter of what it used to be 3 years ago :)
Our budget for a MacPro is almost a quarter of what it used to be 3 years ago :)
charlituna
Mar 27, 12:39 AM
I just forked over 750 dollars for an ipad 2 and ipad 3 is coming out? Ouch!!! I already want it.
I don't really buy that rumor. Apple rarely to never does a six month cycle on anything and shifting the iPad to the fall means no major product to help keep the stock price nice and high.
Plus an iPad on top of the new pods means more chaos for the retail staff, which I can't see them doing.
If anything I could see them shifting the iPads to late Jan or early Feb next go around and moving the spring laptops closer to the start of their annual back to school promo
I don't really buy that rumor. Apple rarely to never does a six month cycle on anything and shifting the iPad to the fall means no major product to help keep the stock price nice and high.
Plus an iPad on top of the new pods means more chaos for the retail staff, which I can't see them doing.
If anything I could see them shifting the iPads to late Jan or early Feb next go around and moving the spring laptops closer to the start of their annual back to school promo
SFStateStudent
Apr 20, 02:20 AM
Probably going to wait for the iPhone 6; first time without getting the newest and the latest/best iPhone...oh well :eek:
Rdclark
Mar 29, 01:38 PM
...obviously, is the rollout of a "Kindle Tablet" running Honeycomb.
The custom Amazon front end would have icons for:
Kindle Reading App (and Kindle Store)
Amazon Music Player (with cloud storage) and MP3 Store
Amazon Prime Streaming Video (and the Amazon Video Store)
Amazon Android App Store
Cloud Storage Manager
Some sort of Web Browser
And underneath that is Honeycomb. Maybe they throw in a free Amazon Prime subscription with purchase (free 2-day shipping on Amazon purchases).
Here would be Amazon leveraging all their strengths into a physical device that could seriously challenge the iPad in ways that no other vendor can, because it creates an Amazon "ecosystem" with the worlds biggest store for physical goods attached.
People like to shop.
The custom Amazon front end would have icons for:
Kindle Reading App (and Kindle Store)
Amazon Music Player (with cloud storage) and MP3 Store
Amazon Prime Streaming Video (and the Amazon Video Store)
Amazon Android App Store
Cloud Storage Manager
Some sort of Web Browser
And underneath that is Honeycomb. Maybe they throw in a free Amazon Prime subscription with purchase (free 2-day shipping on Amazon purchases).
Here would be Amazon leveraging all their strengths into a physical device that could seriously challenge the iPad in ways that no other vendor can, because it creates an Amazon "ecosystem" with the worlds biggest store for physical goods attached.
People like to shop.
nanofrog
Apr 27, 10:33 PM
The heat alone would melt that case in a couple months:)
Nah... The chip would go way before the aluminum melts (~108C or so max for any semiconductor to die <quick/instant death>, and aluminum melts at 660C :eek). :D :p
Nah... The chip would go way before the aluminum melts (~108C or so max for any semiconductor to die <quick/instant death>, and aluminum melts at 660C :eek). :D :p
marvel2
Jan 25, 12:41 PM
Ok, so for what it's worth here are my thoughts in using the Magellan Car Kit for a few days. I'll cut to the chase by telling you I'm sending it back. My big complaints are the bluetooth speakerphone is terrible with the volume being so low during phone calls that you have to turn it all the way up, but that's still not high enough. Then when you get Nav directions you have to turn it way down. The mic is very poor and I made about 15-20 calls during, and not during, the Nav software running. The 3.5mm input to connect your stereo system also plays the small bluetooth speaker on the kit at the same time....that is ridiculous, as its a tiny speaker and you cannot drive it like you can your car speakers, plus it does not sound great playing music through it. The good things were in my earlier post...the ability to pop your phone in with the case on, rock solid and better detent positions than the TomTom that do not slip, the Nav chip seems to locate very quickly, and the Nav directions through the speaker are loud and clear. I guess I'm back to waiting for someone to do this right!
Thanks for your review. I guess I will stick with my TomTom kit for the iPhone. I don't use a case with my phone and the TT kit is smaller and looks sleeker anyways.
Thanks for your review. I guess I will stick with my TomTom kit for the iPhone. I don't use a case with my phone and the TT kit is smaller and looks sleeker anyways.
iMeowbot
Jul 31, 12:26 AM
No one is better than apple at keeping announcements of their products under wraps and other than one thing i might believe that this rumor is true. For any phone to be released in the US, it must apply and receive approval by the FCC. This information is always available to the public and that is why no phone can be released "secretly." The press would have wind of its approval by now if they do intend to announce the launch at the August conference...
sorry guys, i like the rest of you eagerly await an apple iphone
FCC equipment documents are routinely kept confidential until the products are ready for release. There are even standard forms for this.
sorry guys, i like the rest of you eagerly await an apple iphone
FCC equipment documents are routinely kept confidential until the products are ready for release. There are even standard forms for this.
tokevino
Aug 7, 03:47 PM
Here's other point of view: I want to use OSX in everyday use (Safari, Mail, iTunes, graphic design, Dreamweaver etc... and OSX overall). But sometimes I want to play games too, and it's awesome that nowadays it's possible to boot into Windows and play games there and then boot back into OSX. Are you saying that Apple should totally forget all users who would like to use OSX but occasionally play games on Windows, and let them buy PCs? Most of the gamers do not use their computer ONLY to play games. Consumer tower would be good for Apple to get new switchers and get more marketshare.
Bootcamp, how could you possibly miss that?!
Bootcamp, how could you possibly miss that?!