solaris7
Apr 23, 04:19 PM
My eyes! My EYES!!!
muffinss
May 4, 05:44 PM
Wow, what a great job to completely and unfairly judge people.
I consider myself OCD level organized. One of the reasons why I am so organized (more so than ever now) is because much of my media and software have transitioned to digital.
You have a very negative spin on Apple's approach. Instead of "dumbing down", I'll call it "simplifying", and I absolutely welcome the change.
I to have OCD, but I also realize that's its not hard providing an option for people to burn a copy of their digital download to a cd or disk. So far, as we know, they wont be allowing that.
It doesn't make things harder, complicated or confusing providing such an option.
I consider myself OCD level organized. One of the reasons why I am so organized (more so than ever now) is because much of my media and software have transitioned to digital.
You have a very negative spin on Apple's approach. Instead of "dumbing down", I'll call it "simplifying", and I absolutely welcome the change.
I to have OCD, but I also realize that's its not hard providing an option for people to burn a copy of their digital download to a cd or disk. So far, as we know, they wont be allowing that.
It doesn't make things harder, complicated or confusing providing such an option.
Ammo
Apr 20, 04:54 AM
If they were going to call it the 4G, they'd have to include LTE capabilities, and all rumours so far suggest they won't.
It could include HSPA+ capabilities (which, really, will be the 4G standard until LTE is rolled out in most locations, but iPhone 6 will be out when that is the case regardless of what carrier you're on).
Obviously, Verizon customers would be SOL if HSPA+ was the only 4G option since there's no similar technology for the VZW network.
It could include HSPA+ capabilities (which, really, will be the 4G standard until LTE is rolled out in most locations, but iPhone 6 will be out when that is the case regardless of what carrier you're on).
Obviously, Verizon customers would be SOL if HSPA+ was the only 4G option since there's no similar technology for the VZW network.
THX1139
Aug 7, 10:30 PM
I wonder if those processors are soldered. I suppose they aren't since it's build to order? Anyone know if there is a way to verify that? It would be nice to finally get a machine from Apple that won't be cost prohibitive to upgrade to faster chips later.
Luph67
Mar 30, 07:52 PM
iCal has been visually overhauled to look like the iPad version
It looks so much worse. :(
It looks so much worse. :(
MacBoobsPro
Aug 7, 02:52 PM
Second why do you only save $300 when you opt for the 2Ghz model but the 3Ghz model costs $800 more???
Its relative to the processor you have selected. If you clicked the lower CPU the 3Ghz would be + even more. :rolleyes:
Its relative to the processor you have selected. If you clicked the lower CPU the 3Ghz would be + even more. :rolleyes:
greenstork
Aug 2, 12:29 PM
I presume the point was, the Intel update was just putting faster processes into existing boxes (except the MacBook which got a new design), as happens every year. And many of the apps which would take the greatest benefit from the Intel chips (pro applications and games) aren't yet universal, so we've not yet seen the best of them.
I think now that Apple has a very fixed product matrix, there's less room for surprises. Apart from a brand new design, like an Apple branded PDA, an iPhone, or an inexpensive mini-tower with a fast processor and upgradable graphics card, everything else (to me, at least) is just an incremental upgrade.
You're hard to please. The Core 2 Duo isn't just any old speed bumped processor, it's a huge leap forward in processor design, similar, at least speed wise, to the jump from G4 to G5:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=1
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2771
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060714-7267.html
I think now that Apple has a very fixed product matrix, there's less room for surprises. Apart from a brand new design, like an Apple branded PDA, an iPhone, or an inexpensive mini-tower with a fast processor and upgradable graphics card, everything else (to me, at least) is just an incremental upgrade.
You're hard to please. The Core 2 Duo isn't just any old speed bumped processor, it's a huge leap forward in processor design, similar, at least speed wise, to the jump from G4 to G5:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=1
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2771
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060714-7267.html
Eidorian
Jul 23, 10:33 PM
I said sub-$1000. $999 is sub-$1000. ;) The iMac started out at $1300, and dropped to $800 at one point. Stuff it getting cheaper. I don't know when a cheaper laptop will be coming out, but I'll bet one is.The iMac hit $799 later in the G3's life and when the G4 came out. Apple was still selling the older G3 as a budget model.
KnightWRX
May 4, 07:15 PM
Quite true, I'm pretty sure it was. But at least it's possible somehow.
I don't see how Apple could get away with not having a way to make an install backup. The recovery partition is not good enough. It's a fact of life that hard drives die.
Not to mention why would I want to waste space on a recovery partition anyhow ? ;)
I do hope Apple gets a clue from how the different Linux/BSD distributions have been doing it. Just give us something to make our own installation media as a download, not some glorified app installer.
If they do, great, if they don't, I'll buy a physical copy.
I don't see how Apple could get away with not having a way to make an install backup. The recovery partition is not good enough. It's a fact of life that hard drives die.
Not to mention why would I want to waste space on a recovery partition anyhow ? ;)
I do hope Apple gets a clue from how the different Linux/BSD distributions have been doing it. Just give us something to make our own installation media as a download, not some glorified app installer.
If they do, great, if they don't, I'll buy a physical copy.
KnightWRX
Apr 11, 07:41 AM
To treat this as a programming line or whatever is a simplification. People don't think / they think __ . That is how we should interpret this equation, leading to 288.
Where did you get that I'm not in the 288 camp ? That is the proper answer, the equation is not ambiguous.
Where did you get that I'm not in the 288 camp ? That is the proper answer, the equation is not ambiguous.
mcrain
Apr 18, 11:59 AM
Firstly, your perspective would change completely if you ever decide to invest or trade. I don't want hedge funds going for more risk. That is what contributed to the housing bust and mortgage backed securities. I am completely self taught as a trader and investor. In fact, I don't know a single other person who does what I do. And when I do meet someone who works in finance, they are usually just a cog, and I have nothing in common with them.
Of course people don't "want" risk. But, again, you MISSED THE POINT. Let's try again. People want to take their savings and invest it in the safest investment with the return they desire. If US treasuries beat the stock market, no one would trade stocks If trading in established fortune 500 companies beat out riskier investments, would anyone trade riskier stocks? The answer is probably someone foolish would, but the majority will invest in the safest investment that will provide the rate of return desired. If taxes reduce the rate of return of the safer investments, people naturally begin investing in riskier propositions that have the potential to generate higher rates of return.
Have you ever represented a company so that it can sell its ownership interests to the public, or have you ever represented the investors in an IPO? Your perspective would change if you ever had. Your assumption that I don't invest is pretty silly considering just about anyone can do it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? How is taxing something at the same rate as other income an attack? Oh no, you're treating my capital gains income the same as everyone elses income! I'm under attack! Poor me! The government is no longer going to subsidize my gambling on the success or failure of someone else's established business. Boo hoo.
Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. Really? That's not true. What about administrative hearings where the burden is on the accused to overcome a prima facie case? (FYI, for a good example of this concept, look at the situation with the proposed rules regarding copyright owners and the presumption that you are pirating if you receive a letter from them accusing you).
Of course people don't "want" risk. But, again, you MISSED THE POINT. Let's try again. People want to take their savings and invest it in the safest investment with the return they desire. If US treasuries beat the stock market, no one would trade stocks If trading in established fortune 500 companies beat out riskier investments, would anyone trade riskier stocks? The answer is probably someone foolish would, but the majority will invest in the safest investment that will provide the rate of return desired. If taxes reduce the rate of return of the safer investments, people naturally begin investing in riskier propositions that have the potential to generate higher rates of return.
Have you ever represented a company so that it can sell its ownership interests to the public, or have you ever represented the investors in an IPO? Your perspective would change if you ever had. Your assumption that I don't invest is pretty silly considering just about anyone can do it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? How is taxing something at the same rate as other income an attack? Oh no, you're treating my capital gains income the same as everyone elses income! I'm under attack! Poor me! The government is no longer going to subsidize my gambling on the success or failure of someone else's established business. Boo hoo.
Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. Really? That's not true. What about administrative hearings where the burden is on the accused to overcome a prima facie case? (FYI, for a good example of this concept, look at the situation with the proposed rules regarding copyright owners and the presumption that you are pirating if you receive a letter from them accusing you).
MonkeySee....
Mar 28, 10:31 AM
haha. Love people saying they will move phones if we don't see the new iphone this year.
Are people really that fed up with what they currently have? :confused:
I've a 3gs and it's plugging away quite nicely. I don't need a new phone but I would like one when it does come out.
I'm looking forward to lion and iPad giving me my Apple fix for the year. Why can't we just let Apple get it right instead of jumping all over them?
Are people really that fed up with what they currently have? :confused:
I've a 3gs and it's plugging away quite nicely. I don't need a new phone but I would like one when it does come out.
I'm looking forward to lion and iPad giving me my Apple fix for the year. Why can't we just let Apple get it right instead of jumping all over them?
AppleKrate
Sep 16, 12:14 PM
That just means you'll get the updated MBP's later than us here in the States. :p
Naturally, it takes them a while to convert them to Right Hand Drive ;)
Naturally, it takes them a while to convert them to Right Hand Drive ;)
BlizzardBomb
Jul 22, 05:42 AM
Isn't the Conroe cheaper than the mobility line of chips? Plus they deliver a lot more performance too!
Yes and yes.
Yes and yes.
toddybody
Apr 25, 09:35 AM
You do realize everything you said is untrue, right?
Not entirely...Apple does have a "wad to flash":D
Not entirely...Apple does have a "wad to flash":D
Small White Car
Apr 5, 02:28 PM
Yeah and that's what the loyalists said in the 80's, and there's less than 10% of us in the market now. You talk about security, but it's not a security threat to have a jailbroken user... oh wait, unless by security you're talking about someone picking up my phone and changing my home screen to 16 icon view instead of 12 that apple limits me too... oh the humanity. Call the pentagon, we have a breach... user is trying to put more icons on his screen than apple wants. Wake the president.
Ok, so you don't know how jailbreaking works. Here's the deal:
Jailbreakers find a flaw in the OS and find a way to break in. That same flaw could be used by hackers to attack my non-jailbroken phone.
So Apple has to fix that hole to protect me. That has the side effect of not making the jailbreak anymore, but what do you want them to do? They have to protect me, the customer, when they find a security flaw. Right?
So that's what they do. Anyone who argues that Apple should just leave secuity holes in their OS isn't really being realistic.
Ok, so you don't know how jailbreaking works. Here's the deal:
Jailbreakers find a flaw in the OS and find a way to break in. That same flaw could be used by hackers to attack my non-jailbroken phone.
So Apple has to fix that hole to protect me. That has the side effect of not making the jailbreak anymore, but what do you want them to do? They have to protect me, the customer, when they find a security flaw. Right?
So that's what they do. Anyone who argues that Apple should just leave secuity holes in their OS isn't really being realistic.
Spoony
Apr 18, 03:25 PM
One more thing. I'm not sure you guys know how Samsung works or really know how Big Samsung is.
It is the world's largest private conglomerage by Revenue. Annual Revenue of over 170Billion.
Apple Inc. (2nd largest market cap, pretty massive company) Over 65B of sales.
Samsung is almost 3X bigger in terms of Sales.
My point being that Samung phones and Samsung component makers are pretty much two separate companies that consolidate together. I'd bet that Samung Components treats Samsung phones just like any other vendor.
Apple suing the phone arm of samsung probably has zero impact on the component piece. Different entities almost with different relationships etc.. Samsung definitely values the apple relationship. It's the phone arm that ripped off apple's design and funtionality.
It is the world's largest private conglomerage by Revenue. Annual Revenue of over 170Billion.
Apple Inc. (2nd largest market cap, pretty massive company) Over 65B of sales.
Samsung is almost 3X bigger in terms of Sales.
My point being that Samung phones and Samsung component makers are pretty much two separate companies that consolidate together. I'd bet that Samung Components treats Samsung phones just like any other vendor.
Apple suing the phone arm of samsung probably has zero impact on the component piece. Different entities almost with different relationships etc.. Samsung definitely values the apple relationship. It's the phone arm that ripped off apple's design and funtionality.
tokevino
Aug 7, 03:37 PM
A 2.66GHz CPU is about $400 more expensive than a 2.0GHz, BTO only takes $300 off, so the base config is the best choice. There is a gap, no single processor mac pro, not like Apple's sale strategy. Either Cornore mac pro or iMac will be great.
No, it's "TWO 2.66GHz CPUs are about $800 more expensive than TWO 2.0GHz.....".
No, it's "TWO 2.66GHz CPUs are about $800 more expensive than TWO 2.0GHz.....".
wildmac
Aug 11, 10:49 AM
I'm waiting until revB MacBooks anyway, but it's nice to hear that Apple will aggresively upgrade the CPUs.
But if you think about it, they have to. Because Dell and every other PC vendor will be using the latest and greatest from Intel, so Apple will need to as well.
If they can drop in the newer chip without raising the price, go for it! :D
But if you think about it, they have to. Because Dell and every other PC vendor will be using the latest and greatest from Intel, so Apple will need to as well.
If they can drop in the newer chip without raising the price, go for it! :D
mozmac
Jul 29, 09:15 PM
Judging from Apple's past, I hope they stick with Cingular. They always seem to get all the newest and greatest phones that come out (while I still hate the RAZR). I have a BlackBerry 8700c with Cingular right now. If they came out with the sweetest freaking phone on earth, and had Exchange support built into it, I would jump all over that like a kid on his parents' bed on Christmas morning. Seriously...bring it on!
SirHaakon
Mar 30, 12:25 AM
I really do like the concept of having an enormous amount of online storage, immediately accessible from anywhere.. but ultimately I see this as an issue of me having to pay someone else for granting access to things I already own.
So that storage unit you have filled with couches and tennis rackets and old baseball cards... that should be free as well?
Let's be reasonable here. They have to buy drives (multiple drives, because clearly they need redundancy and backup) to put your music on and they have to pay for the bandwidth to pipe it out to you. I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.
Do you like paying a fee to your bank when you take out YOUR OWN MONEY from the bank?
No, of course not... but that's different. They aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is. Why should anyone have to pay for that? And before you tell me that digital music is just 1s and 0s too, you're right - and that's why Amazon gives you 5 gigs free. If you want more, obviously there's a cost involved. They can't support millions of customers each wanting a terabyte of storage for nothing.
Remember when television was free? We just had to put up with advertisements, and for that, we got free TV. Now many people pay 79 bucks a month or more to get cable or satellite TV.
Nothing has changed. Over-the-air broadcasts are still available for free. It's called an antenna. They may seem quaint, but Best Buy still sells them. If you want premium content, you pay for it.
Of course companies like Amazon and Apple are not in it for your convenience, they're in it because if everyone eventually has all their files stored online in the cloud, there's TONS and TONS of money to be made- for ever. If I have a computer, phone or music listening device with ample amounts of storage space, these companies don't make any money off of me after I purchase that music from itunes or wherever. (And if I have cds or blu ray movies, they don't make any money on me at all). This cloud concept provides some convenience, but more importantly guarantees a steady flow of income for these companies for many years to come.
Well first of all, if you buy a Blu-ray disc from Amazon, they're still taking their cut. So saying they make "no money at all" from that is inaccurate. But again, they are offering you physical storage space that is available 24/7 from wherever you are. Why would you expect that to be free? That's just a ridiculous mentality. The prices they're asking aren't very expensive, either. How much do you spend on your cable bill every month? Your phone bill? People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free. (Why buy the CD when I can just watch it on YouTube?). Just because something is available somewhere for free doesn't mean it's worthless. Amazon is providing a service. That service comes with a fee. If you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it... but I think your expectations are pretty misplaced.
Flash memory storage capacities are growing yearly.. and prices are continuing to drop. Now companies are starting to ship secure digital cards with capacities of a staggering 128 GB on a tiny compact flash card! Ultimately I think most people will be able to have enormous amounts of files locally on their own phone or portable computer.
Sure they can. That isn't the point of this, though. I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files. But what a pain in the ass it is to share between them all. Do I want to use up 80 gigs of my laptop's internal drive just to take all of my music with me when I travel? Do I want duplicate copies of everything I own on all of these different devices just to make sure the one thing I'm looking for at any particular moment is there no matter what? Good grief, no. Yes of course I will keep A backup of all of my files on a local system - I'm not trusting anything ONLY to the cloud - but now there's a way to access my music (or any other kind of file, for that matter) wherever I go, quickly and easily. Sure, it's not much different than dropbox except that it's cheaper and less complicated. How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips. It makes a lot of sense to me.
So that storage unit you have filled with couches and tennis rackets and old baseball cards... that should be free as well?
Let's be reasonable here. They have to buy drives (multiple drives, because clearly they need redundancy and backup) to put your music on and they have to pay for the bandwidth to pipe it out to you. I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.
Do you like paying a fee to your bank when you take out YOUR OWN MONEY from the bank?
No, of course not... but that's different. They aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is. Why should anyone have to pay for that? And before you tell me that digital music is just 1s and 0s too, you're right - and that's why Amazon gives you 5 gigs free. If you want more, obviously there's a cost involved. They can't support millions of customers each wanting a terabyte of storage for nothing.
Remember when television was free? We just had to put up with advertisements, and for that, we got free TV. Now many people pay 79 bucks a month or more to get cable or satellite TV.
Nothing has changed. Over-the-air broadcasts are still available for free. It's called an antenna. They may seem quaint, but Best Buy still sells them. If you want premium content, you pay for it.
Of course companies like Amazon and Apple are not in it for your convenience, they're in it because if everyone eventually has all their files stored online in the cloud, there's TONS and TONS of money to be made- for ever. If I have a computer, phone or music listening device with ample amounts of storage space, these companies don't make any money off of me after I purchase that music from itunes or wherever. (And if I have cds or blu ray movies, they don't make any money on me at all). This cloud concept provides some convenience, but more importantly guarantees a steady flow of income for these companies for many years to come.
Well first of all, if you buy a Blu-ray disc from Amazon, they're still taking their cut. So saying they make "no money at all" from that is inaccurate. But again, they are offering you physical storage space that is available 24/7 from wherever you are. Why would you expect that to be free? That's just a ridiculous mentality. The prices they're asking aren't very expensive, either. How much do you spend on your cable bill every month? Your phone bill? People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free. (Why buy the CD when I can just watch it on YouTube?). Just because something is available somewhere for free doesn't mean it's worthless. Amazon is providing a service. That service comes with a fee. If you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it... but I think your expectations are pretty misplaced.
Flash memory storage capacities are growing yearly.. and prices are continuing to drop. Now companies are starting to ship secure digital cards with capacities of a staggering 128 GB on a tiny compact flash card! Ultimately I think most people will be able to have enormous amounts of files locally on their own phone or portable computer.
Sure they can. That isn't the point of this, though. I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files. But what a pain in the ass it is to share between them all. Do I want to use up 80 gigs of my laptop's internal drive just to take all of my music with me when I travel? Do I want duplicate copies of everything I own on all of these different devices just to make sure the one thing I'm looking for at any particular moment is there no matter what? Good grief, no. Yes of course I will keep A backup of all of my files on a local system - I'm not trusting anything ONLY to the cloud - but now there's a way to access my music (or any other kind of file, for that matter) wherever I go, quickly and easily. Sure, it's not much different than dropbox except that it's cheaper and less complicated. How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips. It makes a lot of sense to me.
akac
Mar 31, 10:00 AM
LMAO, come on man!
You changed your ways to suit the OS? I'd understand if you were use to inverted but the OP is correct. It should not be defaulted inverted.
I bet you were also "holding it wrong". I love my apple gadgets, but thats a bit borderline ridiculous.
No, its not. You're not changing your ways to suit the OS. You are seeing if the new way works better. And honestly on trackpads the new way DOES work better. On mice, the old way works better.
You changed your ways to suit the OS? I'd understand if you were use to inverted but the OP is correct. It should not be defaulted inverted.
I bet you were also "holding it wrong". I love my apple gadgets, but thats a bit borderline ridiculous.
No, its not. You're not changing your ways to suit the OS. You are seeing if the new way works better. And honestly on trackpads the new way DOES work better. On mice, the old way works better.
Reach9
Mar 27, 01:03 AM
It's actually pretty sad that Android does not have the majority of the market.. They have new phones being released every other week. A 'newer and better' than last weeks. They make their phones go obsolete faster than anything I've ever seen. They released the Nexus One and that was suppose to be their amazing device... Is that even around anymore? Pretty sure like a month later they had a better one out.
Apple has released 4 iPhone's. Android has released more in a months time... And Apple STILL owns the market. They should really be ashamed. Maybe if they actually spent their time working on ONE great device and released it every like 8 months or even every year.. then maybe I could see potential. I refuse to buy an Android device because I know a week later my brand new phone will be old news.
And how does Apple own the market?
Apple has released 4 iPhone's. Android has released more in a months time... And Apple STILL owns the market. They should really be ashamed. Maybe if they actually spent their time working on ONE great device and released it every like 8 months or even every year.. then maybe I could see potential. I refuse to buy an Android device because I know a week later my brand new phone will be old news.
And how does Apple own the market?
jjvdhoef
May 9, 05:00 AM
While I agree, MobileMe is still in my eyes the best of the bunch. That's how they get away with charging $99/year. However, if it became free, they could really talk up how great owning a Mac is because of MobileMe.
I don't know what the service was like this past year, but while I subscribed to the service it was very very very unreliable. I now use google services to replicate most of the functionality for free.
I don't know what the service was like this past year, but while I subscribed to the service it was very very very unreliable. I now use google services to replicate most of the functionality for free.