maelstromr
Apr 25, 03:18 PM
So an old post says apple is exploiting them and you imply I said that then? I said on numerous occasions clearly that this is not about Apple using this data. Interesting way to quote posts you have there:rolleyes:
Now I'm confused - YOU quote MY post replying to someone suggesting exactly that Apple is exploiting customers through this, and now I'm selectively quoting you?
Though I am skeptical, to say the least, of YOUR point as well, it's not nearly as ridiculous as the people who DO claim Apple is trying to get people.
Now I'm confused - YOU quote MY post replying to someone suggesting exactly that Apple is exploiting customers through this, and now I'm selectively quoting you?
Though I am skeptical, to say the least, of YOUR point as well, it's not nearly as ridiculous as the people who DO claim Apple is trying to get people.
theBB
Aug 11, 07:28 PM
Confused.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
sierra oscar
Sep 19, 09:39 AM
I don't know how many times we have to go round and round with this here. I've been on MacRumors since '01 and it's always the same-old, same-old. It's not legitimate. It's "I-wantism." You have no basis to believe that a Rev B would be more "stabled and refined." That's a hope, backed by nothing -- and nothing Apple ever comments on, either. The bottom line is that you can hope if you want, and you can wait if you want, but to bash Apple for being slow on the trigger, and to make the argument that Meroms are amazing and Yonahs are crap is, frankly, horse manure. Like I said, 64 bit is pretty irrelevant for most users, and the speed and battery differences are quite negligible. And the argument that Apple is losing tons of sales to PC manufactuers is, frankly, laughable too.
Sure... I have no basis to believe a revB will be more stable and refined. But I'm participating in 'discussion' - so no real proof - but I wasn't seeking any.
I did state - I was hoping a revB would 'maximise' my chances though. Ironically just as I have no 'proof' neither do you that this won't be the case.
I find your tone very condescending and doesn't encourage open and accepting dialogue between ppl here. I don't understand why you would participate then... If you need to be the oldest forum member (you win) or 100% right (you can win that too).... but I want to engage with ppl here in a friendly and warm atmosphere.
Sure... I have no basis to believe a revB will be more stable and refined. But I'm participating in 'discussion' - so no real proof - but I wasn't seeking any.
I did state - I was hoping a revB would 'maximise' my chances though. Ironically just as I have no 'proof' neither do you that this won't be the case.
I find your tone very condescending and doesn't encourage open and accepting dialogue between ppl here. I don't understand why you would participate then... If you need to be the oldest forum member (you win) or 100% right (you can win that too).... but I want to engage with ppl here in a friendly and warm atmosphere.
heels98
Sep 19, 07:08 AM
Sure, some people will always have a need for the fastest computer in the world. Some will find themselves stressing over the slightest increase in processor performance, screen resolution, graphics memory, whatever. No one here doubts that. But most of those people spend much more time working than reading and posting on internet message boards. Professionals use the tools that for them get the job done. I feel that the main point of using the Mac is lost on most PC users, and especially on those that cry out for the absolute fastest turbo-charged, slick, top benchmark machines. Maybe our processors are "outdated," but Mac OS X is not, nor is the work that I see coming from Mac professionals inferior to those with faster computers. The fact that OS X makes doing our jobs more elegant and faster, is far more important than whose processor is the fastest, or as Freud would put, whose >>>> is bigger.:o
Multimedia
Jul 21, 04:37 PM
Oh, so that's why you want Handbrake fourfold, I was going to ask wether you had 4 optical drives.I have way more than 4 optical dirves. But multiple DVD/CD duplication is not my thing. Moreover, running a bunch of copies of Toast to burn DVDs or CDs is not processor intensive at all and does not recquire more than one core.
spinko
Jul 15, 08:59 AM
A real mess? That's one fine looking machine. IMO
compared to this, yes.
compared to this, yes.
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
DoFoT9
Aug 28, 07:18 PM
i am looking forward to this game, no matter if it's got standard and premium cars.
yeh im over the bitching - just make the physics right and ill play it in 8 bit colour!
yeh im over the bitching - just make the physics right and ill play it in 8 bit colour!
mazola
Nov 29, 12:11 PM
Why just the other day I was thinking to myself, 'There ought to be an easier way to get my money to UMG.'
This sure beats taking out a fin, finding an envelope and stamp, digging out an address, and making the trek out to the mailbox.
Let's face it, the Universal Music Group DESERVES our money. Sure I don't listen to Ashlee Simpson, Lindsay Lohan, or the Doggy Style All Stars but who am I to say where my money should go?
And why on earth should an independent society for artist rights like ASCAP, BMI, or SOCAN be responsible for distributing money collected from what amounts to an MP3 tax? They'll just divy up the money to artists and music publishers according to boring criteria like record sales/radio play, etc.
I want my money going directly to the LABEL to do whatever they see fit with no public oversight! Maybe the artists don't need the money this month and the coke-head A&R guy needs it instead? Did you ever think of that?
Thank God UMG is FINALLY standing up for its rights and Microsoft had the good sense to listen when it agreed to implement a UMG tax in the Zune!
Apple, pay attention, or I'll just have to mail my money to UMG instead of buying an iPod!
This sure beats taking out a fin, finding an envelope and stamp, digging out an address, and making the trek out to the mailbox.
Let's face it, the Universal Music Group DESERVES our money. Sure I don't listen to Ashlee Simpson, Lindsay Lohan, or the Doggy Style All Stars but who am I to say where my money should go?
And why on earth should an independent society for artist rights like ASCAP, BMI, or SOCAN be responsible for distributing money collected from what amounts to an MP3 tax? They'll just divy up the money to artists and music publishers according to boring criteria like record sales/radio play, etc.
I want my money going directly to the LABEL to do whatever they see fit with no public oversight! Maybe the artists don't need the money this month and the coke-head A&R guy needs it instead? Did you ever think of that?
Thank God UMG is FINALLY standing up for its rights and Microsoft had the good sense to listen when it agreed to implement a UMG tax in the Zune!
Apple, pay attention, or I'll just have to mail my money to UMG instead of buying an iPod!
DStaal
Sep 13, 11:12 AM
Sun has released this as Open Source. so it will get ported around to other OSes. I hear Sun's Dtrace is already in Leopard
Great. Um... What's their patent licensing scheme on this? (Since they proudly announce they've patented parts of it...)
Great. Um... What's their patent licensing scheme on this? (Since they proudly announce they've patented parts of it...)
blakbyrd
Aug 5, 04:07 PM
Reposting my prediction from another thread:
powerpoint templates free
Jun 30, 2008 · Say quot;thank you!
Thank You my Good Man.
thank you clip art for
thank you images for ppt.
free template power point
Quotes power point thank
Under the view thank you
jaxstate
Aug 11, 02:40 PM
It will not be carrier free. They'll be able to see more phone buy letting them go for a cheaper price w/2-year agreement. Buying a celly without a plan can be quite expensive.
kuebby
Apr 27, 01:18 PM
obamacare in its smallest form is extreme
stimulus bill is extreme (and extrememly $$)
The extreme people he hires, etc.
Don't lose faith in his craziness just because he's postponed driving our country into the ground.
And it's a good thing he showed his birth certificate. How embarrassing would it be for us to look back, and the man who did all the damage wasn't even born here?
If you want america to be like europe. Go to europe and pretend you're in america. Don't jack up America for those of us who love it for what it was founded on.
(insert here where some smart-A responds with "slavery?" or something equally inapplicable)
I see what you did there... but unfortunately slavery IS [one] of the things this country was founded upon. The 3/5ths compromise is in the Constitution.
It's not that people want America to be more like Europe (which in some ways would be nice), it's just that we don't want America to be a third world country (like our education statistics already kind of show, as well as the batshit crazy ideas people believe and politicians they elect).
stimulus bill is extreme (and extrememly $$)
The extreme people he hires, etc.
Don't lose faith in his craziness just because he's postponed driving our country into the ground.
And it's a good thing he showed his birth certificate. How embarrassing would it be for us to look back, and the man who did all the damage wasn't even born here?
If you want america to be like europe. Go to europe and pretend you're in america. Don't jack up America for those of us who love it for what it was founded on.
(insert here where some smart-A responds with "slavery?" or something equally inapplicable)
I see what you did there... but unfortunately slavery IS [one] of the things this country was founded upon. The 3/5ths compromise is in the Constitution.
It's not that people want America to be more like Europe (which in some ways would be nice), it's just that we don't want America to be a third world country (like our education statistics already kind of show, as well as the batshit crazy ideas people believe and politicians they elect).
JoEw
Mar 31, 08:13 PM
Google wants to do with android, what apple has been doing for the past 4 years with ios. Actually make money!
The only reason google made android open source was to get a lot of money invested in the ecosystem (HTC is basically dependent on android now). I see google charging handset manufacturers like HTC for it's OS in the near future.
Because when all is said and done, Google is a company and like any other company, it's goal is profit.
The only reason google made android open source was to get a lot of money invested in the ecosystem (HTC is basically dependent on android now). I see google charging handset manufacturers like HTC for it's OS in the near future.
Because when all is said and done, Google is a company and like any other company, it's goal is profit.
SirHaakon
Apr 6, 09:44 AM
Nobody's using Blu-Ray, in my experience.
You must have pretty limited experience.
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
You must have pretty limited experience.
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
Onimusha370
Mar 22, 01:04 PM
I agree.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
+1
'lets make a tablet for our business users, to get serious workloads done. we can call it the playbook'.
i didn't know charlie sheen was in charge of their team?
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
+1
'lets make a tablet for our business users, to get serious workloads done. we can call it the playbook'.
i didn't know charlie sheen was in charge of their team?
ChrisA
Sep 13, 10:54 AM
Arrays of cheap RAM on a PCIe card?
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
The reason for the RAM improvoments in speed and size are that RAM (not CPU) is the main bottle neck in preformance. A CPU can only execute instructions as fast as they can be pulled out of RAM. Now you go and put multiple cores inthe box and the demand on RAM doubles.
As for RAID. I think the way forward is Sun's "ZFS" file system. There was talk of that moving into Mac OSX and we know it is being ported to BSD Unix and Linux. Basically ZFS makes the RAID layer just go away
Read more here...
http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/index.html
Sun has released this as Open Source. so it will get ported around to other OSes. I hear Sun's Dtrace is already in Leopard
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
The reason for the RAM improvoments in speed and size are that RAM (not CPU) is the main bottle neck in preformance. A CPU can only execute instructions as fast as they can be pulled out of RAM. Now you go and put multiple cores inthe box and the demand on RAM doubles.
As for RAID. I think the way forward is Sun's "ZFS" file system. There was talk of that moving into Mac OSX and we know it is being ported to BSD Unix and Linux. Basically ZFS makes the RAID layer just go away
Read more here...
http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/index.html
Sun has released this as Open Source. so it will get ported around to other OSes. I hear Sun's Dtrace is already in Leopard
Orange-DE
Jul 31, 11:04 AM
You Do Dat!
TennisandMusic
Apr 10, 12:20 AM
Interesting news, but the bit about booting competitors is downright disgusting.
ghostlyorb
Apr 11, 05:04 PM
I wouldn't mind this being a late graduation present :cool:
marksman
Mar 31, 03:49 PM
This is the right move for Google as Android has become a cluster...
That being said it does go directly against how they have built android up, and how they have pitched it to businesses and consumers alike. This is a very significant change.
I think this actually opens the window for Microsoft and their mobile OS now. It is not free, but now it becomes a legitimate option compared to Android for all handset makers outside of Apple and perhaps HP if they ever make handsets.
It is funny one of the first things some people here would say when Android was brought up is "It is open!". You can hem and haw all you want, but for all intents and purposes it is no longer open. Google signing off on all changes and them having no timetable for releasing Honeycomb source code is not open in any way shape or form.
That being said it does go directly against how they have built android up, and how they have pitched it to businesses and consumers alike. This is a very significant change.
I think this actually opens the window for Microsoft and their mobile OS now. It is not free, but now it becomes a legitimate option compared to Android for all handset makers outside of Apple and perhaps HP if they ever make handsets.
It is funny one of the first things some people here would say when Android was brought up is "It is open!". You can hem and haw all you want, but for all intents and purposes it is no longer open. Google signing off on all changes and them having no timetable for releasing Honeycomb source code is not open in any way shape or form.
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 03:02 PM
I hope that number keeps rising; we need competition to not let Apple rest on it's laurels.
John Gruber once (correctly) stated (or maybe quoted someone else) that Apple's greatest competitor is Apple. Jobs & Co. have never been keen on flipping on the cruise control when they have a successful product (unlike, say, Microsoft).
Do you honestly believe that the XOOM is pushing Apple to do better? Please.
John Gruber once (correctly) stated (or maybe quoted someone else) that Apple's greatest competitor is Apple. Jobs & Co. have never been keen on flipping on the cruise control when they have a successful product (unlike, say, Microsoft).
Do you honestly believe that the XOOM is pushing Apple to do better? Please.
DrSQL
Mar 22, 02:10 PM
the best competition against iPad2.
I am an Apple fanboy, love Apple products. Got iPad2 on day1, but....
The Samsung 8.9" has me sold.
iPad 2, say hello to your new sister at my side.
I am an Apple fanboy, love Apple products. Got iPad2 on day1, but....
The Samsung 8.9" has me sold.
iPad 2, say hello to your new sister at my side.
wschutz
Mar 26, 08:52 AM
People may not realize that Mac OS X Server will be INCLUDED with the client version of OS X Lion. This in itself was a several hundred dollar product. Not only does it make running your own server even easier for non-techies it simplifies the OS X product version choices from 2 down to 1. And licensing for that broken up into single or family pack.
How many different versions of Windows does MS sell? :p I can't even figure out the number of versions of Windows MS makes, it is at least a couple dozen while Apple provides the same equivalent functionality in only 2 (single/family pack). The overhead in managing all those different versions is mind-bongling.
And? Would like the idea of only being allowed to buy a mansion when you just need a flat?
Actually, Microsoft just does the same that Apple does, but at least Microsoft tells you... Apple sells a couple of feature every two years... Microsoft tells you... if you want three features... pay this... if you want five features... pay that...
Sorry, merging the server is not an advantage neither it is offering just one or two versions of the product (and if you think further... it is only an advantage for the manufacturer because maintenance of these products is dramatically decreased... or why do you think Apple doesn't want to allow its OS to be installed everywhere... because it would become just another Windows... excluding the profitable idea of selling it for your own products of course)
How many different versions of Windows does MS sell? :p I can't even figure out the number of versions of Windows MS makes, it is at least a couple dozen while Apple provides the same equivalent functionality in only 2 (single/family pack). The overhead in managing all those different versions is mind-bongling.
And? Would like the idea of only being allowed to buy a mansion when you just need a flat?
Actually, Microsoft just does the same that Apple does, but at least Microsoft tells you... Apple sells a couple of feature every two years... Microsoft tells you... if you want three features... pay this... if you want five features... pay that...
Sorry, merging the server is not an advantage neither it is offering just one or two versions of the product (and if you think further... it is only an advantage for the manufacturer because maintenance of these products is dramatically decreased... or why do you think Apple doesn't want to allow its OS to be installed everywhere... because it would become just another Windows... excluding the profitable idea of selling it for your own products of course)
